Subscribe Now Mobile Site Place an Ad E-Edition Email Updates Obituaries Classifieds Find a Job Find a Car Real Estate Contact Us

Currently

57°

Clear

FREE ARCHIVE SEARCH

News

CLASSIFIEDS

All Classifieds
Find a Home
Find a Car
Find a Job
Work Here
Find Merchandise
Today’s Print Ads

2 Weeks Free

Free Ad

Place an ad
in print and online, 24/7 for free, select the Clean Sweep option. Unable to submit Real Estate, Services, and Business Investements at this time.

Get a Subscription

Map the Valley

Restaurant Listing
School Listing
Open Houses
Garage Sales

Subscriber/
Reader Services

Subscribe Now
Contact Customer Service

Appeal against Lowe’s rejected

By Eiji Yamashita
eyamashita@HanfordSentinel.com

Environmental activists spoke their piece. And, not so surprisingly, the Hanford City Council flat out ignored them.

Opponents of the Lowe's shopping center made their last-ditch plea to Hanford decision-makers Tuesday, urging them to recognize the ecological significance of what they believe is a remnant of Mussel Slough at the project site, and to preserve the ancient deep mud area.

The developer of the project -- as well as city officials -- denied such existence and called the environmental groups' claim baseless.

As each side presented its case, council members refrained from making comments.

In the end, the council unanimously denied the request to overturn the planning commission's earlier decision to approve the Lowe's shopping center earmarked for the area behind Target, paving the way for the next big-box store in Hanford.

"I'm disappointed but not surprised," said Andrew Mattos, co-chair of Hanford Environmental Awareness Team (HEAT), following the hearing. "Logical arguments don't seem to sway this council."

Calling the council's action "standard Hanford justice," Richard Harriman, attorney representing groups including HEAT, said, "It's the same old stuff. This is why we're here. It just convinces me that we have to stay the course."

In late August, the planning commission gave Southern California developer David Paynter the OK to build a 20-acre shopping center just northwest of Target near 12th Avenue and Lacey Boulevard, despite persistent opposition from the advocates of natural landscape preservation.

Tuesday's hearing came after the opponents filed an appeal.

Paynter argues that the slough remnant has not existed on his property since at least 1965.

Nevertheless, Harriman and members of advocacy groups, say Paynter's project contains a remnant of the ancient water channel. They say the site has historic and ecological value that must be protected under the city's own land-use policy.

Councilwoman Marcie Buford, who made a motion to deny the appeal, said the City Council is jaded with Harriman and the Mattoses, who have challenged just about every development proposed west of 12th Avenue by raising a barrage of issues such as the protection of prime farmland, lack of clean water supply, traffic congestion and -- most recently -- preservation of the disappearing ancient water channel called Mussel Slough.

Each time, they have been denied by the city.

"I just think their concerns are unreasonable," Buford said. "I want to protect our environment, and I'm pretty sure that the rest of the council want to do the same. We all want to do the very best we can do for our city and environment.

"I think Mr. Harriman is a stumbling block and not a help," Buford added.

On Tuesday, HEAT and Valley Advocates argued:

* Cumulative ecological impacts of the project have not been properly analyzed.

* The historical significance of Mussel Slough was ignored.

* The general plan, on which the project approval was based, is outdated.

* The city's own land-use policy calls for the preservation of the Mussel Slough remnants.

* Improper piecemealing of the commercial development threatens Mussel Slough segments.

Robin Mattos, co-chair of HEAT, compared photographs, which she said were taken at different times between 2003 and 2007, before the council and claimed the slough did exist until the area was filled this year with dirt and debris from cleaning out the fallen dead walnut trees.

Paynter called the claim baseless and said, "There is no context to these pictures."

John Stowe, city planner, showed a 1968 aerial map of west Hanford earlier in the hearing and said the slough had already been filled back then, although Harriman refuted the evidence saying that it provides little information as to how deep the surface area was.

The city does acknowledge the continuing existence of the slough in the areas to the south and northeast of the future Lowe's.

A biologist retained by the opposition groups stressed the importance of preserving the increasingly rare natural biological systems.

"What I saw was a significant biological resource and a fairly resilient natural resource," said David Kelley, a consulting plant and soil scientist who spoke for the opposition Tuesday. "To deny the existence and the value of this resource is silly."

A lawsuit against the city is pending over the project. A hearing before a Kings County Superior Court judge is expected in December.

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

(Oct. 3, 2007)

Email this story

Print this story

POST A COMMENT

Hanfordsentinel.com encourages readers to engage in civil conversation with their neighbors. Comments that are submitted are not posted to the site immediately. They go into a queue to be moderated and may take several hours to be reviewed, particularly if they are posted after normal office hours.

We reserve the right to remove comments in total that violate our code of conduct. If you want to report a violation, please e-mail editor@HanfordSentinel.com

For more information please read our Terms of use, and Rules of the Road.

Please log in to post comments

*Member ID:
*Password:
	Forgot Your Password?

If you don't have an account you can create one for free by clicking the link below.
CREATE ACCOUNT

The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Hanford Sentinel

The Oracle says... wrote on Oct 3, 2007 12:16 PM:

" ...another great example of tree huggers at work. "Save the deep mud area"???? You have got to be kidding. What, was there delta smelt swimming in the puddles, or maybe it was a kit fox track they found. Maybe they can get some of their bretheren who planted eagle feathers in a forest to help out. Wait, wait...I know...It was the snowy plover nesting in the mud, due to all of the kite flying by children at Pismo Beach. Where's that tomato truck? "

citizen wrote on Oct 3, 2007 1:36 PM:

" Why wasn't this argument brought up when the Walmart/Target center was built? This group needs to get a life. "

Out in CO wrote on Oct 3, 2007 1:39 PM:

" I have to say I agree with The Oracle. Why would anybody care about a mudd pit that much. Hanford is growing by leaps and bounds. Every time I come out to visit my family, there is something new. Just a sign of the times and you will have to let go of your mudd wresting ideas. LOL "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 3, 2007 2:00 PM:

