Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/4/2000 - STAFF REPORTS (21) DATE: October 4, 2000 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building CASE NO. 20.146 (COUNTY REFERRAL -AMENDED) -AN AMENDED APPLICATION BY MOUNTAIN VIEW POWER PARTNERS, LLC (PREVIOUSLY SEAWEST WINDPOWER, INC. AND VENTURE PACIFIC, INC.), FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 35 900-1000 KW WIND TURBINES OR 45 600 KW WIND TURBINES ON APPROXIMATELY 554.2ACRES OF LAND(WECS NO. 103)LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, DIRECTLY NORTH OF WINDY POINT AND DIRECTLY SOUTH OF WHITEWATER HILL, SECTION 13, T33, R3E, SBBM (SPHERE OF INFLUENCE). CASE NO. 20.151 (COUNTY REFERRAL -AMENDED) -AN AMENDED 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 10/1­1IGHWAY 62 INTERCHANGE, NORTH OF WINDY POINT AND HIGHWAY 111, SECTIONS 18AND 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 amended applications by Mountain View Power Partners, LLC and Seawest Windpower, Inc., as described above and recommend that the projects be conditionally approved, provided the projects be redesigned to meet the required City scenic setback of 1,315 feet (one-quarter mile) along Interstate 10. The applicant is represented by Mr. Michael Azeka of Mountain View Power Partners, LLC and Seawest Windpower, Inc. CASE NO. 20.146 (WECS 103) The first project, Case No.20.146(commonly referred to as WECS 103) now contemplates the installation of 35 (down from 43) 900-1000 kW wind turbines OR 45 (down from 65) 600 kW wind turbine generators generally located south of Interstate 10, directly north of Windy Point and south of Whitewater Hill, on generally flat terrain in area immediately northeast of the City limit, within the City's Sphere of Influence. The property in zoned W-E (Wind Energy) and R-R (Rural Residential) by the County of Riverside. The proposed reductions in the number of wind turbines as noted above are a result of the applicants effort to comply with recent amendments to the County of Riverside Wind Energy Ordinance. The County of Riverside Wind Energy Ordinance now requires a minimum 1,000-foot scenic setback from the Interstate 10 right of way. Under the first scenario, now with a total of 35 900-1000 kW Wind Turbine Generators, each individual turbine would be approximately 282 feet in height, from ground level to top of the rotor. The rotor diameter of the 900-1000 kW turbines would be approximately 171 feet and the tubular tower height would be approximately 197 feet. In this scenario, the turbines are proposed to be placed in three north/south arrays. The alternate development scenario for WECS 103 includes a total of 45 600 kW Wind Turbine Generators. The proposed height of individual turbines is now approximately 271 feet in height (up from approximately 233 feet in height), from ground level to top of rotor. 10 The rotor diameter of the 600 kW turbines is approximately 148 feet(up from 138 feet) and the tubular tower height is proposed to be approximately 197 feet(up from 164 feet). This scheme would entail four north/south rows of turbines. Approximately 7,300 cubic yards of earth would be required to be moved in grading the property for the proposed development. In conjunction with WECS 103, Riverside County Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR) No. 416 has been prepared to access the potential environmental impacts of the application. Potential impacts identified include Land Use/Planning, Traffic, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Risk of Upset, Air Navagational Interference and Energy/Utility. Within the DEIR, all of the above potential impacts have initially been found to not be significant provided all mitigation measures included in the report are adhered to with development of the project. Not all of these areas are discussed in this report; the intent of this report is to focus on those issues which are of potential significance to the City of Palm Springs. CASE NO. 20.151 (WECS 107) This project now contemplates the installation of 42 900-1000 kW wind turbines OR 39 600-700 kW wind turbine generators generally located south of the Interstate 10/Highway 62 interchange, north of Windy Point and Highway 111, on generally flat terrain in area immediately northeast of the City limit, within the City's Sphere of Influence. The property is currently zoned W-2 by the County of Riverside. This application does include a request for a change of zone to W-E (Wind Energy). The 600-700 kW development scenario for the amended WECS 107application does not comply with recent scenic setback amendments to the County of Riverside Wind Energy Ordinance, as the three turbines closest to the Interstate 10/Highway 62 interchange(Turbines Al,A2 and 61)encroach into the required 1,000 foot scenic setback. Variance No. 1679 is being requested by the developer to address these scenic setback reductions. Under the first scenario for WECS 107, now with a total of 42 900-1000 kW Wind Turbine Generators, each individual turbine would be approximately 282 to 288 feet in height, from ground level to top of the rotor. The rotor diameter of the 900-1000 kW turbines would be approximately 171to 184 feet and the tubulartower height would be approximately 197 feet. In this scenario, the turbines are proposed to be placed in three north/south arrays. Approximately 3.21acres of the site would be graded for access roads and foundations under this scenario. Under the second scenario for WECS 107, which now includes a total of 39 600-700 kW Wind Turbine Generators,the proposed height of individual turbines is up to approximately 271 feet in height, from ground level to top of rotor. The rotor diameter of the 600-700 kW turbines is approximately 148 feet and the tubular tower height is proposed to be approximately 