Wal-Mart Distribution Center Meets With Strong Resistance
Published: May 06,2009

MERCED - A massive Wal-Mart distribution center - which would service stores throughout the Sacramento/San Joaquin Valley as far north as Sacramento over to the San Francisco Bay Area - is meeting with strong resistance from residents here, according to letters sent to the City here.

Hundreds of Merced residents have expressed serious concerns - from air pollution and the safety of children in nearby schools to traffic and sinking property values - over the 1.2 million-square-foot facility planned for their city.

A news conference held Thursday, April 30, revealed the contents of some of hundreds of letters submitted to the City at the close of the 60-day comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR).

The City of Merced must now ensure that all EIR deficiencies are resolved and that there is an honest and thorough assessment of the impacts of the distribution center on the neighborhoods, and the environment.

The project is expected to generate hundreds of diesel trucks daily, exposing thousands of residents, including children in nearby schools and neighborhoods, to pollution as air quality worsens.

Property values of adjacent homes are expected to sink further because of the 230 acre size of the 1.2 million-square-foot Wal-Mart project.

"I am very concerned about the environmental hazards," wrote Jason Flores about the Wal-Mart facility. He said his family had developed respiratory problems already as residents of Merced. "I have nephews who are toddlers who live in the area...and with three schools within 2 miles (of the Wal-Mart) the Merced City Council should be taking the health of the community seriously."

The "huge increases" in truck traffic because "trucks and kids don't mix," wrote citizen David Martin in his letter to the City of Merced. He said he thinks the environmental laws are not being followed.

And, Jaime Enrique, a local teacher, wrote that he already has many students missing classes because of respiratory problems (22 percent of area children carry inhalers now).

"Please think thoroughly how this distribution center will affect students will respiratory issues," he said.

Coincidentally, the American Lung Association today/Wednesday released findings that the San Joaquin/Sacramento Valley remains the most polluted region in the country resulting in thousands of premature deaths because of air pollution.

---

Signature validated in Salinas big-box ban issue
Staff reports, The Californian
April 29, 2009

The path is clear for Wal-Mart Supercenters to make their case to Salinas voters after the Monterey County Registrar of Voters confirmed on Friday that enough valid signatures had been collected on a petition to force a referendum on the city's ban of big-box stores.

The pro-Wal-Mart group Salinas Consumers for Choice collected 7,195 signatures, in excess of the required 4,600, or 10 percent of Salinas registered voters.

The City Council is expected to consider the matter at its June 2 meeting. Unless the city repeals the big-box ban, the vote would happen in a special election or at the next regularly scheduled election in November 2010.

When the signatures were filed on April 6, Councilwoman Jyl Lutes - a ban supporter - said this November is more likely than next.

"The earliest would be June, but I'm going to guess this November," Lutes said. "There could also be a tax measure for public safety, and that is very like to be on the ballot for November."   Click here for the rest of the story

---

Suisun Wal-Mart hits snag
By Melissa Murphy/ MMurphy@TheReporter.com
03/19/2009

Plans to build a Wal-Mart in Suisun City hit another obstacle -- the state's water board.

The State of California Regional Water Control Board announced that it has rejected an application for a proposed 227,000-square-foot Wal- Mart SuperCenter in Suisun City.

In a letter addressed to Wal-Mart, the board explains that there are several questions left unanswered and notes that the application, among other things, "does not appropriately consider off- or on-site alternatives."

The plans to build a Wal-Mart in Suisun City near the intersection of Highway 12 and Walters Road have been riddled with controversy for more than a year, including a recall effort of the City Council that voted in favor of the project and a failed attempt to put the issue on a ballot for voters to decide.

Nevertheless, opponents of the Wal-Mart believe the water board pointed out the problems that they said were there from the outset.

"They still have questions to answer," said Anthony Moscarelli, spokesperson for Save Our Suisun, the group opposed to the project. "They can't ignore the EIR anymore."

