HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/1/1999 - STAFF REPORTS (11) DATE: December 1, 1999
TO: City Council
FROM: Director of Planning& Building
CASE NO. 20.151 (COUNTY REFERRAL) - AN APPLICATION BY SEAWEST
WINDPOWER, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 29 900-1000 KW WIND
TURBINES ON APPROXIMATELY 306.6 ACRES OF LAND (WECS NO. 107)
LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY,DIRECTLY SOUTH OF
THE INTERSTATE 10/11IGHWAY 62 INTERSECTION,NORTH OF WINDY POINT
AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111,SECTIONS 18 AND 19,T3S,R4E,SBBM(SPHERE
OF INFLUENCE).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council present comments to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors
regarding the above application by Seawest Wmdpower,Inc. for the installation of 29 900-
1000 kW series Wind Turbine Generators on approximately 306.6 acres of land located
in unincorporated Riverside County, directly south of the Interstate 10/Highway 62
intersection, north of Windy Point and south of Highway 111, Sections 18 and 19, T3S,
R4E, SBBM, and recommend that the proposed use is acceptable on the subject property
with recommended modifications relative to the scenic setback along Interstate 10 given
the proximity of the raised overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to northbound Highway
62.
BACKGROUND:
The Riverside County Planning Department has submitted the above project application
to the City as a courtesy review. The project is located is located in the City's Sphere of
Influence. The project contemplates the installation of 29 900-1000 kW wind turbines
on 306.6 acres of land generally located south of Interstate 10, directly south of the
Interstate 10/Highway 62 intersection, north of Windy Point and south of Highway 111,
on generally flat terrain within the City's Sphere of Influence. The property is currently
zoned W-2 by the County of Riverside. The application does include a request for a
change of zone to W-E (Wind Energy). In addition, the application also includes a
variance request to reduce the required scenic setback along Interstate 10 from 1000 feet
to approximately 944 feet. One of the 29 wind turbines in proposed to encroach in the
required scenic setback along Interstate 10. The application does not contemplate any
other scenic setback reductions along Highway 111 or any other variances.
The proposed wind turbines are approximately 282 feet in height, from ground level to top
of the rotor. The rotor diameter would be approximately 171 feet and the tower height
would be approximately 197 feet. In this scenario, the turbines are proposed to be placed
in two north/south arrays. The project includes a 14,000 square foot area for an electrical
substation at the southern end of the property and three 200-foot tall meteorological towers
scattered across the site.
In conjunction with the City annexation of the northern sphere area several years ago, the
project site was recommended for a designation of"W" (Watercourse)and "D" (Desert).
A majority of the property is within the Wind Energy Overlay District per the annexation
study of the northern sphere area, with the exception of portions of the property within the
required scenic setback areas from Highway I I I and Interstate 10. Properties within the
Wind Energy Overlay District typically have relatively flat topography (less than 15
percent slope) and are not on visually prominent slopes or ridgelines. litq
ANALYSIS:
Development of new Wind Energy Sites in the Whitewater Grade Area: The application
contemplates the development of a currently vacant site with 29 wind turbines and related
appurtenances in an area commonly referred to as the Whitewater Grade, along Interstate
10 between Highway 62 and the Whitewater River. On July 21, 1999, the City Council
reviewed a similar proposal to install 43 900-1000 kW wind turbines on Section 13, T3S,
R3E, the adjacent section west of the proposed project. That site, as well as the site in
question, is located on an alluvial fan area which offers dramatic views of the entire
Coachella Valley to those who are traveling eastbound on Interstate 10 and travelers on the
raised Highway 62 interchange, and unobstructed views of Mount San Jacinto and other
noteworthy natural topographical features to those traveling westbound on Interstate 10.