197 feet. This scheme would also entail three north/south rows of turbines. In this scheme, 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. Approximately 2.95 acres of the site would be graded for access roads and foundations under this scenario. WECS 107 has been significantly enlarged since the Planning Commission first reviewed the project on October 27, 1999. Originally,the application contemplated the development of 29 900-1000 kW wind turbines on approximately 306.6 acres of the site. Since that time, the applicant has acquired 144.4 acres of land west of the original WECS 107 site and has added more wind turbines to the project. /Q�2 In conjunction with WECS 107, 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. Potential impacts could include Land Use/Planning, Traffic, Noise, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology, Risk of Upset,Air Navigational Interference and Energy/Utility. Staff will update the City Council on issues associated with the DEIR as necessary in the near future, during the public review process. Both WECS 103 and WECS 107 include meteorological towers of 200 or 240 feet in height. In either amended scheme, one of the proposed meteorological towers encroaches into the required two-thirds mile scenic setback required from Highway 111. In addition, both projects include an on-site 40,000 square foot storage facility, an electrical substation, interior access/maintenance roads and perimeter fencing. These two projects account for a significant portion of an overall master plan for the development of three wind energy sites. The third site, commonly referred to as WECS 16 West, is within the City limits of Palm Springs, and is located one section easterly of WECS 107. WECS 16 West consists of approximately 76.9 acres of land and the approved Conditional Use Permit (Case No. 5.0779) contemplates the installation of 10 236-foot tall 600 kW wind turbines on the property. WECS 16 West was approved by the Planning Commission on July 22, 1998 and recently received a one-year time extension from the Planning Commission on July 12, 2000. The applicant plans to develop WECS 16 West either concurrently or at approximately the same time as the two County WECS sites analyzed within this report. The proposed wind turbines will most likely be identical to those installed on WECS 103 and WECS 107. BACKGROUND: In conjunction with the annexation of the northern sphere area several years ago, the project sites in question were recommended for a designation of"W" (Watercourse) and "D" (Desert). A majority of the properties are located 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 111 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. On July 21, 1999, the City Council reviewed the original proposal for WECS 103 and directed staff to prepare a Resolution of opposition to the application. On July 28, 1999, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 19624, a copy of which has been attached to this report. The City Council adopted the following findings: — The project, in either scenario, does not meet the current 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, thereby creating a significant visual impact to the immediate area; and — 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 14A 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 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 — 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 amendments; 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. Based on the above findings,the City Council recommended denial of the application 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 aesthethics 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. On September 13, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the amended application for Case No. 20.146 and adopted its Resolution No. 4712, recommending to the County of Riverside Planning Commission that the application be revised to comply with the City required scenic setback of 1315 feet (one-quarter mile) along Interstate 10. The Planning Commission is scheduled to review the amended application for WECS 107 at their meeting on September 27, 2000. An oral update regarding the action of the Planning Commission will be forwarded to the City Council at the October 4, 2000 meeting. ANALYSIS: As noted earlier, the City Council recommended denial of WECS 103 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 aesthethics 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. The City Council felt 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. With respect to WECS 107, many of the same visual components exist on this site that are present on WECS 103. Additionally, the vehicular overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to northbound Highway 62 exists near the northwest corner of the site. The overpass is approximately 18 feet above the ground surface and offers an unobstructed view of WECS 107. The enhanced visibility of the site from the overpass is a site specific consideration that should warrant consideration of denial of the application for WECS 107 or of an r44 V additional scenic setback for the wind turbines proposed in conjunction with this application. The amended wind energy projects have been designed in compliance with all City development criteria with the exception of the following: 1. Scenic setback along Interstate 10: Along Interstate 10, between Highway 62 and the Whitewater River (the area commonly referred to as the Whitewater Grade), 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 (1,315 feet) of Interstate 10. In both scenarios for WECS 103, the applicant is now proposing to place the wind turbines in compliance with the current Riverside County Scenic Setback requirement of 1,000 feet