He added that the group isn't anti-Wal-Mart, but that it is opposed to a mega-store being built amid wetlands.

He explained that last year, the state notified Wal-Mart and the city three times that their application was unacceptable and that Wal-Mart and the city both knew the land that was purchased by the store in 2006 was protected delta wetlands and all development on it was conditional.

Moscarelli as well as the water board pointed out that there are seven other Wal-Marts within 20 miles of Suisun City.

In fact another store is set to open shortly in Fairfield, just five miles away.

"Why do we need two stores that close," he asked. "It's not necessary."

The water board also wondered why Wal-Mart does not consider renovating existing stores instead.

Moscarelli explained that the area the Bentonville, Ark., corporation, the world's largest retailer, wants to take over is covered in wetlands and that the proposed 227,000 square-foot store would cover a natural canal.

"We want the least-damaging proposal," he said. "Why not build a smaller building that won't cover the creek?"

"The State Water Board read the same Environment Impact Report that we did and they also found the environment documents deficient and lacking in detail sufficient to protect the delta wetlands and its water quality," he added in a press release. "They bought that property knowing the obstacles."

The water board added that it is unclear how the company came up with the ideal size of the store and how it will meet the unmet needs of the area.

The water board's decision did not surprise Moscarelli.

What will happen next?

Moscarelli is unsure what Wal-Mart will do, adding, "The ball is in Wal-Mart's court."

Representatives of Wal-Mart and city officials could not be reached by press time Wednesday.

---

City Council Blocks Super Wal-Mart In Salinas Council Voted For Big-Box Ban Last Week

March 11, 2009
SALINAS, Calif. -- The proposed super Wal-Mart set to take over the empty Home Depot building at the Harden Ranch Plaza has been blocked.

The Salinas City Council voted for its second and final time Tuesday to pass the ordinance that bans big-box stores from also having a grocery store.

Under the ban, any big-box stores with more than 90,000 square feet in retail space cannot dedicate more than 5 percent of its floor space to selling non-taxable items -- mostly food.

A large crowd showed up at City Hall to discuss putting a new Wal-Mart superstore in at the former Home Depot building.

A big-box ordinance passed last week that bans stores that combine a large retail operation with groceries is currently preventing Wal-Mart from putting in a superstore.

The council voted 5 to 2 -- with Mayor Dennis Donohue and councilwoman Janet Barnes opposed -- for the ordinance at last week's meeting. Click here for the rest of the story...

---

City Council bans big-box stores Supporters, opponents speak out on ordinance at City Council meeting
BY MARIA INES ZAMUDIO • mzamudio@thecalifornian.com •
March 11, 2009

After listening to supporters and opponents of a proposal to ban big-box superstores, the Salinas City Council approved the ordinance Tuesday night.

Scores of residents, business owners and union members gathered at the City Hall Rotunda - while others filled overflow rooms inside City Hall and watched the proceedings via cable - and spoke passionately for and against the ordinance.

After more than two hours of public comment, including the councilmembers' responses, they approved the ordinance with a 5-2 vote.

As they did in the first vote on the ban last week, Mayor Dennis Donohue and Councilwoman Janet Barnes were opposed. Click here for the rest of the story...

---

Salinas Spars Over Wal-Mart Proposal Big-Box Ordinance Proposed
March 4, 2009

SALINAS, Calif. -- The Salinas City Council voted Tuesday evening to approve a big-box ordinance that will ban stores that combine a large retail operation with groceries.

The council voted 5 to 2 -- with Mayor Dennis Donohue and councilwoman Janet Barnes opposed -- for the ordinance after the community spent hours in public debate over having a Super Wal-Mart come to town.

Backers of the ordinance said the stipulation protects other grocery stores in Salinas, but opponents said a supercenter would give consumers more choices...

Click here to read the full story

---

Breaking: Jet Fuel Spill in Suisun Near Controversial Wal-Mart -=- A jet fuel pipeline that supplies mammoth Travis Air Force Base - and is near a controversial proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter - has apparently ruptured along Highway 12.