" Maybe if everyone from the Mattos' group showed up the Council would listen. I wonder how many people they could get to turn out for a Council meeting? But Marcie's got a point: if its the same three people every time, it does something to the credibility of the claims. "

Dear Citizen wrote on Oct 3, 2007 2:35 PM:

" It was brought up during WalMart. Fish & Game is in charge of the slough. Lowe's took dirt and filled it in with construction junk. Fish & Game is looking into it. The damage is done, Mr. Paynter is responsible for trashing out the place. There is no mud there right now. Only the reporter called it mud anything. He's not from around here. "

Dear Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:14 PM:

" Well, you just solved a mystery. You are Marcie Buford after all! "

Joe Friday wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:23 PM:

" If the Hanford City Council fails to follow the laws of our State and Federal government does that make them criminals? The Hanford General Plan that a majority of the current council voted to approve calls for the preservation of the slough, so I guess that makes them hypocrites as well. A fine example you are setting for our kids folks keep it up. "

To:Oracle (a creepy cyclops) and Devil's advocate wrote on Oct 3, 2007 3:30 PM:

" Dear cyclops Oracle, you need more than monovsion for this one brother, a view of the landscape at the slough site shows Dave Paynter and the City dumping every bit of construction material around.KWRA is the place they should be dumping but they need something to full in the ditch (mud) don't they? Devil's advocate, how many people should show up to support a cause.?Do you have to pack a room before it counts? Mr. Zumwalt had the room packed so he wouldn't need to be there. Hey, so Devil, are you a council member or a city manager? No one else was there according to you. Who are you? and where did you sit last night? By the podium as usual or is that someone else that blogs in support of every word you make? "

Heat Supporters? wrote on Oct 3, 2007 4:28 PM:

" Maybe if HEAT would bring some of their members it would look like there's more than 2 people in Hanford that think like they do. Or maybe Harriman should bring some of the Valley Advocates members along. I wonder why the Sentinel article last week about Harriman didn't include comments from members of those two groups???? "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 3, 2007 4:58 PM:

" Wow, why the venom? I was just saying that a show of public support BEYOND the 3 mentioned in the article. Because, according to someone ON THE CITY COUNCIL, they are seen so regularly that they are easily dismissed. So if the crowd was 3 strong: 3 - 3 = 0 supporters. If the crowd was 4 strong: 4 - 3 = 1 supporter. Did I take a side by saying that? I don't think so. Here I was thinking I was giving free advice to someone mathmatically-challenged. Whatever. And just so you don't feel ignored, though: To "Dear Devil's Advocate" - I'm not Marcie. To:"To:Oracle (a creepy cyclops) and Devil's advocate" - 1) Not a packed house, but enough to warrant a mention in the local newspaper would certainly help. 2) Neither. 3) I'm the Devil's Advocate (duh! And get a real moniker - responding to a salutation irritates me enough to get sarcastic). 4) About 3 rows back. 5) I don't know if I have a blog-supporter, but wouldn't that be nice? "

The anti right winger wrote on Oct 3, 2007 5:50 PM:

" In reading the story I find it disturbing that some people equate what is right (under the law) with whoever can get the most people to show up at a meeting. Isn't that the very definition of mob rule? Dismissing out of hand any evidence that may be presented because someone regularly takes the time to show up and comment at a city council meeting does a disservice to all citizens of our community. The council is elected to fairly weigh ALL evidence presented. If they cannot give all citizens the right to present evidence and have it be fairly considered, have they then violated the civil rights of those citizens who are being treated differently? Are they upholding their oath of office? Are these the kind of values our elected leaders should be displaying when representing us? "

Dear Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 3, 2007 11:35 PM:

" People that call themselves 'Devil' anything are devious. Don't like bloggers without monikers? Use your real name. Oh, prefer anonymous blogging? Get over it. What and who do you support Devil? Do you have an opinion? Take a position. As for monikers, I'd personally stay away from names like 'Devil', it just sounds evil. I do know what a 'Devil's Advocate' is. You don't show balance, you voice your opinion. If criticized, you change your opinion. 4 supporters of HEAT spoke last night, Paynter was the only person to speak in favor of his project. You said you were in the 3rd row, which side did you take publicly on this project? Had I been there, I would have supported preserving and restoring Mussel Slough. I couldn't be there last night. Does that mean I don't care? No. If one doesn't speak out publically on matters they care about, does it mean they don't care? No, some supporters can't make it or they don't want their opinions publicized. Is that your tactic Devil? Are you council, administration, consultant, litigant, contractor? Or do you just care about one side because it's important to you? What's your game Devil? "

The Oracle says... wrote on Oct 4, 2007 7:01 AM:

" ...I assure you that I have 2 eyes, and I see things remarkably well. What is it exactly that you people want protected? A "slough", which is a ditch by any other definition? What is so important about this ditch? My clear 2 eyed vision says that you are probably the same people who drove around town with "stop sprawl mart" bumper stickers. You are anti-growth proponents, which is fine. But don't hide behind false arguments about saving some ditch. Argue the merits of controlled expansion, logicaly planned, with infrastructure (roads, traffic plans) in place before the growth can occur. If you really are all about the mud, dig a hole in your yard and run some water...Maybe the snowy plover will visit... "

Just a couple of questions about all this wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:32 AM:

" One: What is a Mussel Slough anyway? I don't get it, maybe if someone spent some time explaining that people would care about it. and Two If behind Target is a no go because of whatever a Mussel Slough is, why can't the Lowes be built on the other side of the freeway? At the intersection of 12 and Hanford-Armona is two lots and both of them are at least 20 acres.....I just want the store in Hanford why does it need to be behind Target? "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 4, 2007 8:48 AM:

" Dear “anti right”, the word you were looking for is not “mob rule”, it’s “democracy.” I would hate to think that you feel that the democratic right to assemble peacefully to making our voices heard should be set aside for any reason. We don’t have to blindly put up with bad laws or governmental decisions. We make noise, in groups if necessary, to our legislators to get them to do what we want them to do. That’s what democracy is all about. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:11 AM:

