Commentary: Council needs more info after Target pullout

At Wednesday’s City Council meeting, the city announced that Target Corp. had informed us they are no longer under contract with Title Two, the owner of the La Madrona Drive property that Target was once looking to acquire. Target told us, in their words, that while they are still very interested in this market, they are not part of the project, that they have no plans to reconsider their decision and that they are looking elsewhere in Santa Cruz County.
Landowner Title Two, not Target, has always been the entity applying to have the project entitled. Right around the time of these discussions with Target, Title Two told the city to change references to “Target store” in the recently released Supplemental Environmental Impact Report to “retail store” and indicated its intent to proceed with the application.
So, where do we go from here?
Within minutes of the announcement, some people renewed their calls for the city to stop processing Title Two’s application. But, as we have explained throughout this process, the city can no more deny a company a hearing on its application than we can deny somebody his or her freedom of speech. Property owners — whether they are developers or a homeowner looking to make backyard improvements — have certain rights that are guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution that government can’t proscribe.
It’s worth noting that the city has incurred no costs to process this application, because we’ve required Title Two to pay in advance for all related staff and consultant time. And if Title Two wants to proceed even without Target as a tenant, that is its right.
But, at least for me, it’s hard to see how this application now has the information the council and community need to make the decision Title Two wants us to make.
As outlined in the SEIR, there are several “Significant and Unavoidable” impacts associated with this project that cannot be mitigated. Intersections near the project will see increases in traffic, and the La Madrona Drive-Altenitas Road intersection in particular will see a significant decrease in efficiency on Saturdays.
To override those significant impacts, the city must determine that the benefits of the project outweigh the impacts. One such benefit may be economic. The project’s Economic Impact Study forecasts a yearly net increase to the city of about $489,000 if Target goes there, which, if true, would be an addition to the city’s revenues of more than 5 percent annually. This type of benefits has been cited by other cities as justification for findings of overriding considerations.
But if the council is asked to approve a project of this magnitude without knowing the tenant — in effect, to approve in advance of whatever is behind curtain No. 1 — how can we quantify what the benefits are?
Regardless of whether people think the $489,000 estimate of Target’s positive economic impact is high, low, or right on, it gives us a concrete data point to begin discussion. But what if the tenant is a warehouse grocery store that wants to take advantage of nearby Highway 17 traffic? Food sales are not taxable, which means the vast majority of such a store’s sales would produce no revenues to the city, to say nothing of the fact that we already have three grocery stores in town. In such a case, economics could not be the basis for making the necessary findings of overriding considerations.
All of us on the council have an obligation to keep an open mind about any project before us and to judge them on their merits, which we and I will continue to do as this process continues. But unless we know the specific benefits associated with this project, given the projected significant and unavoidable impacts, I don’t understand how an applicant can expect us to make the necessary findings of overriding consideration.
• Jim Reed is vice mayor of Scotts Valley.