Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/20/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. RUTAN Mia t2.W.Houston I]irect DinP (711)335-1859 ATTORNEYS AT LAW Epmai C,gibouston(�i,)rutan.corn L�7�JG c 19 ill o. June 19, 2007 C l VIA FACSIMILE AND OVERNITE EXPRESS Mr. James Thompson City Cleric City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Appeal Hearing, Scheduled ,Tune 20, 2007 in re Case 5.1115 CUP Case 6.493 VAR Adoption ol'Riverside County EIR No. 487 (LA40878, EA40879) Dear Mr. Thompson: On June 13, 2007 you informed me telephonically that the public hearing for the above- referenced matter would be continued to the City Council's regularly scheduled meeting on June 27, 2007. You indicated that the agenda for the .Tune 20`I' meeting would reflect the staff's recommendations to continue the hearing and that the City Council not open the public hearing on this matter or take public testimony at the June 20t" meeting. T inquired, based on your representations, whether it would be necessary for the F,state of Reba Jo Wolf or its legal counsel to attend the June 20°' hearing. You indicated that due to the continuance, the appellant's presence on June 20°i was not necessary and that no substantive action would be taken by the City Council. The purpose of this letter is to confine our conversation as summarized above and to confirm that the Estate of Reba Jo Wolf' and its counsel need not attend the June 20* City Council meeting. Please provide us notice of the continued hearing date once it has been formally set. Also, in the event that the City Council does not follow the staffs recommendation, and instead decides to hear this appeal (in ,Tune 20`I', 1 hereby request that you contact me immediately at the number listed below to arrange for my participation by phone or, alternatively, request a recess in the public hearing to permit me to travel from Orange County to Palm Springs to attend the hearing. Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950. Costa Mes2, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641-5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 '1 56/02 5 3 56-000 1 Orange County I P210 Alto I WWW.rnt2n.00M SLIM,01 Ab/IS/07 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. James Thompson June 18, 2007 Page 2 if you have any questions please contact me at (714) 641-5 100. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCK R, LLP Michael R-W- Houston MRWH cc: Mr. Charles B. Wolf(via electronic mail) David B- Cosgrove, Esq. I I56/045356-0001 820383 01 a06/18/07 ���P pLM SpP iy n u m r .CAtIFO�N CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 20, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: APPEAL OF DECISION BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE CASE NO. 5.1115 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO DEVELOP FIVE 1- MEGAWATT WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) AND ASSOCIATED CASE NO. 6.493 VARIANCE TO EXCEED THE 300- FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 6,000 FEET WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF INTERSTATE 10, SOUTH OF DILLON ROAD AND EAST OF STATE HIGHWAY 62. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Planning Department The City Attorney has indicated that additional time is needed to respond to the issues raised in the letters of appeal and recommends that the hearing be continued to June 27, 2007. RECOMMENDATION 1. Continue the hearing, without receiving testimony, to the Council meeting of June 27, 2007. 'I� _ Zn _ Cyai4 A. ingAl P Thomas J. Wilson/ irector of Pla ni Services Assistant City Nl'anager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready City Manager Attachment Appeal Letter; Green, de Bortnowsky & Quintanilla, LLP (June 1, 2007)Appeal Letter; Rutan & Tucker, LLP (June 1, 2007) Item 1 . A . SALES DRAFT PALM SPRINGS CITY CASHIER REQUEST FOR TREASURER'S REC1E,1PT 3200 TAHQUIT2 CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 (760) 323-8223 ANCF DEPARTMENT, CASHIER DATE: 61a 4301322133525341 ° TID 32213352534143010001 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE.. GATE 06/01/07 01:31:11 PM FRI �fr ACCT : t0ttt0006942 VI CCEPT S BATCH : 499 C r 1 TRAN N : 3173 AMOUNT $387. 00 %.i(' ,' THANK YOU. PLEASE COME AGAIN. PS & PUBLICATIONS - 001-34106 APPROVAL: 001857 IER CHARGES - CURRENT SERVICE' - 001-34110 CST CODE: 22 CCOUNT NO. - CIRCLED ABOVE BY ORDER OF Lf TAX ANT: $0,00 23801 C91a425a5 Road 3s•32s Dale Palm Drive Suite loss Grcen, de Sormowsky & quintanilla, LLP suite 202 Calabasas,CA 91302 Cathedral city, CA 92234 AttprnBsal Law S 18,704,0195 y 7607700873 Fax S I s.704,4729 www•gdglaw com Fax 760.770 1724 Direct E-mail Address: nhermsen@gdglaw.com Reply to; Cathedral City Office Junc 1, 2007 ry *ira Hand Ddiver * n7 James Thompson, City Clerk _rr rn City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 v Re: Notice of Appeal of Approval of the Dillon Wind Project: Variance No. 6.493 (pleiglit Variance) and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 5.1115 Dear Mr_ Thompson: This letter is being submitted pursuant to palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 2.05 to appeal the approval of the Dillon Wind Project (the "Project"). The Project includes the construction and operation of fortyfive 327 foot tall wind turbines on approximately 1,510 acres in the City of Palm Springs and unincorporated Riverside County. The portion of the Project in unincorporated Riverside County is within the sphere of influence of the City ofbesert Hot Springs. My office represents Seven Fortune Partners M,who own a 320 acre parcel of property diagonally adjacent to both Areas 1 and 3 of the Project in unincorporated Riverside County. A ellant's Full Name