Wal-Mart
Project Hits Legal Roadblock
A yearlong battle
over a Wal-Mart Supercenter in south Bakersfield ended in defeat
for the city and developer Monday. Kern Superior Court Judge Kenneth
Twisselman ruled that the city of Bakersfield didn't do an adequate
job evaluating the environmental impacts of a major shopping center
at Panama Lane and Highway 99 early this year.
He ruled the
project's environmental report invalid, and sent the city back to
fix its mistake.
A 220,000-square-foot
Wal-Mart Supercenter was the most controversial of the two big-box
stores proposed for the shopping center. The other store will be
a Lowe's.
Members of the
United Food and Commercial Workers union and other Wal-Mart opponents
mounted a spirited opposition to the supercenter on Panama and a
second one at Gosford and Harris roads.
They said the
mega-retail centers which would include a full-service grocery store
in addition to a regular Wal-Mart would steal jobs from grocery
workers and the city's small business community.
Even so, the
City Council approved the supercenters in February. Both projects
have since been challenged in court.
Twisselman said
the environmental report for the Panama shopping center had done
a good job of reviewing the project's impact on air, traffic, general
health and the San Joaquin kit fox.
But, he said,
the city failed to study whether the huge stores planned for the
project would cause an economic chain reaction that would leave
other "big-box" buildings around Bakersfield vacant.
City staff had
argued, at the time the two Wal-Marts went before the council, that
economic impacts of a project were not an environmental concern.
But Twisselman
ruled that vacant, unattractive buildings have an environmental
impact-an urban decay that the City Council should have evaluated
before clearing the Wal-Mart project for construction.
Lawyers for
the Bakersfield Citizens for Local control, the group that filed
the lawsuit, cheered Twisselman's decision and hailed it as a critical
step in fighting similar mega projects in California's Central Valley.
"The judge
has rebuked the city and said they can't play 'zoning for dollars,"
said Bakersfield Citizens' lawyer Steven Herum. "Major retail
developers cannot promise sales tax and low-paying jobs without
considering the impact to long-term businesses."
Panama and Highway
99 project developer Lee Jamieson, who also built the Northwest
Promenade project on Rosedale Highway, would not comment about Twisselman's
decision on Monday.
City Attorney
Ginny Gennaro said the city will need to study the impacts outlined
in Twisselman's decision, add them to the original environmental
report and bring it back to the Bakersfield City Council for re-certification.
"This isn't
the first time an EIR has been invalidated and it won't be the last,"
said City Councilman Mark Salvaggio, referring to the report. "we
just have to go back to the well and do better on that point."
She also said
that the city will have to re-evaluate the way it looks at all major
commercial projects in light of Twisselman's decision.
"We'll
begin to look at 'urban decay'" as an environmental impact,
she said.
Monday's decision
might also affect the second Wal-Mart Supercenter project at Gosford
and Harris roads.
Bakersfield
Citizens for Local control has also sued the city over that project,
which goes before Twisselman on Jan 16.
In the meantime,
construction on the Panama Lane and Highway 99 project is continuing.
Herum asked
Twisselman, as soon as the ruling against the project was handed
down, to halt ongoing construction at the site.
But Twisselman
refused to block construction immediately.
Instead, he
scheduled arguments on a temporary restraining order for a Wednesday
morning hearing.
Gennaro said
the city doesn't want to see 250 jobs frozen by such a restraining
order.
"We think
it would be a shame to put these workers out of business at any
time of the year - but especially this time of year.
|
