Skip to content
  • (413) 834-4284
  • [email protected]
  • 21 Grinnell St, Greenfield, Massachusetts
Search
Close
Sprawl-busters
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Books
    • Movies
    • Home Towns, Not Home Depot
    • The Case Against Sprawl
  • Victories
  • Blog
    • Share Your Battle
  • Contact
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Resources
    • Links
    • Books
    • Movies
    • Home Towns, Not Home Depot
    • The Case Against Sprawl
  • Victories
  • Blog
    • Share Your Battle
  • Contact
  • Uncategorized

Court Voids Wal-Mart Approval

  • Al Norman
  • April 19, 2011
  • No Comments

In a major legal setback for Wal-Mart, a Superior Court judge in Sacramento County has overturned a decision by the city of Elk Grove, California to approve a Wal-Mart superstore, and forced the case back to square one.

In a 16 page decision issued on April 12th, Judge Lloyd Connelly issued a “writ of mandate,’ requiring the city to set aside its approval of a Wal-Mart superstore, and ordered the retailer to submit a new or modified application for a conditional use permit to the city.

According to Attorney Brett Jolley, who handled the case on behalf of the Stockton, California-based lawfirm of Herum Crabtree, the ruling in Friends of Madeira v. City of Elk Grove was an appeal of an approval for a Wal-Mart that began in 2008 as a permit from the city approving a 148,000 sq. ft. Target store. The conditional use permit granted by the city said nothing about any grocery component in the Target.

One year later, in 2009, Wal-Mart bought the land, and submitted a request for a “substantial conformance” determination from the city for a 99,585 sq. ft. store with over 10% floor area dedicated to groceries. Wal-Mart kept the size of its store just below the 100,000 sq. ft. size in an attempt to circumvent the Elk Grove definition of a “big box” store, which requires additional approvals.

The city’s planning director approved the switch from Target to Wal-Mart via a letter — with no public notice or environmental review. A group called the Friends of Madeira only learned of the approval several months after the fact — but still within the 6 month appeal window.

The Friends charged that the Wal-Mart required a new or modified conditional use permit, and said the planning director’s decision in the Wal-Mart plan was discretionary and should have been subject to the California Environmental Quality Act

Wal-Mart tried legal maneuvers to get the case thrown out, and sought to discover confidential and constitutionally protected information regarding group membership, organization, and finances.

The Superior Court ruling concluded that the Wal-Mart proposal was materially different than the approved Target, and therefore required a new or amended conditional use permit from the City Council. One member of the Friends of Madeira noted, “It’s very comforting to know we will have an opportunity to share our opinions and concerns [with the City Council] to help shape the future development of the subject parcel.”

The planning director in Elk Grove admitted that he had determined that the Wal-Mart was permitted “as of right” based solely on the fact that the store’s footprint fell below 100,000 sq. ft., and the city’s role was thus ‘ministerial’ with no discretion allowed.

But the court noted that the Wal-Mart plan contained 24,178 sq. ft. of grocery and support space — in excess of 10% of the store’s total square footage. The plaintiffs said the store was therefore not a “general retail” land use, but a “retail discount store,” which since 2007 in Elk Grove has required a condition use permit.

The city tried to argue that since the Wal-Mart was 415 sq. ft. smaller than a retail discount store, that it did not need the permit. The city also argued that they had granted Target a permit in 2008 for a retail discount store, and that the permit was transferable to Wal-Mart. But the court rejected both arguments, and remanded the entire case back to the city.

Elk Grove adopted the 2007 ‘big box’ ordinance to minimize the negative impacts of superstores on the vitality and economic viability of the city’s commercial centers. The city determined that such superstores affect the viability of small-scale merchants, contribute to urban decay, and increase traffic volumes. The city stated that it had enough grocery stores to support the market for groceries in the city. The ordinance outright prohibits “large format discount superstores,” which were defined as 150,000 sq. ft. stores with at least 10% of its sales floor devoted to grocery sales. The ordinance also restricts “discount superstores,” which are 100,000 to 149,999 sq. ft. with 10% or more space for grocery sales. (Wal-Mart has tried to challenge such ordinances in court, but has lost each time.)

The Judge ruled that the Wal-Mart store “does not exactly match” the definition of a retail discount store or a retail discount superstore, but he said it could not be concluded that the Wal-Mart was just a general retail use — because the definition of general retail store does not contain any mention of food or groceries. The “mere 415 sq. ft” difference in size was not enough to disguise that this store was a retail discount store that needed a conditional use permit, the court said.