and Address Seven Fortune Partners III 11423 East 187"Street, Suite#101 Artesia, California 90701 (NOTE:As my office is counsel of record,copies of all notices and correspondence shouldbe sent to my Cathedral City address listed above as well.) Specific Action Appealed; The Planning Commission's May 23 approval of the Dillon Wind Project—Variance No.6.493 (height Variance)and Conditional Use permit No.CUP 0032 i James Thompson, City Cleric City of Palm Springs June 1, 2007 Page 2 of 2 5.1115, Grounds for Appeal:This appeal is being brought on the grounds that the Planning Commission abused its discretion in approving the project,variance,and conditionaI use permit. We respectfully request the City Council reconsider the matter in light of the entire record,including all documents previously submitted to the City(which are incorporated herein by reference). Attached is a letter submitted by my office dated April 25, 2007 to the Planning Commission regarding the project, All the grounds set forth in the letter are re-submitted for purposes of this appeal. Relief Sought: We respectfully regttest that the City Council overrule the Planning Commission's May 23, 2007 approval of the Project and DENY the Project and all its related entitlements. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, GREEN,DE BORTNOWSK'Y &QUINTANILLA, LLP By: Nicholas E.Hermsen Counsel for Seven Fortune Partners M Attlelanrent: Letter to Planning Commission Dated April 25 P:\P.PPSMTr1ATA%EVEN FORTUNE PARTNERS\WIN➢0001\LTR\022-No=of Appeal(Palm Springs).doc 0003 23801 Calabasas Road 35-325 bate Palm Drive Suite 1015 Green, de Sorinowsky &quintanilla, LLP suite 202 Calabasas,CA 91302 Attorneys at Law Cathedral City,CA g2234 818.701,0195 760.770.0873 Fax 81$.701.4720 www,gdglaw.eom Fax 760 770,!724 Direct LE-mail Address: squimmnilla@gdglaw.com Reply to: Cathedral City Office April 25,2007 *Vla Facsimile* The Honorable Dianne Murantz, Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission City of Pahn Springs Planning Commission Palm Springs City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 (760)322-8360 Re: Entitlement AppiicationsfortheDillon Wind Project: Variance No. 6.493 aleight Variance) and Conditional Use Permit No. CUP 5.1115 Dear Ms. Murantz: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Height Variance and Conditional Use Permit Applications (the"Entitlement Applications")for the Dillon Wind Project (the"Project"). The Project includes the construction and operation of forty five 327 foot tall wind turbines on approximately 1,510 acres in the City of Palm Springs and unincorporated Riverside County. The portion of the Project in unincorporated Riverside County is within the sphere of influence of the City of Desert Hot Springs, My office represents Seven Portune Partners III, who own a 320 acre parcel of property which is diagonally adjacent to both Areas 1 and 3 of the Project in unincorporated Riverside County. We have serious concerns about the adequacy of the Entitlement Applications due, in large part, to the Applicant's failure to meet the requirements found in the Palm Springs Municipal Code (the "Code") for the issuance of a variance. We strongly believe the Variance Application does not satisfy the requirements of the Code and that the inadequacies of the Application mandate its decrial by the Commission under the law. Additionally, there are major issues regarding the conditions that must be attached to the project if the Conditional Use Application(the "CUP") is approved. i The Idonorable Dianne Murantz, Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission City of Palm Springs April 25,2007 Page 2 of 5 My clients are interested in developing their property,which is within the sphere of influence of Desert Hot Springs, for mixed residential-commercial use. There are numerous other landowners,homeowners,and residents in the area,including many in Palm Springs,who strongly oppose this project as well. The City of Desert Hot Springs has enacted a lengthy resolution calling for a moratorium on wind turbine projects in the area,and condemning this project in particular(see attached resolution). Unfortunately while Areas I and 3 of this project are within the sphere of influence of Desert Hot Springs,Desert Hot Springs has no recourse to try to stop the proj ect outside the public comment arena. There have been numerous community meetings regarding this proj ect and the overwhelming consensus has been that the project will destroy the area in many respects_ Unfortunately, the reality is that no one will invest in an area towered over by turbines, particularly these which are 327 feet tall. Additionally, there is little evidence that a substantial amount of energy is produced by the turbines_ The promise of wind turbines from twenty or thirty years ago has gone unfulfilled. Instead,over three thousand litter the landscape and have utterly destroyed many of the scenic vistas that the Palm Springs area is world famous for. i The environmental effects of this project will be devastating when seen in connection with the cumulative effects of the thousands of turbines already here,particularly to the 69 million birds migrating annually through the Coachella Valley. Studies have shown that many of these birds are unnecessarily killed each year by wind turbines. Several environmental organizations that were previously supportive of wind energy have withdrawn their support pending a serious reexamination oftheir effect on wildlife. There are many other questions surrounding the effects of turbines on the environment that remain unanswered. Our principal comments and concerns regarding the Entitlement Applications are set forth below. 