The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/17/1999 - STAFF REPORTS (23) • • /i DATE: November 17, 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/IIIGHWAY 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 Windpower,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 i� proposed to encroach in the required scenic setback along Interstate 10. The application does not contemplate any other scenic setback reductions along Highway I I I 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. a�� ANALYSIS: aI Deydgp lent of new Wind Energy titers 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, RX, 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 ah-eady considerable Win&•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 alone 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%odified 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 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 location] impacts of the new turbines combined with the cumulative noise impacts of existing wind turbines in the immediate area. WECS Height: 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 Comtission, 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. DOUGLA R. PWANS, Director, Planning and Building tty Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 13 2. Resolution is ti'}.:'� '' _ r • .;'F' '� ' L%r•} •y • � :1 a �;•i}' •11 :i w�• ( �! / ,• __ '� :•tom .tam, �� 3 r ''•,•�'%`.'r^� '• :CAS'•••••'`?�•c •+1 i 3�� •. f • � l ' `•.r}�l��r.-•• . ti.v,,•::::'•t:ice,. . 3 � y Y .i k .�ti:S• •� •� :• `gam,' .:�•f ..y, �• i LL .•'i�i i � J raj