In the opinion of the City Council, that project would significantly alter and degrade the
visual quality of existing viewsheds of the Coachella Valley and surrounding mountains,
especially to those who are traveling on Interstate 10, recommended to the County of
Riverside that there is already considerable Wind Energy Conversion Sites within the
western portion of the Coachella Valley and the San Gorgonio Pass area and that any
additional WECS sites should be located as such to not reduce or alter the aesthetic quality
and scenic beauty of the valley along the many scenic highways not only in the area of the
western Coachella Valley, but also in the eastern Coachella Valley and throughout
Riverside County. The City Council further recommended that, in order to preserve
pristine viewsheds of natural desert area throughout the Coachella Valley, retrofitting
existing WECS sites with more efficient wind turbines is highly preferred to developing
previously vacant land into WECS sites throughout the region. The City Council adopted
Resolution No. 19624 reflecting the above comments, recommending denial to the County
of Riverside at their July 28, 1999 meeting.
Scenic setback along Interstate 10: Along Interstate 10, between Highway 62 and the
Whitewater River,the Zoning Ordinance states that no commercial WECS shall be located
where the center of the tower of any WECS is within 1/4 mile(1315 feet)of Interstate 10.
The applicant is proposing to place one of the 29 wind turbines at approximately 944 feet
from Interstate 10. Other than wind turbine Al, the closest wind turbine to Interstate 10
is plotted at exactly 1000 feet from the southern edge of the interstate right-of-way. The
County of Riverside minimum scenic setback requirement is 1000 feet from Interstate 10.
The vehicular overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to northbound Highway 62 exists near
the northwest corner of the site. This overpass is approximately 18 feet above the ground
surface and offers a dramatic unobstructed view of the property in question. Given the
close proximity of the overpass to the site in question, the enhanced visibility of the site
from the overpass is a site specific consideration that should warrant consideration of an
additional scenic setback for the wind turbines proposed in conjunction with this
application. Therefore, staff would recommend that, if the project is approved by the
County of Riverside, not only should the location of wind turbine Al modified to adhere
to the currently required County of Riverside scenic setbacks along Interstate 10,consistent
with the recommendation of the City Council on May 19, 1999 relative to WECS
development within the County of Riverside, but an additional scenic setback, such as the
minimum 1/4 mile scenic setback required under the City's Ordinance,should be provided
given the close proximity of the vehicular overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to
northbound Highway 62.
Noise: The project is upwind from the enclave residential community of West Garnet. The
closest array of proposed wind turbines associated with this proposal would be
approximately 4,000 feet from the western edge of Garnet. Although the proposed wind
turbines are beyond the City required 1,200 setback and beyond County setback
requirements from residential development, the downwind location of the proposed
0 0
0
turbines and the cumulative impacts of additional turbines in relatively close proximity to
Garnet may have a direct impact to residents of the community of Garnet. Therefore, the
Planning Commission would recommend that,if the application is approved by the County
of Riverside, a comprehensive noise study be completed to address the locational impacts
of the new turbines combined with the cumulative noise impacts of existing wind turbines
in the immediate area.
WECS Hei¢ht: The application contemplates a height of approximately 282 feet for each
wind turbine, well in excess of the 200-foot maximum height limit currently allowed per
the City's Zoning Ordinance. However, the Planning Commission has recently approved
WECS applications where variances allowed individual turbines of up to 296 feet in overall
height. The Commission felt, and staff concurred, that the height variances were justified
in those situations. Staff feels that the technological advances in wind energy production,
reducing the overall number of turbines to generate like or even greater amounts of energy,
justify the height increase contemplated under this application.
If the application happens to be approved by the County of Riverside, the wind turbines
and all appurtenances should receive an exterior color finish treatment that blends with the
natural surroundings as much as possible, any outdoor advertising should be eliminated
from the site and a lattice-type of tower should be used to minimize visual impacts to
surrounding areas as much as possible.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
On October 27, 1999, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a
recommendation of approval to the County of Riverside Planning Commission, provided
the minimum required City scenic setback along Interstate 10 of 1315 feet (1/4 mile) is
maintained, given the proximity of the raised overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to
northbound Highway 62 and the location of the site within the Whitewater Grade area,
where the City's Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum 1/4 mile scenic setback in this
area, a noise study is prepared to address potential noise impacts generated from this
project and the cumulative impacts of other wind energy projects upwind from residents
of West Garnet, the wind turbines and all appurtenances receive an exterior color finish
treatment that blends with the natural surroundings as much as possible, any outdoor
advertising be eliminated from the site and a lattice-type of tower be used to minimize
visual impacts to surrounding areas as much as possible.