You can read the full story at this URL: http://newsblaze.com/story/20090224180452zzzz.nb/topstory.html

---

Quartz Hill residents rally against proposed Wal-Mart
Antelope Valley Press, Saturday, January 31, 2009.

By JULIE DRAKE Valley Press Staff Writer

QUARTZ HILL - At least 30 residents, including parents and students, rallied early Friday morning at the intersection near Quartz Hill High School to demonstrate their opposition against the proposed construction of two shopping centers across the street from the school. Demonstrators waved picket signs and handed out fliers to passing cars at the intersection of 60th Street West and Avenue L between 6 and 8 a.m.

"It's an informational rally to get the information out to the public about what they can do to stop the rezoning of these areas," said Loretta Berry of Quartz Hill Cares, which was founded in December 2006 to oppose the proposed developments.

"It's a grass-roots effort at its finest, just citizens from all walks of life coming together," Berry said.

A Wal-Mart Supercenter and several other buildings for retail and fast food are proposed for the northwest corner of the intersection. A Super Target, Home Depot and several other buildings for retail and fast food are proposed for the southeast corner of the intersection.

Another center with a Lowe's home improvement center is planned near new homes at 60th Street West and Avenue K, about a mile away.

"If they put in these supercenters, the kids are going to be truant, not to mention the close access to cigarettes and alcohol," Berry maintained as a passing driver honked the car's horn.

Theresa Lea passed out fliers with information about the proposed projects and letters that residents can sign and submit to the city in opposition to the project.

"We need to get this information out to the public that they can stop it if they write a letter to the city of Lancaster," Berry said.

Berry said the property at 60th Street West and Avenue L is zoned residential and must be rezoned as commercial before the shopping centers can be constructed.

"If this were already zoned commercial, yeah, you know, we could fight it and we might have a voice, but the fact that they have to rezone it to commercial … we have a chance. We can stop the rezoning," Berry said.

Berry said her research shows that when a Wal-Mart moves in, all of the smaller family-owned businesses within a five- or 10-mile radius go out of business within three to five years.

"That's all that Quartz Hill is, everything that Super Wal-Mart and Super Target want to bring here to this corner, a florist, a bakery, a tire shop, that's what downtown Quartz Hill is. It's just madness. We just don't need it," she said.

Berry said the supercenters will not add any new tax dollars to the city but simply redistribute the money the existing stores earn.

"And the wonderful community of Quartz Hill will get all the crime, the trash, the pollution - all the garbage that goes with supercenters," she said.

Katlin Walters, 15, a sophomore at Quartz Hill High, held a sign with "No more Wal-Marts" spelled out in red and blue letters.

"I go to school here and I don't think it will be done by the time I graduate but for the generations after me they're going to have more crime; more traffic, which is already a complaint; more trash, which is worse; and then we're going to have to deal with all the people coming in and out and possibly sneaking on and off campus," Walters said.

"I like this school because I feel safe at this school and with this I don't know how safe I'd feel."

Frank Hsu, who held a "Say No to Superstores" sign, said his children are students at Quartz Hill High and he does not want to see the shopping centers built because he is concerned about the safety of students and about air pollution.

"We have clean air here, we don't want air pollution," Hsu said.

Cleo Goss wore a sandwich sign equating commercial centers with crime and carried a sign in each hand, one featuring plastic merchandise bags attached to photos of discarded bags in the desert.

"I took these pictures at the Home Depot, the Wal-Mart and the Target. You can see what kind of trash. This trash stays with you for life, it will be there long after you or I are dead," Goss said.

"People coming to the Antelope Valley, seeing all of this trash spread out, are going to think that the California state flower is a white plastic bag."

Near the corner where the Wal-Mart Supercenter is proposed, Ken Turner stood with a silver counter of the type used to count cars. He said he had counted 618 cars headed westbound on Avenue L from 6 to 7:30 a.m.

