David Paynter's Target shopping center might have slipped off the radar screen of environmental interest, but not his proposed development next door.

The Southern California developer's new plan to build a shopping center anchored by Lowe's -- despite the recent city approval -- faces persistent opposition from local groups advocating for the preservation of natural landscapes in the area.

Hanford Environmental Awareness Group and Valley Advocates of Fresno have recently appealed last month's planning commission decision to approve the 20-acre project just northwest of the Target center, alleging the abuse of discretion by the city in allowing the destruction of what they claim as the "last remaining" segments of historic Mussel Slough.

The appeal comes as no surprise, as the groups already have a lawsuit pending against the city over the project.

On Tuesday, Paynter remained unswayed by the opposition.

"Their claims are baseless," Paynter said. "We're still planning on going forward with our project, and we're excited about it."

Paynter has been arguing -- with the backing of city officials -- that the slough remnant has not existed on his property since at least 1965.

"The facts are on the wall at city hall," Paynter said. "It's very clear that the slough was not on the property when we bought it a year ago, and it hasn't been for over 40 years."

Nevertheless, Richard Harriman, the attorney who represents the opposition groups, insists Paynter's project does contain a remnant of Mussel Slough, an ancient water channel with historic and ecological values that are to be protected under the city's own land-use policy.

"We are passionate about it because we believe Hanford has continued to fail to follow the regulations and policies adopted by the Legislature," said Harriman.

Harriman called for a full environmental review of the project and cooperation from the city to come up with ways to protect the natural landscape while letting the project take place.

"It doesn't have to happen this way. It can be avoided," Harriman said. "Obliterating the landscape is not smart environmentally and economically."

The fate of the project is now in the hands of the Hanford City Council, which has traditionally voted in favor of developers.

The council is expected to hold a public hearing on the matter next month.

Specifically, the two groups challenge the decision based on the following allegations:

• A faulty environmental review with a lack of analysis into the cumulative impact on biological resources.

• Impacts on what they say is a remnant of Mussel Slough, an ancient water channel.

• Violation of the city's land-use policy, which calls for preservation of the slough and historic resources and protection of the greenbelt in west Hanford.

These are the same points the groups have previously raised to argue against the project.

The reporter can be reached at 582-0471, ext. 3059.

(Sept. 19, 2007)