The court also ruled that because the Target permit did not mention grocery sales at all, and in fact mentioned that a grocery store for the site was not feasible. The court ruled that there was a “substantial difference” between the Target and the Wal-Mart, and the large grocery component in the latter represented a “substantial modification” which prevented the city from simply transferring the Target permit to Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart must now start from the beginning, and request a conditional use permit from the city as a retail discount superstore — in a city that has already said it does not need more grocery stores. For more details on the Elk Grove legal victory, contact Attorney Brett Jolley at (209) 472-7700.

In a major legal setback for Wal-Mart, a Superior Court judge in Sacramento County has overturned a decision by the city of Elk Grove, California to approve a Wal-Mart superstore, and forced the case back to square one.

Like this article?

Share on facebook
Share on Facebook
Share on twitter
Share on Twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on Linkdin
Share on pinterest
Share on Pinterest
Al Norman

Al Norman

Al Norman first achieved national attention in October of 1993 when he successfully stopped Wal-Mart from locating in his hometown of Greenfield, Massachusetts. Almost 3 decades later they is still not Wal-Mart in Greenfield. Norman has appeared on 60 Minutes, was featured in three films, wrote 3 books about Wal-Mart, and gained widespread media attention from the Wall Street Journal to Fortune magazine. Al has traveled throughout the U.S., Barbados, Puerto Rico, Ireland, and Japan, helping dozens of local coalitions fight off unwanted sprawl development. 60 Minutes called Al “the guru of the anti-Wal-Mart movement.”

Leave a comment

Find Us

  • 21 Grinnell St, Greenfield, MA
  • (413) 834-4284
  • [email protected]

Helpful Links

  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
Menu
  • Terms
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy

Recent Posts

CHRISTIAN SMALLS, FIRED AMZN WAREHOUSE WORKER, FILES RACE DISCRIMATION LAWSUIT. …

November 16, 2020

DUE TO THE SURGE IN CORONA CASES, WMT IS LIMITING SHOPPERS TO 5 PER 1,000 SF. A…

November 16, 2020

AMAZON RECENTLY ANNOUNCED FREE 1 HOUR GROCERY PICK UP FOR PRIME MEMBER ORDERS &g…

November 15, 2020

AFTER BEING REJECTED BY THE DEERFIELD, MA PLANNING BOARD, DOLLAR GENERAL APPEALS…

November 15, 2020

WILL TRUMP ALLOW ORACLE & WALMART TO INVEST IN TIK TOK? The deadline to ban …

November 14, 2020

AMAZON ACCUSED OF BREAKING ANTITRUST RULES IN EUROPE. “Data of 3rd-party sellers…

November 14, 2020

WALMART PET CARE NOW SELLING PET INSURANCE. My 3 year old mixed breed cat would …

November 13, 2020

WALMART’S GOING TO THE DOGS. 90 M OF ITS CUSTOMERS HAVE DOGS. You’d be Goofy not…

November 13, 2020

WALMART CASHIERS STILL LOOKING FOR A SEAT. They won a $65 M lawsuit in 2019, but…

November 12, 2020

4 DAYS BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION,THE CO-FOUNDER OF HOME DEPOT SAID: “Pres…

November 12, 2020

Recent Tweets

Al Norman 4 hours ago

“HAVING A STABLE, RELIABLE JOB is important...a consistent, predictable schedule that makes it easy for associates to plan for all of the important things going on outside of work.” WMT workers asked for this since 1962. Profits before people. https://t.co/lXO0K8WEMG

Read More
Al Norman 4 hours ago

WAREHOUSE SPRAWL IS EVERYWHERE, “supply chain expansion” to deliver online purchases. Home Depot opens 3 new warehouses in FLA. 332,000 sf size is worse than superstore sprawl. 150 new HD warehouses nationwide. https://t.co/yZIr0i4jr4

Read More
Al Norman 1 day ago

AFTER FORCING ITS WORKERS into part-time, unpredictable schedules for 59 years, WMT now says “we expect 2/3rds of our U.S. hourly store roles will be full-time—with consistent schedules from week to week.” But wages still awful. https://t.co/YoOSo6v9h0

Read More

Ⓒ 2020 - All Rights Are Reserved

Design and Development by Just Peachy Web Design

Download Our Free Guide

Download our Free Guide

Learn How To Stop Big Box Stores And Fulfillment Warehouses In Your Community

The strategies written here were produced by Sprawl-Busters in 2006 at the request of the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW), mainly for citizen groups that were fighting Walmart. But the tips for fighting unwanted development apply to any project—whether its fighting Dollar General, an Amazon warehouse, or a Home Depot.

Big projects, or small, these BATTLEMART TIPS will help you better understand what you are up against, and how to win your battle.