Paul Harris stood on the dirt shoulder along Avenue L looking north toward the Tehachapi mountains. He said that view will be gone if the Wal-Mart Supercenter is built.

"This is residential … We came out here for the ruralness and then they're going to change it to commercialization," Harris said. "It will be 24/7, the noise, the pollution, the crime."

John Mendez, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, disputed the claims put forth by the project's opponents.

"These are different economic times and people are desperate to hold onto their jobs and are worried about being laid off," he said.

Mendez said many people have been laid off and the proposed Wal-Mart Supercenter will provide a local stimulus to the Antelope Valley by providing almost 400 new jobs, plus jobs in construction.

He said the supercenter also will support jobs through the purchase of supplies such as household items and mortgages by the company's employees.

He cited a recent Navigant Consulting Inc. consumer research study, commissioned by Wal-Mart, that showed building permits and the total taxable sales increased after a Wal-Mart Supercenter went in.

Mendez also disputed the notion that small businesses suffer when a Wal-Mart moves into town.

"It's a misnomer about what happens to small businesses when a supercenter is built," he said.

Mendez said a supercenter will bring in more customers for small businesses and help stimulate downtown business shopping. He said a new Wal-Mart would be a really good local stimulus through new construction jobs, permanent retail jobs and increased suppliers.

The city's Planning Commission will take public testimony concerning the environmental impact reports of the proposed center during a special meeting scheduled for Feb. 18.

---

Alameda Fire Department Brownouts Begin

ALAMEDA, Calif. (KCBS) - Rotating firehouse "brownouts" were scheduled to begin Monday in Alameda. That could mean a delayed response by emergency officials, to incidents in the community. Click here for the story

---

Big, empty boxes By Stacy Mitchell
Last update: January 15, 2009 - 4:46 PM

Abandoned big-box stores, dead and dying strip malls and empty storefronts are about to join foreclosed houses as one of the defining features of the American landscape in 2009.

Within a few months, more than one-eighth of the country’s retail space will be sitting vacant, according to some estimates. That’s about 1.4 billion square feet, or 50 square miles, of empty store space, ringed by roughly 150 square miles of useless parking lot.

It will be tempting to blame the weak economy for all of this wreckage. But the recession has merely been the trigger. This avalanche of vacant retail, much like the mortgage crisis, has been a long time in the making.

Since the early 1990s, the pace of retail development has far outstripped growth in spending. Between 1990 and 2005, the amount of store space in the United States doubled, ballooning from 19 to 38 square feet per person. Meanwhile, real consumer spending rose just 14 percent.

With big chains, like Wal-Mart, Target and Home Depot, leading the way, retail development became, to a large extent, a predatory enterprise. Waves of ever-bigger big-box stores and new shopping centers have succeeded, not by satisfying growing demand, but by cannibalizing sales, first from downtowns and older malls, and then from other recently built shopping centers and big-box stores. City officials have been largely complicit in this merry-go-round. Many have clung to the idea that building new stores creates jobs and tax revenue, when all most of these projects do is siphon economic activity from other parts of town. By zoning plenty of open land for retail, cities have given developers little incentive to redevelop older shopping centers. Why bother when fresh ground waits a mile up the road?

Long before the financial crisis hit, Pricewaterhouse¬Coopers had deemed the United States vastly "overstored." In a 2003 report, the investment research firm declared that the "most overretailed country in the world hardly needs more shopping outlets of any kind." But few cities heeded that warning. Indeed, even as the economy began to slow in 2007, retail development continued at a furious pace, with more than 140 million square feet of new shopping centers and big-box stores opening.

