Wal-Mart proposal goes back to court

Either way, Wal-Mart will have missed the current construction season.

The expansion would almost double the size of the current store to include groceries and other merchandise.

Last summer, the county Planning Commission approved the EIR for Wal-Mart’s proposed expansion on Washington Boulevard. That decision was appealed to the county Board of Supervisors, which upheld the approval.

That decision was then challenged  in court by a group calling itself the Crescent Heritage Coalition.

Last month, the majority of the case against the expansion based on the  the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was dismissed by Follett. However, the part of the case not under CEQA still needed to be dealt with.

The group claims that the Board of Supervisors violated its own general plan by approving the expansion project.

According to court documents, the county’s General Plan states that, “The County shall continue to consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) for identification and

protection of rare threatened and endangered species that may be adversely affected by public or private development projects.”

Paul Hagen, the attorney representing Crescent Heritage Coalition, said at the hearing Wednesday that there is not substantial evidence that the county Community Development Department consulted with the DFG.

He cited several occasions where staff from the DFG and the county spoke on the phone, sent letters, emailed and visited the project site.  He said there are no details in the county’s records about those conversations and whether staff was actually consulting with the DFG.

“Where is the substantial evidence that consultation occurred at the field visit?” Hagen asked.

Follett asked Hagen whether a reasonable person could assume that the phone calls and meetings would be about the project.

“Going to the field, looking on the ground, having a discussion, doesn’t that make a consultation?” Follett queried.

“It’s not stated what was consulted,” Hagen responded.

He went on to say that the county did not properly address the DFG’s concerns about water runoff into the creek after the Supercenter is completed in the EIR.

Wal-Mart attorney Ramiz Rafeedie said the county consulted with DFG staff members on several occasions and used their recommendations for how to protect Elk Creek.

“There is ample evidence that the county had consulted with the Department of Fish and Game,” Rafeedie said, adding that Hagen was trying to “muddy the water” by claiming otherwise. “The parties met and conferred.”

He added that the DFG saw the draft environmental documents and had no objections to it.

Rafeedie said that the county didn’t have to take the DFG’s recommendations for water runoff, adding, “that’s not relevant to the issue.”

County Counsel Dohn Henion said that Hagen “failed to present an authentic version about what consultation means ... This is a consultation case.”

Hagen said that contacting someone and consulting with someone is different. Because there are no details about what the county and the DFG talked about, there is no way to be sure they consulted about the expansion project, he said.