from the Interstate 10 right of way. The revised project represents a substantial increase in the Interstate 10 scenic setback from that of the original application,where scenic setbacks of approximately 353 feet with the first scenario and 291 feet with the second scheme were proposed along from Interstate 10. Essentially, the applicant has removed any and all proposed wind turbines that were closer than 1,000 feet from the Interstate 10 right of way that were originally proposed from the amended proposal, hence the reduced number of wind turbines under either scenario. However, with respect to WECS 107, in the 600-700 kW scenario, the applicant is now proposing to place three wind turbines within the required scenic setback area. In the DEIR for WECS 103, it is concluded that the project will significantly alter the existing visual environment of the immediate area, particularly the eastbound view into the Upper Coachella Valley from Interstate 10, resulting in an unavoidable adverse aesthetic impact. The DEIR concludes that the development of additional sources of renewable non-polluting energy is a reason to consider development of the site according to the proposed plan despite the visual impacts of the project. It should be noted that mitigation measures previously recommended by the Planning Commission including, but not limited to, muted colors for the wind turbines and the prohibition of outdoor advertising are incorporated as recommended mitigation measures for WECS 103. Other previous recommendations of the Planning Commission not incorporated as recommended mitigation measures, such as lattice towers, have been again forwarded by staff to the County of Riverside Planning staff if the project were to be approved by the County. The Planning Commission noted that the proposed 1,000-foot scenic setback for the projects would provide a substantially better scenic buffer along Interstate 10 than that of the original proposals. However, if the City Council were to consider development of these wind energy projects appropriate, the Planning Commission would recommend that the projects adhere to the above-referenced City standard scenic setback along Interstate 10 in the Whitewater Grade area, consistent with the original findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission. Relative to both projects, this recommendation would result in the further removal of two additional wind turbines nearest Interstate 10 in each row of WECS, or a total of six turbines under the 900-1000 kW scenario or eight turbines under the 600 kW scenario. If the Riverside County Planning Commission and the Riverside County Board of Supervisors ultimately approve this application, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council recommend that the color of 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 should be eliminated from the site (which are already recommended mitigation measures in the DEIR) and a lattice-type of tower should be used to minimize visual impacts to surrounding areas as much as possible, consistent with the original recommendations of the Planning Commission. /4#4 s 2. Scenic setback along Highway 111: As noted earlier, both projects include 200 or 240- foot tall meteorological towers in areas that encroach into the required two-thirds mile scenic setback required from Highway 111. The applicant has stated that the locational considerations in plotting meteorological towers require that the tower be installed where proposed. In reviewing the site plans for both scenarios, it appears that there are many areas on the property where these towers can be located and be outside the required scenic setback areas for Highway 111 or Interstate 10 or required safety setback areas. Therefore, if the City Council were to consider development of these wind energy projects appropriate, staff would recommend that the City Council recommend the relocation of the meteorological towers to areas on-site that are not within any required City scenic setback area. 3. WECS Height: Both projects are proposed with individual wind turbines that do not meet the City's current maximum height limit of 200 feet. For WECS 103, a height of approximately 282 feet(first scenario)OR 271 feet(second scenario)for each wind turbine is proposed, and 288 feet (first scenario) OR 271 feet (second scenario) for each wind turbine within WECS 107. 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. On August 9, 2000, the Planning Commission recommended approval of a Zoning Text Amendment to permit wind turbines up to 300 feet in height to the City Council, The City Council is scheduled to review this Text Amendment on October 4, 2000. 4. Safety Setbacks: The WECS 103 project alternative that entails the installation of the 45 600 kW wind turbines also requires a Variance from the County of Riverside for safety setbacks from shared property lines. Specifically, the applicant is requesting to reduce the required safety setback from 298 feet to 50 feet along the shared property line between WECS 103 and WECS 107, and the elimination of any safety setback from adjacent lands owned by the federal government. The applicant has coordinated the plotting of individual wind turbines on WECS 107 with the proposed location of turbines on WECS 103 such that the minimum spacing for safety between individual turbines is addressed. For this reason, if the City Council were to consider development of these wind energy projects appropriate, staff would recommend that the City Council find the site specific Variance request acceptable in this situation for consideration of the County of Riverside. With respect to WECS 107, both project alternatives entail a Variance from the County of Riverside for safety setbacks from shared property lines. Specifically, 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. These BLM parcels are not currently a part of the development proposal, but they have been "master planned" to show an integrated development pattern of additional wind turbines for future use. The applicant informed the Planning Commission at the September 13, 2000 meeting regarding WECS 103 of the overall development plan for the contiguous WECS sites and the Planning Commission acknowledged acceptance of the safety setback reduction variance due to the master development plan and the close time frame in development of the contiguous sites. Therefore, if the City Council were to consider development of these wind energy projects appropriate, staff would recommend that the City Council find the site specific Variance request acceptable in this situation for consideration of the County of Riverside. 