HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC Resolution _4717- Case 20.151RESOLUTION NO. 471`7
OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OF
AMENDED CASE NO. 20.151, AN APPLICATION BY
SEAWEST WINDPOWER, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF 42 900-1000 KW WIND TURBINES OR 39 600-700 KW
WIND TURBINES ON APPROXIMATELY 451 ACRES OF
LAND (WECS NO. 107) LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED
RIVERSIDE COUNTY, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF
INTERSTATE 101HIGHWAY 62 INTERCHANGE, NORTH
OF WINDY POINTAND HIGHWAY 111, SECTIONS 18AND
19, T3S, R4E, SBBM (SPHERE OF INFLUENCE).
WHEREAS, Seawest Windpower, Inc. (the "applicant') has filed an amended application
with the County of Riverside for the installation of 42 900-1000 kW wind turbines OR 39 600-
700 kW wind turbines on a 451 acre vacant site, located in unincorporated Riverside
County, south of the Interstate 101Highway 62 interchange, north of Windy Point and
Highway 111, Sections 18 and 19, T3S, R4E, SBBM; and
WHEREAS, development of this site is subject to approval by Riverside County; and
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Planning Department has submitted the amended
application as described above to the City as a courtesy review, due to its potential for
creating detrimental environmental impacts within the City of Palm Springs and because the
subject property was studied in conjunction with the annexation of the northern portions of
the city and the sphere -of -influence in 1991-92 and is near the current city limit; and
WHEREAS, the site was recommended for a designation of "W" (Watercourse) and "D"
(Desert) in conjunction with the annexation study for the northern area of the City in 1991-
92; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project (WECS 107) is one "phase" of a three phase, master
planned wind energy conversion site development, which also includes WECS 103 and
WECS 16 West, the latter of which is within the boundaries of the City of Palm Springs; and
WHEREAS, the amended application contemplates the installation of 42 900-1000 kW
series wind turbines, generally in three north/south arrays OR the installation of 39 600 kW
series wind turbines, also in three north/south arrays; and
WHEREAS, in the 600-700 kW development scenario, six additional wind turbines are
shown in Row "A" on land owned by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). These wind
turbines will be considered under a separate permit in the future by the BLM; and
WHEREAS, in the- 600-700 kW development scenario, Variance No. 1679 is being
requested by the developer for a scenic setback reduction from Interstate 10 for the three
wind turbines closest to the Interstate 101Highway 62 interchange (Turbines Al, A2 and 131);
and
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside Wind Energy Ordinance currently requires a minimum
1,000-foot scenic setback from the Interstate 10 right of way; and
WHEREAS, both project alternatives entail a Variance from the County of Riverside for
safety setbacks from shared property lines, as the applicant is requesting to reduce the
required safety setback ( 300 or 320 feet, depending on the development scenario) to 50
feet from landlocked BLM parcels; and
WHEREAS, in conjunction with the proposed application, Riverside County Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEiR) No. 422 is in the process of being prepared to access
the potential environmental impacts of the application; and
WHEREAS, on October 27, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed the original
application for Case No. 20.151, which at that time contemplated the installation of 29 900-
1000 kW series wind turbines, generally in two north/south arrays on 306.6 acres of what
is now the 451 acre project site; and
WHEREAS, at the conclusion of its meeting on October27,1999, the Planning Commission
adopted its Resolution No. 4666. and made recommendations to the City Council that were
recommended to be forwarded on to the County of Riverside; and
WHEREAS, on December 1, 1999, the City Council was scheduled to review the original
proposal, but the applicant requested thatthe item be withdrawn from Council consideration
so that the application could be revised in an attemptto address concerns previously raised
by the City Council in conjunction with WECS 103, immediately west of the site in question;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously adopted its Resolution No. 19624 relative to
WECS 103 adjacent to and west of the site, recommending denial of the project to the
County of Riverside Board of Supervisors, primarily due to the negative aesthetic impacts
that the development of this wind energy conversion site would have on the overall
aesthetics of the surrounding area. The City Council considered this site a "Gateway" into
the west end of the Coachella,Valley and the recommended that retrofitting existing WECS
sites with more efficient wind turbines should take precedence over developing vacant
properties with new wind farms; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs has established a minimum scenic setback of 1,315
feet (114 mile) along Interstate 10 between Highway 62 and the Whitewater River (the
Whitewater Grade); and
WHEREAS, the amended project, in the 900-1000 kW development scenario, is proposed