1. LACK OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES None of the Application materials submitted explain whether special circumstances are applicable which affect the physical characteristics of the parcel. Size, shape, topography, location or surrounds are not addressed as is required by the Code. The Application states that other WECS developments are adjacent to Area 5,but there is no reason given as to why this particular parcel is special and different from the other parcels in the vicinity. The fact that the increase in height requested may be"minimal"(which is debatable) is irrelevant, as is tine fact that the newer turbines are more efficient than previous models. The standard goes to the characteristics of the parcel,not the characteristics of what is going to be built on the parcel. The characteristics of what is going to be built on the parcel are only relevant insofar The Honorable Dianne Murantz, Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission City of Palm Springs April 25, 2007 Page 3 of 5 as they are affected by the characteristics of the parcel itself, which are not addressed at all in the Application. The site being designated for WECS is also irrelevant as to whether this parcel has special features which render it somehow not on equal footing with neighboring parcels. All the parcels in the vicinity are zoned the same,and there is nothing special about the zoning of this parcel. 2. GRANT OF SPECIAL PRIVILEGES The Applicant argues that a"minor"height variance of 27 feet does not constitute the granting of a special privilege, because all other zoning requirements have been met or exceeded. However, any increase, no matter how small, over what is strictly permitted in the zoning code is certainly a privilege. There is no explanation as to how this parcel differs from neighboring parcels in away that would somehow disadvantage this particular parcel without the extra height allowance. The fact that all other zoning requirements have been met or exceeded is meaningless in determining whether this is a special privilege. Presumably all neighboring parcels were required to meet all zoning requirements as well. "In the absence of a specific `bonus' or`merit' system of zoning enacted by the municipal or county legislature,a variance applicant may not earn immunity 'from one code provision merely by overcompliance with others. Otherwise,the board charged with reviewing development proposals 'would then be empowered to decide which code provisions to enforce in any given case; that power does not properly repose in any administrative tribunal."' (OrindaAssociation v_Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County(1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1165). The rationale is to avoid subjectivity in variance applications. 3. MATERLALLY DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH AND SAFETY AIMS INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY The Applicant argues that the request for a height variance is minimal_ The fact that the additional height is minimal does not necessarily mean that it will be less dangerous to the public. Satisfying all the required setbacks even with the additional height does not necessarily satisfy this criterion either. A taller turbine may be more likely to fall in the event of an earthquake or other natural disaster. In the event of blade throw,the blade(or a portion of the blade)could be thrown further than it would for a shorter turbine, something the safety setbacks do not take into account. The Applicant bears the burden of establishing its entitlement to a variance, and it has utterly failed to do so in this case. The Honorable Dianne Murantz, Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission City of Palm Springs April 25, 2007 Page 4 of 5 4. REQUIRED CONDITIONS FOR CUP The Code contains numerous requirements for the issuance of a CUP for a WECS project. Among the requirements is a mandate that a conditional use permit shall be valid for the useful life of the WECS only, not to exceed thirty years. In this case, the Draft Environmental Impact Report has revealed that the model of turbines proposed for the Proj ect are only expected to last twenty years, after which they will cause the area to become an industrial junkyard. If this project is approved, a condition should be imposed requiring removal of the turbines after twenty years. Additionally,the Code declares turbines that are unsafe,inoperable,or fail to produce energy for one year to be public nuisances subject to abatement by repair,rehabilitation,demolition or removal. Anyone driving on Interstate 10 can observe that there are many,many turbines which are clearly broken or otherwise no longer operable. Even on the windiest of days,many turbines do not spin. Additionally,WECS parcels adjacent to this project have been documented as containing industrial parts storage and illegal trash dumping. The City of Palm, Springs should declare that it will not be a dumping ground for useless turbines that produce little or no energy, While we believe that the project should be rejected and is not in Palm Springs' best interest,at a bare minimum the turbines should be required to be properly maintained. 