CALIFORNIA SITE FIGHT: MORE ON THE VICTORY IN SANTA ROSA

Topics: | Community Impact | Environment | Traffic/Sprawl | legislation | Zoning Regulations | | |

Judge Halts Proposed Santa Rosa Wal-Mart [KPIX-TV (Calif.)]

A Sonoma County Superior Court judge has ruled that the environmental impact report on a proposed Wal-Mart in Roseland is vague and inconsistent regarding traffic impacts, parking and noise levels.

Judge Robert Boyd issued his ruling Sept. 25 on the challenge to the project by Citizens Against Wal-Mart. The group sued the city of Santa Rosa, the City Council and Wal-Mart to stop the proposed 106,000-square-foot store in the Stony Point Plaza Shopping Center.

The City Council approved Wal-Mart’s environmental study and use permit in 2006.

The group challenged the environmental impact report, claiming it failed to include a clear project description and did not address traffic impacts, noise levels and insufficient parking.

“The court cannot find any stable project description or comparison to a baseline,” Boyd ruled.

“Nothing indicates clearly and certainly what the project is going to be,” Boyd said, noting there are several different square-footage descriptions for the store.

“The record reveals no consistency or clarity over the number of parking spaces or the size of the project or even the size of the center as a whole,” Boyd wrote in his judgment on a writ of mandate.

“The judge’s decision was well thought out and accurately applies the law to the facts of the case. The EIR was clearly inadequate,” said William Kopper, attorney for the Citizens Against Wal-Mart.

Kopper said if Wal-Mart wants to build the store it will have to prepare another environmental impact report. Citizens Against Wal-Mart will now file Boyd’s judgment in Sonoma County Superior Court, probably within the next 20-30 days, and Wal-Mart and the city of Santa Rosa will have 60 days to appeal it, Kopper said.

Vincent Ewing of the Santa Rosa City Attorney’s office was unavailable for comment Thursday afternoon on Boyd’s ruling.

Boyd’s ruling also noted the environmental impact report contained no evidence “that could allow a meaningful determination regarding the impacts of forklifts, sound system or delivery trucks.”

Supporters of the proposed Wal-Mart said it would bring needed jobs and sales tax revenue to the economically distressed Roseland area and revitalize the neighborhood.

Detractors decried the project claiming Wal-Mart pays low wages, offers sparse benefits and drives small businesses out of area where the huge discount stores are built.

Posted by Luke West on Friday, October 10, 2008