On Dec. 16, the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors voted 4-0, with 4th District Supervisor Joni Gray abstaining, to move the hearing for two appeals against the Lompoc Energy Project to February 2009. The project proposes building 65 turbines, each approximately 260 feet high (nearly 400 feet, counting rotors), on land five miles south of Lompoc.
One appeal, filed by Lompoc residents George and Cheryl Bedford, contends that the Santa Barbara County Planning Commission-approved project doesn’t comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), along with other planning and zoning ordinances. The other appeal, filed by the California Department of Fish and Game, states that significant impacts on local fish and wildlife haven’t been adequately analyzed or mitigated according to CEQA regulations.
Originally, the appeal also requested that the board reverse the Planning Commission’s approval and certification of the Environmental Impact Report for the project. However, during the Dec. 16 meeting, representatives from the Department of Fish and Game went before the board to say that the department and project developer Acciona were close to resolving the matter.
Representatives for Acciona agreed, and stated the company was confident it could work “in good favor” with the Bedfords to appease their issues with the project.
Before voting on the matter, Gray recused herself on the basis that she and her husband are close friends with the Bedfords.
“I’m positive I could make an unbiased decision, but I’m not certain it would look that way,” Gray said.
The board then voted unanimously to move the hearings to Feb. 10. Whether the appeals will be heard together will be determined by county staffers at a later date.
Also during the Dec. 16 meeting, the board voted 4-1, with 5th District Supervisor Joe Centeno dissenting, to enact a countywide graffiti abatement ordinance.
According to the ordinance, “graffiti is detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of the community [because it] fosters disrespect for the law, results in increased crime, and damages property.”
The ordinance requires that private property owners victimized by graffiti either report the offense to the county for removal or remove it themselves. The report must be made within five days, or the property owner could face fines of up to $100.
Centeno was adamantly opposed to the fines.
“I’m not going to support making criminals out of law-abiding people,” he said, adding that he would support the ordinance if the clause about the fines was removed.
The board discussed making the ordinance a fine-free pilot program. However, the final decision passed as written, with the added clause that the board review the issue in a year.
—Amy Asman
This article appears in Dec 18-25, 2008.