5. DECISIONS ON THE ENTITLEMENTS ARE PREMATURE As you are aware,the County is the lead agency for this proj eat and is currently in the process of determining whether the final Environmental Impact Report should be certified and whether the numerous entitlements should be approved. At the initial Planning Commission hearing on April 18, the Commission continued the hearing to May 16 (see attached Riverside Press- Enterprise Article dated April 19, 2007). The matter was postponed at least in part because of a letter received from the United States Fish&Wildlife Service expressing serious concerns about the impact the Project would have on certain sensitive or listed species (the original copy of this letter that was delivered to the Chairman of the County Planning Commission is attached hereto). Considering the fact that the lead agency has postponed action on certification of the Environmental Impact Report, it is premature at this time for the City to act on the entitlement applications before it. Following possible approval by the County Planning Commission,the Project is required to go before the Board of Supervisors for final approval. The California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, requires a thorough review of the impacts the Project will have on the environment, and that has not yet been completed. We respectfully request that this matter be continued to a date at least 90 days out in order to allow the County to complete the review required under CEQA. Postponing this matter would cause no prejudice to the Applicant,since the County's The Honorable Diarme Murantz, Chairperson Members of the Planning Commission City of palm Springs April 25,2007 Pa e 5 of 5 entitlement process remains ongoing and unresolved. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. Very truly yours, GREEN,DE BORTNOWSKY&QUINTANU LA,LLP By�yn vL �.- Stevcn B. Quintarrilla Counsel for Seven Fortune Partners M Attachment: Desert 14ot Springs Resolution Desert Sun Article dated April 19,2007 Lctter fxom United Statcs Fish and Wildlife Service dated April 18,2007 cc: Mr. Danny Chen Mr. Julian Chen Mr. Wilson Chen P:IAPPS%WP1)ATA\SEVFN FORTUNE PARTNERS1WrND OOORLTR1015-Entitlement Later to palm Springs doe ' RESOLUTION NO.2006.134 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS IN OPPOSITION TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY WIND ENERGY PERMITS WITHIN AND SURROUNDING THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS WHEREAS, Dillon Wind, LLC of Portland Oregon has filed an application with the County of Riverside to modify Commercial WECS Permits No. 116 and 117 including other related entitlements such as Variances, Changes of Zone and General Plan Amendments;and WHEREAS, the County of Riverside is circulating Environmental Impact Report No, 487 (SCH 2006061132) in consideration of this application; and WHEREAS, the applicant has applied for approvals of the following windmills, • Area 1 (Unincorporated Riverside County) comprised of approximately 620 acres bounded by Highway 62 on the west, the Two Bunch Palms Trail right-of-way on the north, Diablo Road and the Devers Substation on the east, and the 16th Avenue right-of- way on the south. The applicant proposes to construct and operate a maximum of 21 wind turbines (to a maximum of 330 feet in height); one permanent meteorological tower and associated underground control and electrical collector cables; permanent access roads; and two temporary staging areas. • Area 3 (Unincorporated Riverside County) comprised of approximately 590 acres bounded on the west by Karen Avenue, the north by the Two Bunch Palms Trail right-of way, the east by Indian Avenue, and on the south by 16th Avenue. The applicant proposes to construct and operate a maximum of 26 turbines (to 330 feet in height); one meteorological tower and associated facilities, including one temporary staging area. • Area 5 is located in the corporate limits of the City of Palm Springs. This area is generally bounded on the west by Melissa Lane, on the north by Tiffany Way, on the east by Karen Avenue and on the south by the Riverside County Flood Control right-of-way. The Applicant proposes to construct and operate a maximum of five turbines (to 327 feet in height); one meteorological tower and associated facilities; and WHEREAS, the application includes "fast track" permit processing within the jurisdiction of the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, the proposed turbines shall be potentially 330 feet in height, much taller than any such structure in or near the City of Desert Hot Springs; and WHERAS, studies indicate that the San Gorgonio Pass is a high-use nocturnal flyway for migratory songbirds where it has been estimated that 32 million birds flew through the Coachella Valley during the spring of 1982 and 37 million birds during the fall of 1982, at traffic rates of 6,000 to 10,000 birds per hour recorded with radar equipment; and WHEREAS, the surrounding land uses are very sensitive to noise, traffic and visual impacts; and WHEREAS, the development of a non-compatible use adjacent to these areas would not only have a severe economic impact on existing facilities and land uses, but will also preclude any future development from locating on those vacant lots adjacent to the project site creating economic recession to property values; and Resolution No.2006-134 Page 1 of 3 i WHEREAS, the general area is known to be the home of two Native American groups, thereby creating potential for buried cultural resources to be found in the area, whereat the presence or absence of archaeological/paleontological sites has not been adequately surveyed and thus it is thereby unknown, if not impossible, to provide a quantitative discussion of impacts on archaeological or paleontological resources without further on-site assessments; and WHEREAS, the placement of wind turbines conflicts with recommendations of the U. S- Fish and Wildlife Services to avoid bird and bat concentration areas; and WHEREAS, wind turbines use hundreds of gallons of hydrocarbon fluids, synthetic oil lubricants, and many other highly toxic chemicals that make the prevention of accidental spills nearly impossible to avoid, thereby resulting in their percolation into, and contamination of, the Mission Creek Basin which is the home of Desert Hot Springs world-renowned water and aquifer;and WHEREAS, the inability of wind turbines to provide a viable source of electrical energy is due to their perennially low capacity factor, which the intermittency and unpredictability of the wind now prevents, and has always prevented; and WHEREAS, the entire production of the 12,000 to 13,000 wind turbines within the State of California generated only 1.5% of the State's total electricity last year, per the report, "California Energy Commission, California Gross System Power for 2005"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DESERT HOT SPRINGS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That the City of Desert Hot Springs hereby affirms its strong opposition to"windmill" land, air water and visual"pollution". 