Tesco EIR Waiver Reversed:

Tesco Co asked for and received a EIR Waiver prior to building their Distribution Center in Riverside. This Waiver came from an agency that did not have proper authority to make such a waiver and the Court has ordered an EIR Study and Report be made.

This may seem odd that an EIR would be done in reverse of the Development. Here are some reasons why it should be done.

An EIR will identify areas of the Operation that may cause special needs for future environmental and safety mitigation. The locations then are known to state and local agencies which may have to respond to Hasmat or Emergency Situations, both in respects to Environmental and Safety Issues.

There are those who will suggest that the study does not need to be done post construction. However, the EIR contains Operational Issues beyond the Construction Phase and this information is needed for safe continued operations of TESCO. An EIR is a tool or baseline for proper future site management.

There are some who may argue that any development is good development and that the waiver of the State Required EIR should be granted to all businesses if it is granted to one. So the issue can also be an issue of equal and fair competition and regulation of all businesses so there is Fair Competition or no "Advantage" given to one business or another by the Government Regulations.

TESCO may be "More Green" than other businesses. That is terrific. It is just possible that an EIR may show where more improvements in their Operations can make them more Green both in the area of the Environmental Impact and the Profitability of their Operations.

If TESCO doesn't need an EIR, than No one should have to have an EIR. Do we want to go down that path?

Do we want the Government to Apply Regulations only when they "WANT TO", and Waive Requirements to Friends?" No, this is not right in Grand Terrace, Riverside, or California.

I welcome TESCO to California, and Better is Great... however, there is still room for improvement within TESCO on the local and international levels. Skirting Regulations should not be an Image that TESCO wants as part of its Company Legacy.

If there are some of you who want to be shocked look up TESCO and Turtle as a google search. This is how TESCO will do business where there are lax regulation. WARNING it is not for those who are week in the stomach.

http://turtlesco.com/

EVEN WITH THE ABOVE: I welcome Tesco to Grand Terrace, and HOPE that they are required to abide by all local codes, regulations and requirements that are placed on the rest of us doing business in Grand Terrace and the State of California, and the USA. I also hope that they will re-think about the Turtle Issue... at least be humane when you kill something... do it quick.

In Grand Terrace If you Build something without a permit, the City Has Been Known to Force its removal without giving a person the right to reverse submit plans and engineering specifications. However, Lucky for Tesco their building in question is not in Grand Terrace, and for sure they would not be held under the thumb like home owners and some small businesses are in Grand Terrace. Tesco. CFBH, Jacobsen, and Jack Brown are above such pressures from the City Planning Department and Planning Commission. Were it not for Citizens raising legitimate issues with the plans and process of these developers there would be problems left un-resolved.

Court orders Tesco to comply with state environmental review act

http://www.pe.com/business/local/stories/PE_Biz_C_tesco30.25058ce.html

07:58 PM PST on Thursday, November 29, 2007
By KIMBERLY PIERCEALL and JACK KATZANEK
The Press-Enterprise

British grocer Tesco may have to shut down its recently built 820,400-square-foot distribution facility in the former March Air Force Base after a court ordered it to comply with state environmental regulations Wednesday.

A preliminary court order made Wednesday by Judge Thomas Cahraman could require the company to spend a year earning California Environmental Quality Act approvals, something the company had argued it wasn't required to do.

The distribution center will eventually supply 100 grocery stores in Southern California, Arizona and Nevada as Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Markets. Several opened Nov. 5, including a store in Hemet.

It isn't clear if operations at the distribution center would be suspended as a result of the court's order or what exactly will be required of the March Joint Powers Authority and Tesco. The full order detailing the judge's decision wasn't released late Thursday afternoon.
"We still haven't seen the decision. Once we do we're going to carefully review it," said Tesco Stores West spokesman Brendan Wonnacott.

John Brown, the lawyer representing the March Joint Powers Authority, said he wouldn't comment until the court's full decision is released.

Temecula attorney Raymond Johnson filed his lawsuit against Tesco and the March Joint Powers Authority, the government agency that oversees the 1,290-acre Meridian business park on the former March Air Force Base, more than a year ago. He said he will ask the court to shut down Tesco's operations until the company has complied with environmental studies that could take a year to finish.

Johnson represented the plaintiff Health First, which he said consisted of concerned residents in Riverside and Moreno Valley upset that Tesco wasn't held to state environmental laws while developing its distribution center. Health First isn't seeking financial damages.

Allowing Tesco to remain in business at the facility without having proper environmental approvals would be a mockery of the California Environmental Quality Act, Johnson said.

The judge's preliminary order mentions that the March Joint Powers Authority should do away with its design approvals of Tesco's projects. Johnson said he believes that applies to all of the approvals that were granted, in effect doing away with the entire project.

"We will undoubtedly be seeking that all of those are in fact rescinded and that they can't operate until such time that they've complied with the requirements of CEQA," he said. "It's not as if they weren't warned."

The CEQA process can be lengthy and includes public comment periods that can last 45 days.

"A year is really reasonable," said Anne Viricel, director of client services with Michael Brandman Associates in San Bernardino, a firm that provides environmental planning and management to developers. "Sometimes it takes longer than that. Rarely it takes less."

Thomas McGill, vice president of the San Bernardino firm, said it's not rare for a company to be required to perform an environmental review after it has finished building, but he doubted that Tesco would be required to cease operating while it conducts a review.

"You're not going to undo the project but you can mitigate the level of impact," he said. "Unless the court feels some aspect of the project is so egregious in danger or health, they're not going to shut them down."

News of the court decision was passed along Thursday by Mike Shimpock, a spokesman for the United Food and Commercial Workers, which represents workers at major supermarkets and has been an opponent of Tesco's penetration into Southern California.

Connie Leyva, president of Local 1428, which represents workers in western San Bernardino County, and Greg Conger, president of Orange County-based Local 324, said Health First was not affiliated with the union.

Reach Kimberly Pierceall at 951-368-9552 or kpierceall@PE.com