We now face a painful reckoning. Already, many communities are saddled with dying malls and derelict big-box stores. In Minnesota, abandoned Wal-Mart stores have been sitting idle in Albert Lea and Owatonna for years, while Brookdale, the mall in Brooklyn Center, is fast approaching 50 percent vacancy. The situation is likely to get much worse in the coming months as major chains and smaller retailers close tens of thousands of outlets nationwide. Vacant stores are not only eyesores. These blighted properties can drag down home prices in surrounding neighborhoods, undermine otherwise healthy businesses nearby and deter new investment. Sometimes cities manage, often with a great deal of effort, to find a new use for one of these sites, but most abandoned big-box stores and strip malls remain that way for years. These buildings are not particularly suited to activities other than retailing, and there are far more of them than potential uses. The only way to ensure that the coming wave of deserted stores and shopping centers does not become a persistent blight on the landscape and a drag on local economies for decades to come is for cities, working together across metro regions, to sharply limit what can be built on undeveloped land. If colonizing fresh land were no longer an option, developers would be far more likely, once the recession ends, to recycle idle malls and vacated big-box stores. These constraints would also encourage more efficient use of land. Single-story box stores with surface parking would give way to multistory buildings that mix housing with retail. Indeed, this is precisely what is happening in Oregon, where urban growth boundaries limit sprawl and protect the countryside from development. In the Portland metro, developers are eyeing aging strip malls built in the 1960s and ’70s as sites for new multistory buildings that would combine housing on the upper floors with retail below. According to one estimate, as much as 70 to 80 percent of the metro region’s growth could be accommodated by redeveloping empty or underused properties. It’s too late to prevent the rash of retail vacancies that will emerge in the coming months, but, by putting an end to years of massive overbuilding and sprawl, we can ensure that these sites are first in line for redevelopment. Stacy Mitchell is senior researcher with the New Rules Project (newrules.org) at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance of Minneapolis and Washington, D.C. She is the author of "Big-Box Swindle: The True Cost of Mega-Retailers and the Fight for America’s Independent Businesses."

---

Loose Lips: Distribute that idea elsewhere
MERCED SUN-STAR, Friday January 16, 2009

Would the pro-business Greater Merced Chamber of Commerce let the voice of the anti-Wal-Mart distribution center movement be heard in concert with the company's hired spokesman for the project? Nope.

The Stop Wal-Mart Action Team, or SWAT, sent a letter Wednesday to the chamber asking asking that it be able to present "an alternative vision for how to move Merced in a positive direction" during the chamber's "State of the Community" event Wednesday.

At the meeting, county honcho Dee Tatum, city leader John Bramble and smiley-face retailer spokesman Marko Mlikotin are set to speak. We think it'll go like this: Economy bad. Distribution center good. Click here for rest of story

---

Opposition to Alameda Development Plan Heating Up
Wednesday, 07 January 2009

ALAMEDA, Calif. (KCBS) -- Opponents of a development project at Alameda Point claim the city is considering a $700 million bailout for developers at a time when Alameda is facing bankruptcy. Alameda is considering using city redevelopment funds to "privatize" land that used to be part of the Alameda Naval Air Station, according to "Save Our City! Alameda" (SOCA), a coalition of Alameda residents and local organizations

The group launched a television ad campaign on cable news channels Tuesday in an effort to sway public opinion against the development project. The commercial claims SunCal, a private developer, wants $700 million in taxpayer money to subsidize infrastructure upgrades for the project, so it can profit from building housing, said David Howard, a spokesperson for SOCA. Click here to read more...

---

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Thursday, January 8, 2009
Contact: David Howard 510-673-0998 dhoward@cal.berkeley.edu www.saveourcityalameda.org

City of Alameda misleading public, closer to bankruptcy than it admits; $700 million 'bail-out' to developer is key to solvency, charges community group

ALAMEDA – The city of Alameda is closer to bankruptcy then it will admit, and is misleading the public about the very real threat to insolvency and public safety, charged a community group today opposed to the city granting a nearly $700 million bail-out to a private developer to re-shape Alameda Point.