2. That the City has been and remains firmly committed to the protection of the rights of its residents, business owners and property owners when such pollution affects their health and safety, as well as the principles of environmental and economic justice. 3. That the City calls call upon its residents, business owners and property owners to join in re- affirming community opposition to the future proliferation of windmills en western borders of our City and its Sphere of Influence. 4. That, per the aforementioned points, many unacceptable risks associated with the wind turbines result in substantial adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, v✓ater quality, air quality, and the enjoyment of quality of living standards for community residents- 5. That the environmental costs associated with the placement and operation of wind turbines in their destruction of the desert "flora" (site clearing, access roads, transmission lines) and desert "fauna" (sensitive wildlife habitats, migratory and resident birds and bats) are unacceptable and in conflict with both Federal and State regulations and guidelines, previously demanded in the Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan, 6, That the Riverside County Beard of Supervisors should embrace the principle of precaution and serve as a role model in oversight of siting of wind turbines by taking lasting and proactive steps to prevent further environmental harm, and to prevent future misdirection of resources that, in fact, provide little or no benefit to the public interest, and are, in fact, unjustified and detrimental to the public welfare. Resolution No.2006-134 Page 2 of 3 10.1 - I k i 7. That the City Council of the City of Desert Het Springs, therefore, appeals to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors to adopt appropriate measures to remove the County's "Wind Energy Policy Overlay Area" from any part of the City of Desert Hot Springs' Sphere of Influence and establish regulations for the amortization and timely removal of existing wind turbines and wind turbine farms from the City's Sphere of Influence, 8. That the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors deny further windmill applications within the City of Desert Hot Springs' sphere of influence- 9- That the City Clerk send certified copies of this Resolution to the Riverside County Planning Commission Secretary and the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Desert Hot Springs at a regular meeting held on the nineteenth day of December,2006, by the following vote: AYES, and in favor thereof, Council members: NAYS, Council members: ABSENT,Council members: ABSTAINING, Council members: ATTEST: APPROVED Rossie Stobbs, City Clerk Alex W. Bias, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ruben Duran, City Attorney Ann Marie Gallant, City Manager Resolution No.2006-134 Page 3 of 3 � ,� Federal agency's criticism stalls wind turbine vote I Riverside County I PE-com Southern... Page I of 2 o IM i GO t N076i ff de .1 Federal agency's criticisin stalls wind turbine vote Download story Dodcast 10.06,PM PDT on Wednesday,April 18,2007 By RJEL4,GLICK The Press-Enterprise A last-minute letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic(,prompted the Riverside County Planning Commission to postpone a vote Wednesday on dozens of 327-foot wind turbines proposed for land north of Palm Springs and west of Desert Hot Springs. While many property owners spoke out against the project and commissioners unanimously decided to May the vote until May 16,most commissioners expressed support for the project. "Everyone seems to understand the need for renewable resources, but they want it down the road, in somebody else's bacicyazd," Commissioner James Porras said after more than an hour of heated public comment at the meeting in La Quinta. co ftsc with in WhiWwatcr,on about 1,ar Patin 500 acrea. Con' htq)://www.pe.com/localnews/Tivrounty/stories/PE—News—Local—H—windmillsl9.3d67147... 4/24/2007 Federal agency's criticism stalls wind turbine vote J Riverside County I PB.com I Southern... Page 2 of 2 The May 16 meeting will take place at 1:30 p.m. at the Coachella Valley Water District's Forbes Auditorium, 85-995 Avenue 52 in Coachella. PPM Energy, an Oregon company with one wind farm near Palm Springs,proposes 45 wind turbines for three parcels totaling about 1,500 acres.The Dillon Wmd Project would be north of Interstate 10, east of state Highway 62 and west of Indian Avenue. County staff recommended approval of wind permits for the two parcels on unincorporated county land and several associated variances and rezoning measures. If the Planning Commission votes yes on the permits, the easternmost 620-acre parcel along State Road 62 will be approved,unless opponents appeal the decision to the county Board of Supervisors, planners said. The supervisors must make the final decision on the 690-acre west parcel along Indian Avenue because it would require a zoning