004 5. Noise:The WECS 107 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 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. This issue will be addressed within a comprehensive noise study, which will be completed as part of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for WECS 107. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On September 13, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the modified application for WECS 103 and adopted its Resolution No.4712, recommending by a vote of 5-1-1 that the project be modified to comply with the City of Palm Springs Scenic setback of 1,315 feet (1/4 mile) from Interstate 10. Again, the Planning Commission is scheduled to review the amended application for WECS 107 at their meeting on September 27, 2000. Please note that, since a Draft EIR has not yet been completed for WECS 107, any comments regarding this application are intended to be considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR. If necessary, staff will forward the WECS 107 application to the Planning Commission and City Council for a formal recommendation following completion of the Draft EIR. Director of anning and Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Maps 2. City Council Resolution No. 19624 3. Draft Planning Commission Minutes for Case No. 20.146, dated September 13, 2000 4. Resolution for WECS 103/WECS 107 VIGINITY MAP N.T.S. aZ ' BANN1Np 10 10 11 11 12 12 7 15 14 114 INO1° PROJECT SITE 0 Z Rq� NOT A PART 15 14 74 1 13 19 22 23 4 t9 r5 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS he CASE NO. 20.146( ,c�d� r� ) DESCRIPTION 900 1100akwtOr 45f 0 APPLICANT /�Icu In , Vizw P'«1cf kw wind turbines of 526.2 acres of land LL c (WEC 103) located north of Windy Point, south of Whitewater Hill, Section 13, T3S, R3E SBBM. mi i 12 sc° rl -711 mr )n I � vl - m RESOLUTION NO, 19624 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE REGARDING CASE NO, 20.146, AN APPLICATION BY VENTURE PACIFIC, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 43 900- 1000 KW WIND TURBINES OR 65 600 KW WIND TURBINES ON APPROXIMATELY 526.2 ACRES OF LAND (WECS NO. 103) LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY,SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, DIRECTLY NORTH OF WINDY POINT AND DIRECTLY SOUTH OF WHITEWATER HILL, SECTION 13, T3S, R3E, SBBM. ------------- WHEREAS, Venture Pacific, Inc. (the "applicant") has filed an application with the County of Riverside for the installation of 43 900-1000 kW wind turbines OR 65 600 kW wind turbines on a 526.2 acre vacant site, located in unincorporated Riverside County, south of Interstate W,directly north of Windy Point and directly south of Whitewater Hill, Section 13, T3S, R3E, 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 43 900-1000 kW series wind turbines, generally in three north/south arrays OR the installation of 65 600 kW series wind turbines in four north/south arrays; and WHEREAS, the project, in either scenario, 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, thereby creating a significant visual impact to the immediate area; 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 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 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 SK Page no. tyoty Page 2 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 amendments; and WHEREAS, the City of Palm 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 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 will significantly degrade this scenic resource; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the project at its meeting of July 21, 1999, and made recommendations 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. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby presents comments regarding of Case No. 20.146 to the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors,finding that the proposed use as described should be denied for the reasons contained in the above facts,due to the negative aesthetic impacts Wind Energy Development of this specific site would have on this "Gateway" site at the west end of the Coachella Valley and the continued precedent of developing new WECS sites as opposed to retrofitting existing WECS sites with more efficient wind turbines. Comments are on file in the Office of the City Clerk,as forwarded to the County of Riverside. ADOPTED this 28thday of July 1999. AYES: Members Barnes, Hodges, Oder, Reller-Spurgin and Mayor Kleindienst NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, RNIA City Clerk C ty Manager REVIEWED AND APPROVED: 14A �1 Page 9 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 MISCELLANEOUS H. Case 20.146 (County Referral) —An amended application by Mountain View Power Partners, LLC (previously SeaWest Windpower, Inc. and Venture Pacific, Inc.) for the installation of 35 900-1000 kW wind turbines OR 45 600 kW wind turbines on approximately 554.2 