"If city is in such great financial shape, why is it pushing for rotating fire station closures, and for a reduction in the number of firefighters from 27 to 24? Remember that disputes between the City of Vallejo and their public safety unions were a first step towards Vallejo's bankruptcy," said David Howard, a spokesperson with Save our City! Alameda (SOCA), which blew the whistle on the bail-out earlier this week.

"In its haste to discredit us, the city of Alameda planning department - whose salaries are paid by SunCal, the Alameda Point developer - ignored the source of the ($700 million) figure, which came from SunCal, not us. SunCal estimated that infrastructure would total $679 million. With cost overruns and rounding, let's call it $700 million. Further, in a March 2007 response to the City of Alameda, SunCal indicated it would seek "tax-increment financing" - a city sponsored subsidy - for "infrastructure," Howard said.

Although the city planning department now asserts the projected "bailout" of SunCal for infrastructure could be no more than $200 million, it is a "classic case of 'bait and switch, ' " said Howard.

"If a ballot measure backed by SunCal is approved, we can expect the planning department's $200 million figure to increase. Any talk of 'fiscal neutrality' is a joke. When the City uses tax-increment financing to subsidize a developer, the money used to pay back the bonds never reaches the General Fund - the redevelopment mechanism prevents it from appearing as revenue for the General Fund and the money is spent before it arrives," said Howard, noting the city faces tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits, which would impact the city's solvency.

SOCA will hold a free public forum Jan. 24 at Alameda Free Library.

---

NEWS CONFERENCE ADVISORY For Immediate Release Monday, January 5, 2009 Contact: David Howard 510-673-0998

ATTENTION: Daybook/Assignment Desk

Another city near bankruptcy; ‘bail-out’ to privatize Alameda Point will edge city of Alameda closer to insolvency, CNN advertising spot warns

ALAMEDA – A new advertising spot now running on CNN and other prime-time news program warns that Alameda may be the next Bay Area city to file bankruptcy – especially if it adopts a plan to be announced this week to privatize Alameda Point.

Alameda is near bankruptcy – rolling “brown-outs” of city fire stations are being planned and the city faces tens of millions of dollars in lawsuits – yet a $700 million “bail-out” using city redevelopment funds may be used to “privatize” Alameda Point, charges “Save Our City! Alameda” (SOCA), a coalition of Alameda residents and local organizations

The group says the situation is so dire it is running the hard-hitting television campaign beginning to inform the general public about the mess. Details of the project will be provided at Tuesday’s news conference where the spot will be previewed only for the news media.

The television spot – airing on CNN, Fox News and other cable news channels in the Alameda area – asks Alameda citizens to “Stop the ‘bail-out’” and “Protect public safety” by urging Alameda officials to reject the proposal, which be the subject of a public hearing later this week in Alameda.

"SunCal, a private developer, wants $700 million in City funded redevelopment bonds to bail them out, and subsidize the required infrastructure upgrades for the project, so they can profit from building housing. Alameda taxpayers will be left footing the bill for this bail-out of SunCal,” said David Howard, a spokesperson for SOCA.

---

City leaders to consider SunCal plan for Alameda Point
By Peter Hegarty
Alameda Journal
Updated: 12/31/2008 06:05:28 PM PST

As city leaders get ready to mull over the latest proposal from SunCal Companies for Alameda Point — including the possible construction of up to 4,500 homes at the former military base — its opponents have launched a television commercial, slamming the plan.

The TV spot from "Save Our City! Alameda" will air on local cable stations during the first week of January, or the days before the City Council holds a public hearing Wednesday on SunCal's draft master plan for the former site.

Along with new housing, the developer's plan calls for a library, a new elementary school, parks and a variety of transit improvements.

Opponents of the massive project note that it calls for the transfer of public land to a private company and, with Alameda's ongoing financial crisis, helping fund the project could push the city toward bankruptcy. The City Council trimmed $4 million from the budget in 2008 and more cuts are projected for the coming year.