change. County officials said they had just received a four-page letter from Fish and Wildlife,which was not made public until after the meeting. The letter criticizes the project's environmental-impact report and is slated to be one of a few narrow topics to be discussed before a vote at the May 16 meeting. The Commission said it will also take comment on potential bird deaths and setbacks around the turbines. Most of the surrounding property owners who spoke Wednesday expressed concerns that the wind turbines would ruin mountain views,make loud noises,harm wildlife and bring down home values. "These giant machines are going to be right in back of us. It's not safe for our kids," said Esperanza Nunez,who lives along Indian Avenue. "Even though we are low-income people,we have a right to peace and quiet." D'cscrt Hot Springs passed a resolution in December opposing the project, and City Councilman Hank Ilohenstein told commissioners Wednesday that the project constituted economic discrimination and environmental injustice. But PPM officials said the only major negative impact would be to people's views, and some people like the look of wind turbines. "The world faces a crisis in global warring," said Andy Linehan,permitting director for PPM Energy. "Dillon Wind represents a small example of the type of decisions we need to be making nationwide." Reach Julia Glick at 760-837-4418 or jglick t.PE.corn http://www.pe.com/localnews/riveounty/stories/PE_News_Local_H—windwillsl9.3d67147... 4/24/2007 04/18/2007 14:37 FAX 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIM, 191002 ~P' United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WII.DLIFE SERVICE 'Acx �v Hcological Services — Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office Mo Bidden Valley Road Carlsbad,California 92911 In Reply Refer To: FWS-13Rty-4844.3 APR 18 2007 Jay T. Olivas,Project Planner Riverside County planning Depar ineut 82-675 Highway l I I Second Floor Indio, California 92201 Subject. Camments on the Final Environmental Impact Report and the Fast Tract[General Plan Amendment No. 811,Fast Tract Change of Zone(CZ7346 and CZ 7449), Fast Track Commercial WECS Permit No. 116 and No. 117,Vast Track Variance Case No. 1797 and No. 1798 for the Dillon Wind Project;Riverside County and Palm Springs,California Dear Air. Olivas: The U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)received the above subject document on April 9,2007,regarding a proposal by Dillon Wind Energy Company to construct a 45 megawatt Wind Energy Couversiou System(PTECS)on 1,510 acres in three different locations partially within the City of Palm Springs (City) and partially within Riverside County(County). We have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)an have concerns with the impacts that the proposed project likely would have on the following sensitive or listed ecies: desert tortoise(Gap rus agas�izit) (Federal threatened species),Coachella Valley round-tailed ground Squirrel(Spemwphilus tereticaudus) (Federal candidate species),Palm Springs pocket mouse (Perognathus longimembris bangsi),flat-tailed horned lizard(Phrynosoma mcallir),Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket(Stenopehwtus cahuilaensis),Coachella Valley giant sand-treader cricket(Macrobaenetes valgum),southern yellow bat(Iusiurus ega),Le Couto's thrasher (Tazostoma leconte:),burrowing owl(Athene canicularia), and other**iatn� Reductions of these resources through conversion of lands to other uses are of concern to the Service. Discussions of minirni atioa and avoidance measures recommended by the Service to reduce the impacts of the project were presented in our letter and attached enclosure to you referenced FWS- ERrV-4844.2 and dated January 17,2007. We note that yon did not consider all of our recommendations for minimisation and avoidance measures to reduce the adverse effects of this TAKE PRIpE°&B=1� 04/18/2007 14:37 )FAX 76043ISS02 US FISH AND NXLbLM Mr.lay'T.Olivas,Riverside County Planning Department(FWS-ERTV-4844.3) 2 project below a level of significance pursuant to the California Enviroameatal Quality Act (CEQA). We are therefore resubmitting on,�+mvirnyc rnncervahirm mess+Les and providing additional conservation measures in the paragraphs below. The Service commends the County/City for requiring worker education regarding the desert tortoise,having a qualified and permitted biologist available to manage any desert tortoise issues that may occur,and identifying a speed limit to protect a desert tortoise that may be,found on-site. However,the Service is concerned about the proposed mitigation measure BR-5 regarding the protective requirements for desert tortoise around the excavations and the lack of desert tortoise clearance protocols. As we previously recommeaded,there is an appropriate clearance protocol found on the following websites: htGp://www.fws.l*ov/ventura/sppinfo/urotocols and httn://www_deset tortoise.org. While we understand that no desert tortoises were found during the initial survey effort,given that there axe nearby desert tortoise teaitories,we strongly recommend that a desert tortoise clearance survey be conducted by a qualified biologist with a section(10)(a)(1)(A)permit on the entire site followed by fencing the entire site prior to initiating ground disturbance. A qualified and permitted biologist should ensure that the fences remain intact until the end of project construction, Again,we emphasize that placing boards or other equipment io excavations as "escape ramps"for desert tortoises is inappropriate because this species is unable to use boards to climb out of the excavations_ Whether or not desert tortoises are found on site,all excavations should be covered at all times when not in use, and all should