" Dear “Dear Devil's Advocate” (catchy name, seems to be a fad), the position that I take is that if you care about what happens in your city (or about a specific issue your city is facing) you should show up to the meetings to make yourself heard. If it’s important enough, take off work to do it, or call a dozen friends so maybe one or more of them can stand in your place if you can’t be there. You feel differently, and that’s fine. Just don’t expect our representatives to read your mind, ok? It’s irrational to assume they’re gonna solicit the opinions of thousand of people on each issue every week. Also, I didn’t take a side on the Slough issue. I don’t understand what you mean when you ask about my “tactic” – I was stating a tactic HEAT could use to better influence the Council. Please cite examples of changing my opinion due to criticism (if you can). As for the title question: No, sorta, no, no, and no. And Scrabble currently. "

The anti right winger wrote on Oct 4, 2007 12:57 PM:

" Devil's Advocate wrote " Dear “anti right”, the word you were looking for is not “mob rule”, it’s “democracy.” It seems that the difference between these two is lost on you Devil. What sets these apart is the rule of law, democracy follows it mob rule does not. Why should a crowd be required to get the Hanford City Council to follow the law? When a matter is at public hearing the council is required to follow the law...period! If you don't like that law and want it changed or want a new law created, that is the appropriate time to have a showing of public support. Every citizen in our nation has a right to due process and to have their concerns and evidence heard in an impartial manner. When people on the council like Mrs. Buford use terms like "jaded" to describe the council's feelings about the Mattoses because they appear before them often, isn't it fair to call into question their objectivity? I would hate to think you believe the Bill of Rights only applies to groups and not individuals. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 4, 2007 4:24 PM:

" Dear “anti right," if you read the original discussion, it was not about whether laws should be followed; it was about showing support for a viewpoint in a public meeting. Your arguments would be valid if we weren’t talking about public support. The Council should follow all State & Fed laws, definitely; but they are NOT required to weigh ANYONE’S opinion, they are only required in let people speak their views. Due process and evidence? This isn’t court, counselor, objection overruled. The Council is not required to be objective, either. Of course, if they want to be re-elected, they’ll probably need to show that are actually representing their constituents, but they don’t even have to do that. Seriously now, how many politicians, local, state, or fed, choose to represent only the 51% that elected them? The answer is MOST OF THEM. Which is why its important for the public, not just 4 people, to speak up. BTW, there are plenty of Council actions that aren't "laws," and people get to weigh in on those, too. Why are you getting so hot about this? "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:09 PM:

" OK, I promised myself that I would just watch and I cannot hold back any longer. The person saying he is 'anti right winger' has defined his politics. All by himself, in writing. He also is defensive, constantly in the attack mode, and tows the liberal party line. Does ‘General . . . betray us' ring the bell for anger? Several others bloggers here are fair and balanced and of independent thought and character. Take the time to read their blogs carefully. They stand out like shining beacons of truth. They do not need defending. But why, dear ‘anti' are you SO anti? Angry are you? Mr. Lakritz, or Ms. Hendricks, et al, might think so. You live in one of the most liberal states in the union, you have the media on your side, and have some really dynamite [sic] political candidates competing for President of the United States of America who don't have a clue how to solve national and international problems - or at least they haven't detailed their plans publicly as yet. Methinks you doeth protest too much. But it IS the American way! "

Lilly Munster wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:43 PM:

" Looked up Mussel Slough. Location is on 14 ave. and Elder ave. Gunfight in May 11, 1880 which involved a large group of lightly armed settlers who were attempting to dissuade a U.S. Marshall from evicting settlers from land owned by the Southern Pacific Railroad and the legal owners of that land who were attempting to take possession of it. 7 died via gunfire. Deadliest gunfight in California's history and among top 2 or 3 gunfights in America's history in terms of loss of life and many consider it to be the most influential gunfight in America history in terms of it long-term ramifications "

The anti right winger JD wrote on Oct 4, 2007 9:53 PM:

" Devils advocate wrote "Due process and evidence? This isn’t court, counselor, objection overruled. The Council is not required to be objective, either." Devil I hate to break this to you but a public hearing is an administrative legal action. Hence the term "hearing". It is often the first step in a legal process that can go as high as the US Supreme Court. It is the reason the courts will not hear a case on an action by a legislative body until all administrative remedies (such as an appeal) are exhausted. California Public Resources Code Section 21168.5 states "Abuse of discretion is established if the agency has not proceeded in a manner required by law or if the determination or decision is not supported by substantial evidence." If substantial evidence is presented at a hearing and then ignored in the decision making process, the legislative body (the city council in this case) has violated the law. In addition under the "fair argument" rule PRC Section 21151 if substantial evidence of environmental damage is presented in a hearing on a project, an EIR is required. Isn't an EIR what HEAT was asking for? Case closed! "

Yo HEAT wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:27 AM:

" Have you thought about just slipping a few thousand dollars into the pockets of the council to help change their minds. It may work. Just remember you must keep it on the down low. "

PLEASE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! wrote on Oct 5, 2007 7:31 AM:

" Please build Lowe's. I am tired of driving to Visalia for great service. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:42 AM:

" Ok, "anti right." I guess you were never talking about public support; you were taliking exclusively about legality - so we were having two different conversations. Looking at the Sentinels summary of the arguments presented by HEAT and Valley Advocates, they don't appear to be procedural challenges, but rather substantive ones. Interpretation of the info in the substantive challenges is what the Council has considered, and found them inadequate. This is a fairly common occurance for activists and councils to read things differently, at least in my experience. I guess its going to court now. I still would have preferred seeing a grassroots effort by the activists to get people to the meeting to influence the Council, rather than administrative lipservice to make way for an expensive lawsuit that costs taxpayers (and the activists) considerable money. Seems the neighborly thing to do, but that's just my opinion. Good luck to you, "anti right." "

Secretary to the Secretary of the Interior wrote on Oct 5, 2007 5:41 PM:

" The Mussel Slough is one of many ancient waterways in the valley used by native Americans and residents (up to the 1970's). A connector from the Kings River to the Tulare Lake Basin. It's dried up now because it's been segmented by development, but there is still an ecosystem with creatures and plants behind Target and Walmart. Preserve it and you preserve our heritage. Fill it and flatten it, it's just another "box city" without any identifiable features. There's nothing that says Lowe's can't build, the problem is Lowe's has filled in the slough with construction trash & the city filling in the slough without working with the necessary authorities. If building the development called Lowes breaks laws, then the city and the developer as well as Lowes are law breakers. Since when is it okay for a city to break laws? This is now beginning to be an attorney general matter. Why would anyone or any company support law breakers? It's time for the city and the companies involved to take a good long look at themselves to decide whether being a law breaker is the message they want to send to the public. Please boycott Lowes. "

Truthful blogger wrote on Oct 5, 2007 8:32 PM:

" Alejandro, you should have kept your promise to not get involved. Per usual, yata-yata-yata-dictum. Also, someone mentioned Lowes go S. of 198 on H-A Rd. Great idea!. I think they should too. There's 2,000+/- homes approved south of 198, don't you think some of those homeowners may need some home improvement supplies too? That should give those HEAT people their slough and something new to complain about if that's their MO. I would like to say something in response to Lilly Munster. 1313 Mockingbird Lane was your address right Lilly. So, what's the point about a gunfight and it's actual location being on 14th Ave.? I get the idea the issue is more about the historical value of an old water channel and a significant pivotal moment in California history. Homecoming week is about the Mussel Slough gunfight. It was called Homecoming because the landowner men involved in the gunfight were found innocent of murdering the railroad guys that tried to steal their land along the Mussel Slough. After the trial, the whole slough country area (Kings County) celebrated their return, or Homecoming. They were heroes for killing some bad railroad men. The slough has historical significance to Kings County. "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Oct 6, 2007 12:03 AM:

" OK, I did mess up before in my previous blog and apologize for the rant. It should have been posted on another Sentinel topic commentary. But my contention here is that there is a SELECTIVE process for determining what should be conserved. I was active in the "Save Ft. Roosevelt" movement but did not remember any support from Mr. and Mrs. Mattos or the HEAT Team. This was a viable ecological and historical resource that was largely ignored by the power-players in Hanford, probably because it had no financial or environmental justification for further action or that the school district was hands-off for various reasons. So there is now a parking lot where once stood a valuable learning center and children's oasis. So, perhaps a filled in dead bog should be given over to development. Just keep the historical signs where the are now and no body will know the difference. If you all don't miss Fort Roosevelt, you certainly won't miss this ditch. "

To: Secretary wrote on Oct 6, 2007 3:27 AM:

" You are wrong! get your facts straight and stop shooting from the hip! "

The Oracle says... wrote on Oct 6, 2007 5:02 AM:

" I freaking hate tree huggers. What, are we supposed to fence around a muddy hole/ditch to "preserve" what?...a muddy hole??? Did some ancient animal dwell there? Is there some huge significant archeological find there? Is there an elderberry bush to be saved? Boycott Lowes? How about boycott San Francisco instead. This is where nonsense like this crap comes from, just like their recent attempt once again to ban fleet week and the blue angels. I have had it with this ignorant save the whales mentality. Your views are gonna get us all killed...can't test new sonar on our subs because it upsets the whales; interrogating people in the cold is torture..where does the lunacy end? Boycott..Ok I boycott ANY business that supports ANY organization that advocates this lunacy "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Oct 6, 2007 2:45 PM:

" To "Truthful blogger" - I am sorry you feel that way. I love you and will pray for you. "

Joe Friday wrote on Oct 6, 2007 4:55 PM:

" Wow 127 years after the gunfight that made it famous nationwide Mussel Slough continues to stir passionate outbursts. Oracle please be careful as a person could endanger their health with the pent up anger expressed by you in this blog. As a boy I played in the area of Hidden Valley Park. My memories of that area are quite similar to what I found looking behind Target and Walmart the other day. If Hidden Valley Park was worth saving, why not this part of Mussel Slough too, they are both part of the same water channel and ecosystem. So Alejandro, I too was involved with trying to save Ft. Roosevelt and recall that Mr. and Mrs. Mattos were involved along with Heidi, Barbie, Steve and Larry to name a few. So which one are you? Now that you mention it Alejandro, perhaps this area could be preserved and a nature center set up to replace Ft. Roosevelt. The regional draw of shopping in the area would assure the attention such a facility would need to survive. Mussel Slough's central location to COS, Armona, Pioneer, Hanford High and Hanford Elementary School districts means the center could serve all. "

Lilly Munster wrote on Oct 6, 2007 6:59 PM:

" To "Truthfull blogger", thanks for getting my address right. Come by and visit, spot could use a new toy. "

Secretary to the Secretary et al wrote on Oct 7, 2007 10:00 AM:

" To: To Secretary, know this about my prior post. It's not a shot from the hip, it's an emergency signal flare! Take heed, pay attention. If you don't get that part of the post, you and yours are either being mislead or are doing the misleading. "

HUHS 1977 wrote on Oct 7, 2007 11:27 AM:

" To all those who hate environmentalists and love shopping centers: I welcome you to your future, Los Angeles! No longer will you be bothered by unsightly wetlands or pesky wildlife. Angelenos have taken care to remove every last vestige of nature in exchange for a river paved in concrete, beaches lined with trash and all the shopping opportunities a carefree consumer might ever desire. I can personally guarantee that in your sprawling mud-free future you will never see a kit fox, nor a delta smelt, nor a snowy plover. Instead you might enjoy seeing executives in 4-wheel drives that will never see a dirt road, anorexic/bulimic women pumped full of botox and silicone, and children who spend their lives indoors because there's nowhere safe outside to play. Welcome to Hanford's future! Mud-Haters Unite! "

To: secretary wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:25 PM:

" Heed your postings "STOP" the misleading!!!! "

chrisob16 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:25 PM:

" yes..lowes is better than home depot....but lowes is takeing apart of hanfords only natural water way ( or what used to be a water way). the water way runs from the north east to the south west of hanford. most of it has been put under ground. if one where to get to other city in the valley, they would find well perserved creeks and streems and or rivers that run through them. Fresno has the sanjauin river, madra has the fresno river, merced has a river, tulure and vislia has many creeks and streams too. hanford has only the slough which is nearly never filly with water (only in the raining season) and the drought is not helping at all. Vislia has done well makeing its natural beautity sand out. by planting oak trees and making walk ways and bike ways along their water ways. the city of Hanford should do the same. the slough would be perfect for this new feature for hanford. to add to the matter the kit fox dose live in the the mussel slough area. "

chrisob16 wrote on Oct 8, 2007 9:43 PM:

" sorry ran out of space...going on.....i saw 2 foxes one day when i was walking from my firends house through wat is suppost to be the future part of the new hidden valley park. i couldn't believe that there was foxes in hanford...now wat about the fresno kangerro rat, that lives in that area too. i would have to say the best perserved part of the slough in town is at the conor of 11th and fargo at the oakridge apartments. if you go to google earth and scroll through hanford you could see the vairous parts of what is left of the water way. i think that i am so passonite about this topic is cause my grandfather owns the land where the mussel slough gunfight took place. lastly i don't think lowe's should be the only one to be blamed, the city is also at falt. "

Nature Boy wrote on Oct 9, 2007 3:25 PM:

" By the way, those weren't Kit Foxes...they were coyotes. Many tool around the slough and the fringes of the city. Kits are much rarer! "

Red Fox? wrote on Oct 10, 2007 11:16 AM:

" A Red Fox has been documented in the area of Hidden Valley park. Funny thing is the Red Fox prays on Kit foxes. "

To HUHS 1977 wrote on Oct 10, 2007 6:10 PM:

" Hey I like the idea of having all concrete in the future.. It may help with keeping the dust down.I like your future views.. You should run for City Council. I also liked your ideas of making concrete rivers. That sounds a lot cleaner then a slough. And when it's dry it could double as a skate park. You could skate the slough from Fargo to Lowes. You rock!!! Keep the Ideas flowing. HUHS 1977 for City Council !!!! PS To am a big fan of silcon. Dr 90310 For Hanford City Council TOO!!!!! "

chrisob16 wrote on Oct 10, 2007 7:52 PM:

" i live by the kings river and have seen many many coyotes..and wat i saw was not one...thereis the possiblity that it was a red fox cause it looked redish "

Alan G. wrote on Oct 10, 2007 8:15 PM:

" Red Foxes? Oh Lordy, here comes the big one. I'm comin' to see you Elizabeth!" "

I nominate wrote on Oct 11, 2007 4:37 AM:

" Red Fox for city council....Grady for mayor...and Lamont for city manager. "

PATRIOTIC BLOGGER wrote on Oct 11, 2007 1:51 PM:

" Too ethnic! First Five would have to give a special diversity class for this at the Tachi Palace. Hanford schools would then have to teach ESL (Ebonics as a Second Language). "

I Nominate wrote on Oct 11, 2007 6:45 PM:

" Maybe through diversity and having a Redd Fox sighting that Mr and Mrs Mattos could use that as a platform to save the slough. Has anyone seen Elvis around Mussel Slough. He might carry more clout with the Council. It would also save tax dollars with Elvis. We would not have to have the diversity classes. What the heck.... Elvis for City Council!!!! "

Joe Friday wrote on Oct 11, 2007 7:37 PM:

" Why not support Elvis for City Council, he'd fit right in with the rest of the "DEAD WOOD" currently on the City Council. VIVA LAS VEGAS, right Veronica? (Please see Jackie K.'s, The Pulse, What's your secret or not so secret vice?) hmmm. "

I Nominate wrote on Oct 11, 2007 10:01 PM:

" Mussel Slough on 12th and Lacey be a park in honor of Elvis or Redd Fox I'm open to both. I like mr HUH 1977 Idea of cementing the whole thing and make it a skate park. You can drop the kids off while you shop at Lowes. A win win for all. I found that tomato truck! "

Veronica wrote on Oct 11, 2007 10:25 PM:

" Well, Joe Friday, thanks for including me in. I support the Mattos' and preservation of the slough. The manner in which some of the council members behave at meetings tell me Elvis could do a better job, with or without a pulse. It could be a "Term of office with Elvis" instead of "A weekend at Bernie's". Elvis could show all of the council members how to do it 'Vegas' style. I think Lilly Munster show go along as Elvis' date, she sounds his type. Boycott Lowes! Mussel Slough rocks! And remember, what happens in Vegas, only stays in Vegas, if you don't get caught. Sign me ... "The Scandalous Ms. 'V'." "

NOT uninformed wrote on Oct 12, 2007 1:51 PM:

" Many of you who are commenting on the Lowe's project should educate yourselves before making such adamant statements. Has anyone bothered to review the pictures at City Hall that show the slough on the Lowe's project was filled in by 1965? HEAT knows, but refuses to accept that the slough no longer exists on the Lowe's property. It exists to the south of it. The city has never said they won't protect that area. It has just not been proposed for development. I was at the Council meeting and the report was clear on that. Anyone can dump stuff on vacant property. Ask property owners around town.Happens all the time. Doesn't mean Paynter did it or the City (the city isn't doing any construction). But the slough was filled in at that location over 40 years ago. Paynter stated at the meeting that he will get Fish and Game approval prior to crossing or filling in any part of the slough to build the road that will extend to Lowes. The "evidence" presented by the Mattoses is the same as they've presented on the last several projects they protested. Maybe that's why the Council doesn't pay much attention. How canalltheprojectshavethesameissues? "

Mag wrote on Oct 12, 2007 4:30 PM:

" I was really looking forward to Lowe's because I don't get good service at Home Depot. There is never anyone around to help. But then I was told about the Selma HD location- it is MUCH bigger and they had so many people offer to help me! Amazing. So for what OSH doesn't have (because they have the BEST customer service), take a little jaunt to Selma if you need good service. "

Dear Not Informed wrote on Oct 12, 2007 7:13 PM:

" The1965 satellite photo sounds like a desperate attempt to cover up an illegal slough fill without proper permits from Fish & Game, civil and criminal offense. (See CA F&G Code 1600 et seq.) Paynter never said he would get proper permits before crossing the slough, Mr. Zumwalt did at a planning commission meeting. The city staff report said the city would get permits before crossing the slough. Property owners are responsible for what happens on their property, no different than a meth lab clean up. Illegal dumping is the property owner's responsibility. An illegal fill of a ancient waterway is a criminal act punishable by fines and/or imprisonment. The 1965 satellite photo does not determine depth. If you were at the meeting you saw the ground level photos the Mattos' presented from 2003, showing a viable slough and 2007 photos of the same place resembling a nuclear blast site. The Mattos' also showed a satellite photo of a slough remnant north of the little league park that appears exactly the same as the project area in the 1965 photo, yet the slough remnant in sports area is still used today as a drainage basin. And Bob's your Uncle. "

TO NOT uninformed FROM I NOMINATE wrote on Oct 12, 2007 7:14 PM:

" ARE YOU CLUELESS?? OR NOT FROM HANFORD!!!.. SINCE WHEN DID THEY FILL IN MUSSEL SLOUGH .. NOT IN 1965 AND NOT IN 2007..ONLY PARTS OF THE SLOUGH HAVE BEEN DESTROYED.. I KNOW... YOU ARE ON THE CITY COUNCIL. I HOPE YOU HAVE TO RUN AGAINST ELVIS IN THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL ELECTION. ELVIS SEEMS TO HAVE MORE INTEGRITY ON CIVIC MATTERS... "

Witnesses wrote on Oct 13, 2007 10:01 AM:

" If people think that the Slough existed in 2003, on the Lowes site, it shouldn't be hard to find someone to testify to that effect, right? Why doesn't HEAT ever bring any of their members to the meetings to help them testify? I'm sure there has to be one person in town that can testify, assuming there was a slough there in 2003. "

TRUTH IN JOURNALISM wrote on Oct 13, 2007 3:10 PM:

" What makes you think that H.E.A.T. has any members other than the renowned husband and wife team? They put in much work as does their attorney: remember the Sentinel article? Perhaps a full page H.E.A.T. treatment would be a public service..Jackie, you listening? "

I Nominate wrote on Oct 13, 2007 8:36 PM:

" I say put up or shut up.I think we should all set a time and take a bloggers field trip and visit Mussel Slough. Hey Mr and Mrs M. can you arrange this?` I NOMINATE A MUSSEL SLOUGH DAY...ANDY YOUR LEAD... "

To HEAT wrote on Oct 17, 2007 7:40 PM:

" I have a question for HEAT. Will you be presenting any objections to the 'Notice of Intent' that Cal-Trans published in the Hanford Sentinel on 10/17/07 pg A-5? Cal-Trans intends to adopt a National Environmental Policy Act Supplement PM 2.5 Assesment for the expansion of Highway 198 from Hanford to Visalia. This adoption would exempt Cal-Trans from abiding by or following the Clean Air Act. Did you question whether or not they completed an EIR? You realize that they will be removing ALL of the black walnut and eucalyptus trees along the freeway. Do you think that they might be a habitat for something? The increase in traffic and air pollution will be exponential. Not to mention the land that will be bought from farmers or taken be iminent domain. The fact is this, HEAT is comprised of a husband, a wife, and an attorney and a terrible case of sour grapes! Their focus is to toss the tables within the City. Nothing more!!!! "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 19, 2007 10:11 AM:

" Just what is Hanford Environmental Awareness Team, anyway? Some kind of non-profit? A club? How do you become a member? And where do they meet? "

To: To Heat wrote on Oct 19, 2007 2:06 PM:

" If you have a problem with the 198 expansion, why don't YOU do something about it? Do you also rely on a husband and wife to speak for you as so many others do? Before you go about tossing tables within CalTrans, you should do your own homework. Don't you want a wider road from 99 to Hanford? Will you stick your neck out to fight for a road that will bring bigger and better business to our community? Do you think the trees there are native to California and deserve a fight to be saved? Stop pointing fingers and get out there and hug a tree yourself. Do your own activism and stop your crying about how others fail to take charge where you want it taken care of. Whiner. "

Heat Board Member wrote on Oct 19, 2007 8:02 PM:

" The Devils Advocate asked how he can assist HEAT and join the team. Please write to Hanford Enviromential Awareness Team PO Box 1065 Hanford, CA 93232 Please be sure to include your name and contact information. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 20, 2007 7:01 PM:

" HEAT Board Member, I asked some questions that you seem to have overlooked. Please respond to them; right now I hesitate to become involved in the organization because a full 50% of the membership of HEAT that I know of have been pesonally insulting to me in the Sentinel blogs. Which, as I have said previously, gives me the willies thinking about them having my contact info. But maybe not all members are unhinged and the organization is worth my time, but right now I have a hard time thinking its not a fictional organization. Of course, I would be willing to show up in person to an official publically-noticed board meeting of legally-recognized not-for-profit organization. As would others, I assume. "

To: To HEAT wrote on Oct 21, 2007 3:26 PM:

" I DO want a wider roadway between Hwy 43 & 99. I DO want the trees removed. I used to work for the K.C. Fire Dept. and have responded to MANY traffic accidents along that stretch of road involving vehicle hitting those trees, many of them FATAL. What I am tired of is this group (if three people constitute a group) of people stirring stuff within the City and never in the County. Do you know why they don't??? Because he is an employee of the County, and doesn't want any repercussions from his employer. And to top it off, he is a Department head making management salary and benefits for managing three..count them...three employees and realizes that he can be replaced! This is a case of sour grapes. He wasn't elected to the City Council (lost to Buford) and she wasn't elected to the COS Board of directors (lost to Zumwalt). If environmental is their claim to fame, then it should be for all projects not just projects within the city limits! "

ALEJANDRO wrote on Oct 22, 2007 6:15 PM:

" It seems that H.E.A.T. has no website, little or no press coverage, and wants your contact information first...for what purpose? Does it have a newsletter? Will I be dunned for contributions? I googled "Hanford Environmental Awareness Team" and there a total of 6 citations for this elusive organization. SIX. I question the legitimacy of this group and hope that Mr. Rickman and Jackie K. will not keep avoiding our communities 'right to know' about these people - especially since they are advertising for your contact info in these Sentinel-sponsored blogs. "