"SunCal wants $700 million in city-funded redevelopment bonds to subsidize the required infrastructure upgrades for the project," said David Howard, a leader in the campaign against SunCal's plans. "Alameda taxpayers will be left footing the bill for this bailout of SunCal."

Howard said he would prefer the land be converted into a public land trust.

SunCal's housing proposal, which includes multi-unit complexes that would be at least five stories tall, likely will end up in the hands of Alameda voters since it does not comply with Measure A, which restricts most housing in the city to single-family residences and duplexes.

The issue could be on the ballot as soon as November.

The proposed housing units would be built on 226 acres.

"I would be of two minds about something like that," said Jonathan Trebbitt, 33, of Alameda as he rode his bicycle at the former base, which closed in 1997. "The small-town atmosphere is what draws people here. But I also understand that a developer needs to design a project so that it's profitable. If they can't do that, nothing will happen. Then you just have blight."

If the plan moves forward, SunCal estimates demolition could start in 2010 or 2011, with construction beginning a year later. The entire project could be completed by 2025.

The upcoming public hearing follows a Dec. 18 meeting on the USS Hornet, where representatives from the Department of Veterans Affairs outlined their plans to build a hospital, out-patient clinic and offices at Alameda Point.

A columbarium to serve veterans and their families also would be built on the site, which consists of former runways and now hosts a nesting colony of the endangered California Least Tern. Speakers at the December meeting voiced concerns about the impact of the project on the least terns.

Along with housing and commercial redevelopment, SunCal's plan includes a supermarket and the restoration and reuse of some former Navy buildings, including the "Big Whites" and the bachelor officer quarters.

Along with saying SunCal's plan will stretch the city's financial resources, opponents say it will increase traffic and lead to more "big box" stores on the Island, which will undercut smaller, neighborhood businesses.

But supporters say larger stores can inject sales tax revenue into the city, which will help stave off future cuts and keep vital services going.

Reach Peter Hegarty at phegarty@bayareanewsgroup.com or 510-748-1654.

---

Suit against Suisun City leaves Walmart in legal limbo By Ian Thompson
Daily Republic
January 02, 2009 12:41
SUISUN CITY

Walmart is awaiting the final ruling on a lawsuit against its proposed supercenter in eastern Suisun City before deciding what to do next.

'The project is still in litigation and we do not have a timetable at this point for moving forward,' said Kevin Loscotoff, a Walmart spokesman.

The Suisun Alliance, which opposed the supercenter, sued Suisun City over the project's environmental impact report, contending it inadequately addressed the project's impact on the community and environment.

The alliance was handed a reverse in November when a Solano County Superior Court judge issued a tentative ruling in Suisun City's favor, upholding the EIR. A final ruling is expected in mid-February.

Save Our Suisun, another group opposing the supercenter, continues to keep a close eye on the project and has been critical of the project's potential impact on wetlands and watercourses in and around the site.

The proposed supercenter at Walters Road and Highway 12 still needs the blessing of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The board turned down the retail giant's application without prejudice on Nov. 21, stating it was still incomplete by the time it reached as one-year approval deadline.

As of Friday, Walmart has not reapplied to the board for permits, according to Bruce Wolfe, executive officer for the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Board.

Having to submit the application again means more work for Walmart, which will have to re-evaluate the design of the supercenter to minimize its impact on wetlands and devise a comprehensive storm water runoff plan.

Walmart wants to build a supercenter, gas station, car wash and restaurant on the 21-acre site.

With the exception of the board, all other agencies have stated publicly that they have no problem with the project. Suisun City unanimously certified the EIR.

Reach Ian Thompson at 427-6976 or at ithompson@dailyrepublic.net.