with a Scenic Setback of 1,000 feet from the Interstate 10 right of way, which complies with
current Riverside County Scenic Setback criteria; and
WHEREAS, as noted earlier, the amended project, in the 600-700 kW development
scenario, also includes a request for a variance for a scenic setback reduction from
Interstate 10 for the three wind turbines closest to the interstate 10/Highway 62 interchange
(Turbines Al, A2 and 61); and
WHEREAS, the amended project, in eitherscenario, does not meetthe City's WECS scenic
setback requirements from Interstate 10 and no natural features exist to provide a visual
buffer between the northernmost wind turbines and Interstate 10, thereby creating a
significant visual impact to the immediate area; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs has established a minimum scenic setback of two-
thirds of a mile (213 mile) from Highway 111; and
WHEREAS, the amended application contemplates the installation of a 200-foot tall
meteorological tower that encroaches into the two-thirds mile scenic setback required from
Highway 111; and
WHEREAS, large portions of Interstate 10, between Highway 111 and Indian Canyon Drive,
remain mostly undeveloped and serve as a predominately unspoiled scenic corridor, with
little or no visual impact on the natural desert surroundings, especially looking southerly and
easterly along Interstate 10; and
WHEREAS, since the late 1980's, only limited electric transmission lines have been installed
and, with the exception of a few new billboards installed on Indian owned reservation lands
of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (near the intersection of Highway 111 and
Interstate 10), approximately three billboards exist along this section of Interstate 10, all of
which, in all likelihood, have been in existence prior to 1982, all of which are on the north
side of Interstate 10; and
WHEREAS, only minimal natural features exist in close proximity to the Interstate 10
frontage for screening, thus creating a potentially significant visual impact to the immediate
area as a result of the proposed scenic setback of 1,000 feet; and
WHEREAS, the vehicular overpass from eastbound interstate 10 to northbound Highway
62, which is approximately 18 feet above the ground surface and offers an unobstructed
view of the property in question, exists near the northwest corner of the site; and
WHEREAS, the Whitewater Grade, between the Whitewater River and Highway 62 provides
a dramatic view of the entire Coachella Valley and San Jacinto Mountains and development
of the subject parcel with 300-foot tall wind turbine generators with scenic setbacks less than
that required by the City of Palm Springs will significantly degrade this scenic resource; and
WHEREAS, if approved by the County of Riverside, the proposed scenario with 39 900-
1000 kW wind turbines is preferred as the option that would have less of a visual impact
upon the area. In addition, the color of the wind turbines and all appurtenances should
receive an exterior color finish treatment that blends with the natural surroundings as much
as possible, outdoor advertising should be eliminated from the site, a lattice -type tower
should be used to reduce visual impacts associated with wind energy development and the
meteorological towers that encroach into the required 213 mile scenic setback along
Highway 111 be relocated to another area on the property, outside of any City required
scenic setback area; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the amended project at its meeting of
September 27, 2000, and made recommendations to the City Council that are
recommended to be forwarded on to the County of Riverside.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission hereby presents comments regarding of Case No. 20.151 to the Riverside
County Planning Commission, finding that the proposed amended application as described
is not recommended as proposed for the reasons contained in the above facts, but would
be recommended for approval if the application were modified to comply with the City
required scenic setbacks along Interstate 10, given the close proximity of the vehicular
overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to northbound Highway 62 and the potential
aesthetic impacts Wind Energy Development of this specific site would have on this
"Gateway" site at the west end of the Coachella Valley. Additionally, the Planning
Commission of the City of Palm Springs would recommend the preparation of a
comprehensive noise study in conjunction with the Draft Environmental Impact Report to
address the locational impacts of the new turbines combined with the cumulative noise
impacts of existing wind turbines in the immediate area, to the community of West Garnet
and if the wind turbines and that all appurtenances should receive an exterior color finish
treatment that blends with the natural surroundings as much as possible and that any
outdoor advertising should be eliminated from the site to minimize visual impacts to
surrounding areas as much as possible. Comments are on file in the Department of
Planning & Building's office, as forwarded to the County of Riverside.
ADOPTED this Ztday of , 2000.
AYES: Mills, Raya, Shoenberger, Klatchko
NOES: Jurasky, Caffery
ABSENT: Matthews
ABSTAIN:
ZA T: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
B Uel— kmz
Planning Commission Chairman Planning 06mmission Secretary