DOtJGLAPFR. PVANS, Director,
Planning and Building
�y rsGE' .�;Gcarj—
ity Manager
v ►�//ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map 11#3
2. Resolution
.r
• .aye• ?::f::`••; E. �-J/ � . . `,�� �,
:. 1
13
• .�..�••• ' •� •• "�.y:n:S:Yx;il � f =• Cti ..�,r Zf;•d
Pit
tz
90
v
;i iL2 " ;• '
i
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, PROVIDING
RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE REGARDING CASE NO. 20.151, AN
APPLICATION BY SEAWEST WINDPOWER,INC.FOR
THE INSTALLATION OF 29 900-1000 KW WIND
TURBINES ON APPROXIMATELY 306.6 ACRES OF
LAND (WECS NO. 107) LOCATED IN
UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY,
DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THE INTERSTATE
10/HIGHWAY 62INTERSECTION,NORTH OF WINDY
POINT AND SOUTH OF HIGHWAY 111, SECTIONS 18
AND 19, T3S, R4E, SBBM (SPHERE OF INFLUENCE).
WHEREAS, Seawest Windpower, Inc. (the "applicant")has filed an application with the
County of Riverside for the installation of 29 900-1000 kW wind turbines on a 306.6 acre
vacant site, located in unincorporated Riverside County, directly south of the Interstate
10/11ighway 62 intersection,north of Windy Point and south of 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 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 application contemplates the installation of 29 900-1000 kW series wind
turbines, generally in two north/south arrays; and
WHEREAS, one of the 29 proposed wind'turbines does not meet the City's or the County
of Riverside 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;'
and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed Case No. 20.146, a proposal for the development
of 506.2 acres of vacant land with similar development parameters in Section 13,
immediately west of the site in question, for wind energy development on July 21, 1999
and July 28, 1999, and recommended denial to the County of Riverside Board of
Supervisors for the following reasons:
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 along Interstate 10; and
llf�
/142W
Since the late 1980's, only limited electric transmission lines have been installed
and, with the exception of a few new billboards installed on reservation lands of
the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians(near the intersection of Highway I I I
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
No significant 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 amendments; and
— The City of Patin Springs has established a minimum scenic setback of 1315 feet
(1/4 mile)along Interstate 10 between Highway 62 and the Whitewater River(the
Whitewater Grade); and
— 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 will
significantly degrade this scenic resource; 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 Planting Commission reviewed the project at its mating of October 27,
1999,and unanimously adopted its Resolution No.4666,recommending acceptance of the
project subject to modifications such as, but not limited to, providing a 1/4 mile Secnic
Setback along Interstate 10, providing a noise study to access noise impacts of the project
to residents of West Garnet, and other aesthetic issues relating to the final color and
treatment of individual towers, that are recommended to be forwarded on to the County
of Riverside; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at its meeting of December 1, 1999,
and made recommendations to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City
Council hereby presents comments regarding of Case No. 20.151 to the Riverside County
Board of Supervisors, recommending that:
1. In conjunction with this application, the scenic setback along Interstate 10 should
be a minimum of 1315 feet(1/4 mile), 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. This recommended Scenic
Setback is consistent with the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance requirements
for areas within the Whitewater Grade area;
2. A comprehensive noise study be completed to address the locational impacts of the
new turbines combined with the cumulative noise impacts of existing wind turbines
in the immediate area; and
3. The wind turbines and all appurtenances should receive an exterior color finish
treatment that blends with the natural surroundings as much as possible, any
outdoor advertising should be eliminated from the site and a lattice-type of tower
0 0
• 0
should be used to minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas as much as
possible.
ADOPTED this_day of , 1999.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By
City Manager City Clerk
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM:
1163