acres of land (WECS NO.103) located in unincorporated Riverside County, south of Interstate 10, directly north of Windy Point and directly south of Whitewater Hill, Section 13, T3S, R3E, SBBM (Sphere of Influence). Principal Planner Hayes reported that Riverside County has submitted this amended application as a courtesy for Planning Commission and City Council review which is planned for the area commonly referred to as the Whitewater grade— an open vista and prominent entryway location for west to east bound traffic on 1-10 into the Coachella Valley. He reported that the application complies with the 1,000 scenic setback as required by the County; however, the City's scenic setback is 1,315. He also reported that the diameter of the rotor and the height of the pole on each turbine has increased. He referenced the County's Draft Environmental Impact Assessment which addressed, among other issues, land use, traffic, biology, cultural issues, geography, energy, visual impact and air traffic concerns (50,000 cars east and west every day). 114120 Page 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes September 13, 2000 He reported that the City Council (in June of 1999) has asked that the County consider the importance of the gateway location and that staff recommends that the City's scenic setback requirement be met (which would also be contiguous with adjacent cities' setbacks). He also reported that there is a 200 foot meteorological tower with less than the 2/3 mile setback and, although staff would ask for that to be relocated, the minimal diameter and the absence of lights make it acceptable to remain in place. He further explained that the applicant owns the adjacent property. Chairman Mills called the applicant to the podium. Mr. Mike Azeka, Riverside County, addressed the Planning Commission. He stated that there is a critical shortage of electricity generation. He described the subject application as more of an "infill project" because there are wind turbines completely surrounding the property. He explained that the safety setback is normally 1.1 times the total height of the wind turbine of distance from the property line when the property owner does not own and control the other side of the property line. He further explained that, in theory, the County could sell the land and the safety setbacks could then be a problem; however, there is a 25-year agreement in place that travels with the land that was judged by the County Council. Mr. Azeka clarified that although the application is for either 600 kW or 900-1000 kW generators, the actual proposal is for 600 kW. He stated that the application represents the coordination in a comprehensive style of four sites which is a benefit to the County as well as the City. He stated that the larger turbines are more difficult to install (the blades are 80-90 feet long and require special cranes) and can be more of an issue for radar clutter. He stated that the wind in this area is also strong closer to the ground so the height of the turbines is less critical. He reported that the proposed density is lower than the usual spacing. He further stated that the previous City Council resolution of denial was done in the absence of any comments from the applicant and that he plans to meet with the Mayor to augment the understanding of wind power. Commissioner Klatchko stated that he would respect the intent of the City Council's previous resolution of denial because of the Gateway issue. M/S/C (Shoenberger/Jurasky 5-1, 1 absent, Klatchko dissenting) to recommend to the City Council that the project comply with City Scenic Setback requirements from Interstate 10 to Highway 111. RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL TO THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE OF AMENDED CASE NO. 20.146, AN APPLICATION BY MOUNTAIN VIEW POWER PARTNERS, LLC (PREVIOUSLY SEAWEST WINDPOWER, INC. AND VENTURE PACIFIC, INC.), FOR THE INSTALLATION OF 35 900-1000 KW WIND TURBINES OR 45 600 KW WIND TURBINES ON APPROXIMATELY 554.2 ACRES OF LAND (WECS NO. 103) LOCATED IN UNINCORPORATED RIVERSIDE COUNTY, SOUTH OF INTERSTATE 10, DIRECTLY NORTH OF WINDY POINT AND DIRECTLY SOUTH OF WHITEWATER HILL, SECTION 13, T3S, R3E, SBBM (SPHERE OF INFLUENCE) AND 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 10/HIGHWAY 62 INTERCHANGE, NORTH OF WINDY POINT AND HIGHWAY 111, SECTIONS 18 AND 19, T3S, R4E, SBBM (SPHERE OF INFLUENCE). . ------------- WHEREAS, Mountain View Power Partners, LLC (the"applicant' of Case No. 20.146) and Seawest Windpower, Inc. (the "applicant' of Case No. 20.151) has filed amended applications with the County of Riverside as described above; and WHEREAS, development of this site is subject to approval by Riverside County; and WHEREAS, the Riverside County Planning Department has submitted the amended applications (including a copy of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. #416 and related Technical Appendices for Case No. 20.146) 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 sites were 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 amended application for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) contemplates the installation of 35 900-1000 kW series wind turbines, generally in three north/south arrays OR the installation of 45 600 kW series wind turbines in four north/south arrays; and WHEREAS, the amended application for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) 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 e aA , WHEREAS, the proposed projects (WECS 103 and WECS 107) are two of three"phases" of a master planned wind energy conversion site development, which also includes WECS 16 West, which is within the boundaries of the City of Palm Springs; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the