Late letter delays Wal-Mart Distribution Center vote

BARSTOW — A last-minute letter from an Inland Empire law firm in opposition of the proposed Wal-Mart Distribution Center caused the City Council to delay a vote approving the project until later in July.

Mayor Lawrence Dale and Council member Tim Silva both called the letter a delay tactic and assured the crowd of Wal-Mart employees and supporters who spoke at Monday’s meeting that the claims in the letter would be answered and the project would go forward.

“It’s a delay tactic, and it is obvious,” Dale said at the meeting. “This project is a project that is very much needed by this community.”

The letter, filed on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development, urges the city not to approve the project, citing holes in the environmental impact report and other violations of the California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision Map Act and other laws. The City Council was scheduled to vote on the approval of the impact report and the plan for the distribution center Monday evening. That vote has been delayed until July 21, the Council’s next meeting.

The more than 1 million square foot distribution center, to be built along Lenwood Road north of Jasper Road and southeast of the High Desert Estates housing area, will serve as a warehouse for both dry and frozen goods. It is expected to bring about 500 new jobs to area during the first years of operation and between 800 and 900 jobs about two years later. Officials with Wal-Mart said they would like to start construction as early as this fall and hopes to open the distribution center in 2009.

The people behind the letter detailed 15 areas where they thought the environmental impact report failed to fully address the adverse effects of the distribution center. Much of the letter claimed that findings in the environmental impact report were not supported by sufficient evidence.
Among the complaints in the letter are a failure to consider solar panels on the roof to offset electricity use, concerns about supply water to the facility and possible water pollution and whether the city responded to comments made about drafts of the impact report and properly posted notice of public hearings on the impact report. The Briggs Law Corporation did not return calls for comment.

The city did publish notice of the public hearing in the Desert Dispatch on June 27 and July 3. Dale said the city will consider each claim made in the letter and hopes to keep the project moving ahead.

At Monday’s meeting, Brent Morrow, the community development director for the city, said the city did not have time to respond to the letter before the meeting and ask for a continuance in order to respond.

“There doesn’t appear to be anything in there that we feel we cannot respond to positively in support of the project,” Morrow said of the letter Monday night.

John Mendez, a spokesman for Wal-Mart, said the company has seen letters of this nature before in other projects and are still confident in their plan for the facility in Barstow. He said the company sees the letter as just part of the process.

Despite the letter, several Wal-Mart employees and community members spoke in favor of the project at the meeting. Robert Lewis, manager of the Wal-Mart store in Barstow, told the Council about the different ways Wal-Mart gives back to the community. Other employees said Wal-Mart was a great place to work and a company that gave them a chance to succeed.

Community members shared with the Council how Wal-Mart had helped out various organization. Capt. Peter Taczanowsky, who is with the rear detachment of the 58th Engineering Company currently deployed to Iraq, said Wal-Mart provided snacks and supplies to the soldiers before they deployed and gift and phone cards to the families at Fort Irwin. Peggi Teal, the executive director of the United Way, touched on the ways Wal-Mart has supported different volunteer organizations in Barstow.

“Wal-Mart has shown its faith in Barstow,” Teal said. “They give back many many thousands times to this community.”

A vote on the distribution center will be scheduled for the July 21 meeting, Silva said. He hopes the Council will be able to approve the facility and move the project forward.

Claims made in the Briggs letter

At around noon on Monday, the city received a seven-page letter from the Briggs Law Corporation on behalf of the Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development, opposing the proposed Wal-Mart distribution center. A DVD with about 50 files totaling around 1,000 pages accompanied the letter.

The letter claimed the Barstow City Council should reject the project for the following reasons.

• Global climate change: The less than significant impact on climate change by the facility is not supported by evidence.
• Impacts of 24-hour operations: The impacts on traffic, air quality, water, pollution, noise and light were not based on a 24-hour operation.
• Water supply and quality: The entire water supply assessment, including where water for the facility will come from, how much water will be used and potential pollution, is insufficient.
• Air pollution: The impact report does not consider pollution from diesel soot and other combustion byproducts.
• Population and housing: The city has not adopted a revised housing plan and cannot evaluate whether the distribution center project is consistent with the city’s housing goals.
• Public services and utilities: The facility’s lack of renewable sources of energy will have a significant impact on energy services in the area.
• Traffic impacts: The city did not evaluate all possible methods to alleviate congestion from increased traffic.
• Liquefied natural gas: The impact report does not address the effect of a natural gas leak.
Impacts on biological resources: Surveys used to study the impact on the Mojave Ground Squirrel were out of date.
• Cumulative impacts: The impact report did not analyze the impacts of the project on water consumption, biological resources, cultural resources, hazardous materials, geology and soils in conjunction with other planned projects for the area.
• Analysis of alternatives: The impact report provides an inadequate list of alternatives.
• Regional significance and consultations: The city did not communicate with other cities in regards to the impacts of this project.
• Response to comments: The city did not respond to comments as required by California Environmental Quality Act guidelines.
• Necessary findings and sufficiency of evidence: The report did not satisfy a section of the Public Resources Code that bars projects that will have adverse environmental impacts.
• Notice of public hearing: The city did not properly notify the public of public hearings on the impact report.

Contact the writer:
(760) 256-4121 or aaron_aupperlee@link.freedom.com