Group items tagged

At the end of 2009, after a long-fought battle with concerned citizens and a divided Chico City Council, Walmart’s plans to expand its Forest Avenue store were denied. The ultimate decision, reached by a liberal-majority council, was that the environmental impacts outweighed any potential benefits of the project. The company was told it must wait at least a year before bringing the idea back to the city. Now, six years later, the plan to expand Chico’s Walmart is back on the table. It appears it’s not the only one, either. Plans for a new 197,000-square-foot Supercenter in Oroville that were first submitted in 2006 are finally making headway. That project could break ground by the end of 2015. And there are rumblings of progress on plans for building a Walmart in Paradise—those also had their beginnings in the middle of the 2000s.

“As an organization, we feel there are many aspects of a super Walmart that conflict with the goals of protecting the environment and supporting local economies, overall, in a broad sense,” said Robyn DiFalco, executive director of local eco-advocacy group Butte Environmental Council, adding that the group had not yet taken a position on the expansion.

Opponents of a Wal-Mart “supercenter” store planned for Oroville have scored a partial victory with the California 3rd District Court of Appeal in their legal battle. The project is a relocated and expanded Wal-Mart Supercenter to replace an existing Wal-Mart of traditional dimension and retail offerings. In their legal action, Friends of Oroville and two individuals are challenging Oroville’s approval of an environmental impact report.

The appellate court agrees with two issues: whether the environmental impact report approved by the city inadequately analyzed the project’s greenhouse gas emissions and whether the new store might put too much traffic on Oroville Dam Boulevard, where the nearly 200,000-square-foot building, supermarket and garden center with its 24-hour retail and grocery services is to be located. “We reverse the judgment to the extent it denied plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandate — and we remand this matter to the trial court to grant the petition,” the appellate panel says.