original project for WECS 103 at its meeting of July 21, 1999, and made recommendations 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; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 1999, the City Council adopted its Resolution No. 19624, recommending denial of Case No.20.146(WECS 103)as originally proposed to the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors for reasons stated above; and WHEREAS, the amended project for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) in both scenarios, 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, the proposed reductions in the number of wind turbines associated with the amended application for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) are a result of the applicant removing all proposed wind turbines from the required County or Riverside scenic setback areas; and WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs has established a minimum scenic setback of 1,315 feet (1/4 mile) along Interstate 10 between Highway 62 and the Whitewater River (the Whitewater Grade); and WHEREAS, the amended application for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) in either scenario, does not meet the 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 (2/3 mile) from Highway 111; and WHEREAS, the amended application for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) contemplates the installation of a 200 or 240-foot tall meteorological tower that encroaches into the two- thirds mile scenic setback required from Highway 111; and WHEREAS, in the 600-700 kW development scenario for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107), 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, the amended project for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) is proposed with a Scenic Setback of 1,000 feet from the Interstate 10 right of way in the 900-1000 kW development scenario, which complies with current Riverside County Scenic Setback criteria; and WHEREAS, in the 600-700 kW development scenario for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107), 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 10/Highway 62 interchange (Turbines Al, A2 and 131); and /f J WHEREAS, both project alternatives for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) 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 for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107), 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, the amended application for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) in either scenario, does not meet the 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 amended application for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) 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 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 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, the vehicular overpass from eastbound Interstate 10 to northbound Highway 62,which is approximately 18 feet above the ground surface and near the northwest corner of the property associated with Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107), offers an unobstructed view of the site; and WHEREAS, in the Draft Environmental Impact Report(DEIR)for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103), it is concluded that the project will significantly alter the existing visual environment of the immediate area, particularlythe eastbound view intothe Upper Coachella Valleyfrom Interstate 10, resulting in an unavoidable adverse aesthetic impact; and WHEREAS, in the DEIR for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103), a conclusion is forwarded that the development of additional sources of renewable non-polluting energy is a reason to consider development of the site according to the proposed plan despite the visual impacts of the project; and /y►� 3 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the amended project for Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) at its meeting of September 13, 2000, and adopted its Resolution No. 4712, recommending to the City Council and the County of Riverside that the project be modified to comply with the current City of Palm Springs Scenic setback of 1,315 feet(1/4 mile)from Interstate 10; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the amended project for Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) at its meeting of September 27, 2000, and adopted its Resolution No. recommending to the City Council and the County of Riverside that the project be modified to comply with the current City of Palm Springs Scenic setback of 1,315 feet(1/4 mile)from Interstate 10; and WHEREAS, if approved by the County of Riverside, the proposed scenarios for both projects with fewer, larger 900-1000 kW wind turbines is preferred as this option would have less of a visual impact upon the area for both projects. 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 sites, 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 2/3 mile scenic setback along Highway 111 be relocated to another area on the property, outside of any City required scenic setback area; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby presents comments regarding of Case No. 20.146 (WECS 103) and Case No. 20.151 (WECS 107) to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, finding that the proposed amended applications as described are not recommended as proposed for the reasons contained in the above facts, but would be recommended for approval if the applications were modified to comply with the City required scenic setback of 1,315 feet (1/4 mile) along Interstate 10. ADOPTED this day of 2000. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By City Clerk City Manager REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM: