Articles filed under Zoning/Planning from California
Rejected by the Shasta County Planning Commission after a public hearing in June, the controversial Fountain Wind project planned for the Intermountain area is now getting a second look by the company that wants to build it. But the founder of a citizen's group that opposes the wind farm said there is no scenario that would get members to change their mind.
Bucking a staff recommendation, the Shasta County Planning Commission late Tuesday night unanimously rejected the use permit for a controversial wind farm project planned for the Intermountain area just west of Burney. Commissioners sided with opponents who said the Fountain Wind project's impact on the environment, the scenery and the potential long-term harm it would do to the area's economy outweighed the benefits of the massive wind farm.
ConnectGen wants to build the project on nearly 4,500 acres six miles west of Burney and one mile west of the existing Hatchet Ridge wind project. The wind farm would feature up to 71 turbines that could be as high as 679 feet – higher than Shasta Dam.
Decision time for a controversial wind-turbine project proposed in eastern Shasta County could come later this spring. But where the public hearing before the Shasta County Planning Commission will be and how many people will be permitted to attend, if it’s an in-person meeting, has not been determined.
Campo and Boulevard, California -- Against strong opposition, including many tribal members, the Department of Interior just approved the Record of Decision (ROD) for Terra-Gen’s controversial Campo Wind project with 60-586 ft tall 4.2 megawatt (MW) turbines on Campo Tribal lands in rural San Diego County.
After Campo tribal chair Harry Paul Cuero Jr. reportedly refused to recognize a motion or allow a vote on a petition to overturn approval of the new Campo Wind project, as ECM reported, a new petition (posted below this article) has reportedly been presented to Cuero which seeks to remove him and potentially other executive committee members from office.
Whistleblowers in the Campo band of Mission Indians claim that their tribal leadership pushed through approval of a massive wind project during an improperly noticed meeting. They have now collected enough signatures to overturn that approval with a revote. But despite the Feb. 13th deadline to notify tribal members of a meeting to revote on the controversial project, several tribal members say they have not received any such notice.
Panel also denies appeal filed by neighbors and two organizations challenging the project to install 29 towers
Once again, the Supervisors Chamber was packed with people standing in the aisles. About 40 people who could not fit into the crowded room stood outside in the hallway, and another 50 or so people filled a conference room down the hall, where the proceeds of the meeting were piped in. People in the hallway yelled en masse, “We want in!” and “We can’t hear you!,” and despite Chair Robert Morris' admonitions, frequently applauded — and occasionally booed — speakers.
The San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to ban “utility-oriented renewable energy” in fourteen communities and in “rural living zoning districts” throughout the county. What the board has designated as “community-oriented renewable energy” (CORE), will be allowed.
A third problem is the bill’s requirement that the federal government sell wind leases off the California coast within a year of enactment. While wind farms can be a good source of renewable energy, they are just starting to be sited in the ocean — with none yet off the coast of California. Wind farms should not be arbitrarily rushed into existence, as this bill would do.
The East County Board of Zoning Adjustments' (BZA) 2-0 decision on March 24 approving Sand HIll Wind LLC's 12 new turbines to replace 433 old-style turbines has been appealed to the Alameda County Board of Supervisors.
After hearing pleas from more than a dozen Antelope Valley residents, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors took preliminary steps Tuesday to ban utility-scale wind turbines in unincorporated areas of the county. The supervisors unanimously approved a draft Renewable Energy Ordinance that updated permitting and regulations on small-scale wind and solar projects and utility-scale solar projects.
It's official: a wind power project that would have generated up to 250 megawatts of power with as many as 85 turbines in the San Diego County backcountry is off the table.
“We think it's really wise to take a precautionary approach,” said Dennis Rosatti, executive director of Sonoma County Conservation Action. The board agreed to revisit the issue in three to five years to determine whether the regulations need to be strengthened or relaxed based on the pace of actual green energy development.
San Diego County Supervisors are being sued over their May 15th approval of the technically and legally flawed Wind Energy Ordinance & Plan Amendment-that benefits wealthy industrial wind and solar developers, San Diego Gas & Electric, Sempra, and absentee land-owners at the expense of rural east county residents and valued resources.
After more than three hours of heated testimony on Tuesday, San Diego Supervisors opted to delay a decision on a controversial wind ordinance and changes to plans for two backcountry communities until May 15. The postponement came after a lawyer representing rural residents sent a last-minute letter claiming that approval of the project would be illegal.
"This was a total dog and pony show and not unexpected. We wanted protection from the intrusion of big energy within our community. And, we did not want industry and commercial property right next to our homes and communities," said Mesonika Piecuch who is against wind farms near communities.
But, residents near the turbines are worried they are back to Square One with no real zoning that might stop the wide expansion. At first, the maps were thought of as a hard line in the dirt where wind turbines could be built. But, the maps have since evolved to where they may be used only for guidance.
Commissioners voted 4-2 on July 20 to recommend changes that would affect, among other items, definitions and setback and height restrictions. The recommendation will be brought to the county supervisors, who are expected to review them this fall.