The anti right winger wrote on Oct 24, 2007 7:21 AM:

" I am amazed by folks who seem to be pushing hard for the HEAT group to go public with a list of their supporters yet continue to hide behind anonymous blogger names. What purpose would it serve other than to give the opposition an opportunity to harass those who support the Mattos's stand on these issues? Is what HEAT asking for called for by law or not, isn't that the real issue? "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 24, 2007 2:43 PM:

" "Anti Right," when the Sentinel references HEAT its usually by way of saying something like, "Andrew Mattos, co-chair of Hanford Environmental Awareness Team (HEAT)." But there hasn't been a report of a group actually turning out. It makes us doubt whether its a real group or whether either Mattos just call themselves that to sound legitimate. The TEAM part of HEAT sounds like its a group that represents Hanford; the TEAM part of HEAT beckons one to believe there is a collegial organization of some sort working toward a goal. If these article ever said, "Several members of HEAT attended the Council meeting last night, and HEAT's co-chair, Andrew Mattos stated...", then we might be more inclined to think this isn't someone trying to be self-serving. Next Council meeting, I could show up and say, 'I'm the Vice-Consul for the United States Pave-The-World Association," and I have a feeling it would get in the paper. Could we maybe get some anonymous info, like number of members, or meeting location? "

The Anti Right Winger wrote on Oct 24, 2007 9:09 PM:

" Well D.A I have seen what happens when an organization tries to form with an eye to opposing our current city council. I remember when some local folks got together during the last election to oppose the COS Bond Measure (Measure C). The harassment they endured was unbelievable. Mike Robinson and Neil Williams (both Measure C committee members) showing up at every meeting to keep tabs on their prospective members. Why would anyone sign up to be harassed by this kind of tactic? Would you want it known you were a HEAT member if you worked for the city, were a Realtor or made your living teaching at COS? Why are you not analyzing the points of law involved in this case and simply trying to attack the credibility of individuals who have brought forward a fact based argument that the law is not being followed? Isn't the HEAT group registered with the California Secretary of State's Office? Is that not " legitimate" enough? If this is a question of law one person or 3,000,000 dosen't change the fact pattern. All citizens have equal standing under the law the last time I checked. "

Devil's Advocate, Proconsul of Mars wrote on Oct 25, 2007 9:52 AM:

" "Anti Right," that's part of the problem - when these "organizations" or activists starts talking about "letter of the law," I like to look them up. I could not find HEAT in my search with the CA Sec of State, nor with the IRS for public charities. I search using Hanford as the keyword in both places and unable to find it (hey, its possible my search was incomplete; I'm just saying I couldn't find it when I looked.) I have found a similar situations with other litigious groups. Either way, if they are a charity, they legally have to post their agendas someplace prior to their meetings. Again, just more support for the seemingly fictious nature of HEAT. We also already covered the subject of legal issues earlier in this thread; the question now being raised is whether HEAT consists of more than two co-chairs - you may have noticed the "Boardmember" completely dodged my questions. "

The Anti Right Winger JD wrote on Oct 25, 2007 12:16 PM:

" DA check under Misc Filings section of the Business Portal on the Secretary of States website. HEAT is registered as an Unincorporated Association. General provisions governing unincorporated associations are found in the California Corporations Code, commencing with section 18000. An Unincorporated Association is an unincorporated group joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not. They are not a charity and as such not governed by the same rules. You can confirm this information by writing to the California Secretary of State as I did. These filings are not posted on the web. Since you did not challenge my earlier contention as to the soundness of the HEAT Case, I shall therefore presume that we are in agreement on this point. "

Heat's third member wrote on Oct 25, 2007 1:01 PM:

" Please don't forget that Richard Harriman is also part of the HEAT party. Maybe not a card carrying memeber, but he's associated with them. Also if your looking up HEAT you might try searching under Fresno where Harriman has his office. To get back to the original article, I can't wait until Lowes opens!!!!!!!! "

larry oneal wrote on Oct 25, 2007 2:39 PM:

" council members don't give in to these environmental nuts,if our city fathers listen to these nuts on every project that was brought up, we would be 100 years behind the rest of the world.thanks l.o. "

To The "The Anti Right Winger JD" wrote on Oct 25, 2007 11:50 PM:

" So now you disclose that you are a 'Juris Doctor?' Does that mean something special? Or, that we should believe you more? CA. has many law schools; only 20 are ABA approved, 18 CA. State approved, 13 Correspondence (mail order law??), and 15 unaccredited (from CA. Bar Assoc. Web site). And claiming the title ‘JD, ' if true, doesn't detail which quality of school it was earned from nor does it imply CA. Bar Association membership. So I have no clue why you mention that at all, save for a sense of misguided empowerment or personal superiority. That said, you didn't answer the Devil's Advocate's (and other bloggers here) question of what H.E.A.T. is all about. You did confirm the blogger statement(s) here that it consists basically of a husband and wife team and, thanks to you, we find that this husband and wife team is legal - See CA. Corporations code which states " 8035. (a) "Unincorporated association" means an unincorporated group of two or more persons joined by mutual consent for a common lawful purpose, whether organized for profit or not." So H.E.A.T. is lawful, but few citizens know what it's all about. Questions linger on "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 26, 2007 10:10 AM:

" Thanks, "Anti Right." You've broaden my horizons, and gave me another section of the Corp Code to become familiar with. (I noticed that 18000 is kinda vague, isn't it? I'm gonna have to investigate what else they can be used for.) I LOVE posts like that! As to whether I agree with the legal challenge (based solely on what you've said the law is): The two issues you've brought up are 1) Abuse of Discretion by way of ignoring substantial evidence and 2) EIR must happen when there is substantial evidence of environmental damage. For the first charge, based solely on whats written in this forum (I'm not a biologist, with or without personal agenda), it seems that the City Council heard testimony, and considered it, but didn't find it credible for the issue at hand - the considered evidence wasn't IGNORED, it was found wanting. Secondly, SUBSTANTIAL evidence of environmental DAMAGE - this part is subject to the determination by the legislative body - it seems there is evidence to the contrary, such as the satellite photo. They weighed it; I'll defer to the Council. Reasonable despite disagreement? "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 26, 2007 10:19 AM:

" Hey now! If "Anti Right" quotes actual parts of the Corp Code; its doesn't matter if the JD is valid or not. But let's not call him a liar, ok? (To be honest, if I let you get away with challenging the JD, I might be subject to challenges about being "Proconsul of Mars" title, so I'm a little bias, but still...) Of course, we have now learned that the "co-chairs" actually have legitimate titles, too. That's one question answered (not by HEAT though). If we could just get some of the rest of them answered, THAT would be something. "

The Anti Right Winger JD wrote on Oct 26, 2007 11:28 AM:

" For the record I have never claimed to be associated with HEAT or any other group. You too can find out they are a legally formed group by writing to the Secretary of States Office. The number of people in this group has never been speculated on by this blogger so please don't associate your guesswork with anything I've written. I have also never claimed to be a member of the California Bar. Does the Devils Advocate really work for Satan? As to HEAT, their opinions and purpose, why don't you ask the known members of the group? My opinions have all dealt with the acknowledgment that their legal opinions offer substantial evidence as to Hanford City Councils abuse of discretion in this case. "

God's Advocate wrote on Oct 26, 2007 12:12 PM:

" Historically, the Devil's advocate used persuasion to dissuade the church from "sainting" persons during the canonization process. God's advocate provides proof sainthood should be allowed to those that walked on the earth and performed miracles. Devil, you've tried to make your point and have failed. Get over it and move on, will you? No one owes you a thing, including answers. You've alleged someone personally attacked you. You react in kind. What is the purpose of your continued stream on this subject? Sour grapes yourself perhaps? Do yourself a favor, move on D.A. and get over it. "

OMG, OMG wrote on Oct 26, 2007 7:45 PM:

" I just saw a naked mole rat right by Harriman's office. There's one by Hanford HEAT's (aka Valley Advocates, Hanford NO ON WALMART) main office. Shut them down, don't let them park outside, it may ruin the habitat! Come on people. I bet you wouldn't fight so hard if you were using your own money and not the people of Hanford's tax dollars. If you have one co-chair that is a husband and a co-chair that is a wife....is there any more to the group? Ah heck, nevermind. Hey Devil's Advocate--don't listen to all the crap about using a code name. It's the thing to do (HEAT, HNOW, VA, etc.) your name fits right in with the topic with Harriman and the Mattos clan acronyms. Why do we give this topic front page news? "

STILL WAITING... wrote on Oct 27, 2007 2:54 AM:

" Amazing how there is STILL no one who reads these blogs that can tell the public what H.E.A.T. is all about! Isn't there a 'H.E.A.T.'s Advocate' out there somewhere? Nobody, including a J.D. (who may or may not be a member of the California Bar Association) who has written to the Secretary of State has told us anything of substance to date. And, back to topic, I too cannot wait until LOWES finally opens! "

Hanford NOW wrote on Oct 27, 2007 7:59 PM:

" I recall Barbara and Rusty Robinson, Jerry Frazier, just to name a few... as members of Hanford No On WalMart HNOW. Is OMG saying these kind folks support HEAT and VA too? Therefore, there is more than just 2 people, isn't there. BTW, more than 2 people spoke out against WalMart at all of the public hearings. Those were Valley Advocates and Mattos too weren't they? Get a grip. You 4 people still blogging this article need to get over it and move on like God's Advocate said. Now, it's the court's turn to decide. Let's see if the court will follow the law as DA and Anti Right Winger JD have both identified the council failed to do. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Oct 29, 2007 11:17 AM:

" Sorry, "Hanford NOW" - "Anti Right" and I never came to the same conclusions - other than stating that all applicable laws should be followed. We haven't been able to agree whether the law has been followed to this point; I think it has, "Anti Right" disagrees. Unfortunately, the courts will need to decide. "

Sarcasm wrote on Oct 31, 2007 7:57 AM:

" YEAH!!! Another building in Hanford! I wonder how long It'll be before this one is emptied out and left to rot like every other building in Hanford. lol "

What Happened? wrote on Nov 1, 2007 11:47 AM:

" Where were all of you when the Chem Waste article appeared? Does everyne just roll over and let that Monster expand? And what about the new ethanol plant. Oh well, gee, its major impact will be air pollution, but hey no BIGGIE! We are on our way to being like Mexico City. Our air and water will be the same lovely dark brown as the air that has taken most of the leaves off trees there in Mexico City. "

Devil's Advocate wrote on Nov 1, 2007 3:59 PM:

" Dear "What Happened?," who are the "all of you you're referring to? They weren't even at the council meeting to discuss the Lowe's issue, so its unlikely they can appear anywhere else. Incidently, I'm very much in favor of the ethanol plant you mentioned, and spoke to dozens of people at the annual KC Econ Dev Corp annual meeting that felt the same way. These are the people that salute business for intellegent growth and socially-responsible behavior such as recycling. The group is made up of business, government, industry, agriculture, and other community leaders. You can find out who the membership consists of by looking at their annual report; there are more than a hundred members. (See, it's that easy.) "

HOT TOPICS

MORE LOCAL NEWS

Lemoore:

Selma:

Kingsburg:

PHOTO GALLERIES

More Photos

Sentinel Photos (134) Albums

: Hanford Luminaria; Friday, November, 20 2009; (6) Photos

: Hanford High vs Dinuba Waterpolo Final; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (13) Photos

: Fire on Hawk Street; Wednesday, November, 18 2009; (11) Photos

Reader Submitted (7) Albums

: Vintage Hanford; Monday, December, 15 2008; (1) Photos

: Vacation Photos; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (37) Photos

: Events; Thursday, November, 20 2008; (38) Photos

EMAIL UPDATES

Sign up today to get all your local headlines delivered to your home or work e-mail address, so you don't miss the latest in breaking and local news.

E-Mail:
Daily News Updates
Breaking News Alerts