---

The next bubble to burst?
Jeff Milchen
Sunday, January 4, 2009  

When economic growth stalls, some businesses fail to survive, so our recession inevitably is accompanied by such failures. When it comes to retail, however, the trickle of store closings last year may soon become a torrent now that the temporary stimulus of the holidays is past. As with the collapse of housing prices, the economic downturn is not the root problem, but simply exposed a long-building bubble.  Click here for more details

---

Raley's Denied Civil Rights of Residents in Wal-Mart Controversy
December 11,2008

West-Sacramento-based Raley's wrongfully denied the civil rights to residents in Suisun because it doesn't even own the property it has banned petitioners from, charged a Sacramento civil rights firm here this week in a motion to dismiss the controversial case in Solano Superior Court. If the court agrees, residents would regain their civil rights. Click here for more details
 

---

Wal-Mart ditches Hercules development plans
By Tom Lochner West County Times, 
12/04/2008

Related Dec 4: Concord approves Lowe's shopping center after two years of debateWal-Mart has abandoned plans to build a store in Hercules and has put up for sale a 17¼-acre spread it owns there.

The move could spell an end to years of wrangling among the mega-retailer, the city and residents who said a big-box store drawing regional traffic would betray the vision, enshrined in the Central Hercules Plan, of a pedestrian-friendly waterfront area. Click here for more details

---

Concord approves Lowe's shopping center after two years of debate
By Tanya Rose Contra Costa Times
12/04/2008

Related Dec 4: Wal-Mart ditches Hercules development plans CONCORD — A controversial Wal-Mart shopping center is coming to North Concord — but without the Wal-Mart.

After two years of applications, appeals and emotional hand-wringing, the Concord City Council approved what is now called the Lowe's shopping center, which will sit on 28 acres along Arnold Industrial Way.

City leaders promise that though the building originally planned as the 24-hour Wal-Mart will be built, it will stay empty until another, less controversial retailer is found.  Click here for more details

---

SUISUN CITY: JUDGE ALLOWS LIMITED RECALL PETITION ACTIVITY AT SHOPPING CENTER
07/15/08

SUISUN CITY (BCN)
Backers of a movement to recall Suisun CITY Mayor Pete Sanchez and two council members will be allowed to collect petition signatures at two locations of the Heritage Shopping Center, a Solano County Superior Court judge ruled today.

Mark Merin, attorney for the recall group Save Our Suisun, said Judge Paul Beeman agreed the shopping center is a quasi-public forum for the expression of free speech and ruled the petitioners can collect signatures in the monument area of the mall and at the Ace Hardware store.

"Both sides will agree to a stipulated order," Merin said. Save Our Suisun is still appealing the judge's earlier decision prohibiting the petitioners from collecting signatures in front of the Raley's supermarket, Merin said.

Merin called the judge's ruling "a limited victory" because the judge recognized the shopping center as a quasi-public forum. Petitioners, however, will not be able to freely roam through the shopping center gathering petitions, Merin said.

Petitioners will be able to collect signatures at the two locations six hours a day, six days a week, Merin said. Another hearing on the issue is scheduled for Aug. 1, Merin said.

Linda Ward, the attorney for the shopping center was not immediately available for comment.

The Heritage Shopping Center's owner asked the court for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the group from gathering the signatures on private property.
The Save Our Suisun group wants to recall Sanchez and council members Jane Day and Michael Hudson.

The group claims they have risked the public's safety by approving a 227,000-square-foot Wal-Mart SuperCenter on 21 acres at state Highway 12 and Walters Road near Travis Air Force Base over the objections of public safety experts, including the county's Airport Land Use Commission and the California Department of Transportation.
Merin said the California Supreme Court ruled in 1979 that the PruneYard shopping center in San Jose was obligated to allow free expressive speech even on its private property and must yield to the public interest.

He said Suisun City has no central downtown and that malls have become the new public market places in many communities.

Save Our Suisun is already appealing the court ruling that prohibited signature gathering outside Rayley's, Merin said.

"This is a very significant question for all free speech activity. This (the mall) is the preferred venue," Merin said.

Save Our Suisun has until Aug. 8 to gather enough signatures to put the recall measure on the Nov. 4 ballot