be appropriately fenced,and routinely checked by the on-site biologist to avoid desert tortoise mortality. If a desert tortoise is found on site,the on-site biologist should be noted immediately. All work should cease until the Service has been notified and determines if authorization under the Endangered Species Act' of 1973,as amended (Act)is necessary. The 1VIfgratory Bird Treaty Act(META)(16 U.S.C.703-712)prohibits killing or taking eggs, fledglings,or nests of migratory birds such as the burrowing owl or Le Conte's thrasher. Based on the MBTA,the Service issued an interim guidance document(U.S.nsh and Wildlife Service 2003)for siting wind turbines and reducing impacts to avian species. We provided you with a copy of this document in our previous letter. Based on this guidance document,the Service recommends numerous avoidance measures for preventing mortality of avian species on wind energy resource sites. The most important avoidance measure is a three year baseline avian survey that is conducted prior to project implementation(Smallwood and Thelauder 2004). Other avoidance measures include a shut down during peak avian migration, a shut down during winter to avoid raptor fatalities,and a shut down during high concentrations of nearby bird use, Another appropriate avoidance measure is to replace or relocate problematic turbines associated with high avian fatality. Post-construction monitoring should be completed,with the level of monitoring depending on the sensitive species in the area. The guidelines also suggest that all of the pre-construction and post-construction wildlife concerns be discussed and developed in consultation with Federal and other agency biologists. 0�/1.8/2007 14:38 FAX 760431SO02 US FISH AND WILDLIFE �1004 Mr. Jay T.Olivas,Riverside County Planning Department(FWS-ERN-4844.3) 3 Typically,bird fatalities cannot be estimated without OEES.vears o>'avian survey efforts to determine appropriate locations for turbines(Smallwood and Thelander 2004). Given that the County/City has accepted a few days of pre.constnrction avian survey effort as satisfactory and required no post-construction avian fatality monitoring for this project in the San Gorgormo Wind Energy Resource Area(SGWI?RA),the Service strongly disagrees with the statement in the FEM on Page 6.3-34,Section 63.3.4.3,Cumulative Impacts. The FOR states,`The project would also not have a significant impact on birds as described in section 6.3.3.4,5 and in the Avian Survey Report included as Attachment B". The Service has a concern that this previous statement is unsupportable due to the'minimal pre-construction avian survey effort,the lack of post-construction avian fatality monitoring,the lack of compliance with the Service's interim guidelines,and the general lack of knowledge and understanding of the impacts to avian species that migrate through the SGWBRA. Smallwood and Thelander(2004)studied avian mortality related to wind energy projects at Altamont. They recommend siting wind turbines on the leeward side of ridges based on the prevailing wind direction to reduce raptor mortality. Because this project proposes locating turbines on hills,the Service recommends that turbines be located on the leeward side of the ridges. We remain concerned about the lack of understanding and available knowledge regarding the use of the SGWERA by bat species. There was no data collection effort on bat species and therefore, our knowledge or understanding was not increased as to how bats use.the SGWERA. The Service commends the County/City for requiting that the majority of the project area should remain as wildlife babitat. Mitigatiouxaeasure BR-4 will likely provide wildlife habitat for Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel,Palm Springs podket mouse, Coachella Valley' giant Saud-treader cricket,and Coachella Valley Jerusalem cricket. However,we axe concerned that these mammals and invertebrates may attract foraging raptors,thus,increasing raptor fatalities associated blade strikes_ The Service recommends requiring anti-perching devices on fence posts to avoid raptor use. In addition,the FLTR identified that guy wires may be needed in some cases,where these are needed we recommend that bird deflectors be installed to reduce avian mortality. The Service.commends the County/City for requiring re-vegetation of the project area and recommends the use of native plant species in the re-vegetation efforts. The State has designated the burrowing owl as a Species of Special Concern,and it is a species proposed for coverage under the proposed Recirculated Draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(CVMSI;ICP). This species qualifies as a rave or threatened species under CEQA. We commend the County/City For stipulating the California Department of Dish and Game(CDFG) guidelines for surveys,passive relocation,and artificial burrow construction on this site. Mitigation measure BR-7p states, "All excavation of unoccupied burrows,artificial burrow creation and discovery, and installation of one-way doors would be completed prior to the onset of peak nesting(April—May)". This action could lead to mortality of birds,eggs, and 04/18/2007 14:58 FAX 7604313902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE In 005 I Mr. Jay T.Olivas,Riverside County Planning Department(FWS-ERIV-4844.3) 4 their occupied nesting burrows. Excavation of burrows and installation of one-way doers most occur prior to the beginning of nesting season after September 1 and before January 31 (CDFG Staff Report Burrowing Owl Mitigation 1995). The Service is currently working closely with Riverside County and most of the cities within the Coachella Valley on the CVMSHCP. The proposed project is within the plan area boundary and should be consistent with the CVMSHCP. It should also be understood that the plan would not provide a take authorization.for the operation of wind energy facilities. For additional information regarding the proposed CVMSHCP,please reference the proposed CVMSHCP on the wabsite: lattp::Uwww.cvmshV.org/mdex.htm. r We are available to work with you on avoidance and minimization measures of federally listed and sensitive species. Please contact Peggy Bartels of my staff at(760)431-9440 if you have any requests for additional information,questions,or comments concerning this letter. Sincerely, Therese O'Rourkt. Assistant Field Supervisor Smallwood,K.S.and Thelander,C.G. (2004).Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in the Altamout Pass Wind Resource Area.Final Report. PEIR-EA.Contract No. 500-01-019. Ojai,California:Bio-Resource Consultants. cc: Trim Nicol(California Department of Fish and Game) John Wohhnuth(Coachella Valley Association of Governments) Supervisor Roy Wilson,Riverside County Board of supervisors supervisor Marion Ashley,Riverside County Board of Supervisors Carolyn Syms Luna,Environmental Programs Department,County of Riverside Rutan &Tucker, LLP UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA 3046272 611 Anton Blvd.,Su11B 1400 18300 Von KaFinan Avenue 3046272 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Irvine, CA 92612 62-161311 Date: ,June 1, 2007 Pay' Three hundred eighty-seven and $ •**387.00*** b TUBES REQUIRED OVF B6d PAY O0_1 HE RDER OF City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquity Canyon Way -- Palms Springs, CA 92263 q y I+I SECURITY FEATURES INCLUDED.DETAILS ON BACK 12 J 1"001) 1DL, 721" 1: 1220001,g6': 063013300911' REQUEST FOR TREASURER'S RECEIPT TO: FINANCE DEPARTMENT, CASHIER DATE; FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PLEASE ACCEPT $ �41 FROM: FOR: MAPS & PUBLICATIONS 001-34106 OTHER CHARGES - CURRENT SERVICE - 001-34110 CREDIT ACCOUNT NO. - CIRCLED ABOVE BY ORDER OF RUTAN David B.Cosgrove Direct Dial;(714)662-4602 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E-mail:dcosgrovc(arutan.com F1'�hD CITY or PALfi SPill !G: 2007 ,7T1 - I Pm 37 - _`r:S,l-Vc5 1'rIU7i1'SUrs June 1, 2007 C17Y CLL-fti: VIA FACSIMILE AND COURIER Mr. James Thompson City Clerk City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA-92262 Tel: 760-323-8204 Fax: 760-322-8332 Re: Notice of Appeal: Planning Commission Decision-Dillon Wind,LLC Project Case 5.1115 CUP Case 6,493 VAR Adoption of Riverside County EIR No. 487 (EA40878, EA40879) Dear Mr.Thompson: This office, and the undersigned in particular, represents the Estate of Reba Jo Wolf, the owner of real property that is located north of the proposed Dillon Wind, LLC project. The Palm Springs Planning Commission approved a portion of the Dillon Wind, LLC project (Area 5) located in its City limits on May 23,2007- The property of the Estate of Reba Jo Wolf is directly and adversely affected by the Planning Commission's action and the Estate has previously commented on the project(see Comment Letter Z to the EIR). The purpose of this letter and accompanying documents is to appeal the following Planning Commission decision, pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal Code sections 94,02,00.1) (appeal of CUP), 94.06.00.D (appeal of Variances) and Chapter 2.05 (Appeal to City Council): Case 5.1115 CUP, Case 6.493 VAR. and Adoption of Riverside County EIR No. 4�7 (SCH42006061132) (including findings and statements of overriding consideration). Section 2.05.040 permits an appellant to file an appeal with the City Clerk within either "ten days following the date of mailing to appellant of notice of the action from which the appeal is taken or, if there is no such mailing and/or none N required, no later than fifteen days following the date of the action which is the subject of the appeal," Whereas the decision of the Planning Commission occurred on May 23 and the Estate of Reba Jo Wolf did not receive mail notice of the action, the Estate has timely filed this appeal within the required 15 day period (and Pr,�E1�1•"1.CG Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 611 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626 PO Box 1950. Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 1 714.641-5100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 2156/025356.0001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www-rutan.com 816599.01 s06m1/07 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. James Thompson June 1,2007 Page 2 even if notice was mailed, which it was not, this appeal is being filed within 10 days of the Planning Commission's determination). Enclosed with this notice of appeal letter are the following items: 1. Attachment l to this letter, providing the grounds for the appeal and attaching relevant correspondence supporting such grounds; 2. A check made payable to the City of Palms Springs in the amount of$387 for the appeal fee. We hereby request that we be timely provided any notices of hearings and any staff reports, Board packets, and communications or submittals by, to, or 1'rorn any other interested parties (including, without limitation, the project applicant) prior to any hearing scheduled on this appeal. As required by Municipal Code section 2.05.030, the mailing address of the Estate of Reba Wolf is: Estate of Reba Jo Wolf Ann.: Charles B. Wolf 477 E. First Street Tustin, CA 92780 If you have any questions please contact me at(714) 641-5100. Very truly yours, RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP David B. Cosgrove DBC:MRWH Attachments cc: Mr. Charles B. Wolf(via electronic mail) Renee L. Robin, Esq. (via Fed Ex) zlsciazs�sG-oaol m��^�_� SI6599.01 a0G/ol/o7 RUTAN ATTORNEYS AT LAW Mr. James Thompson June 1, 2007 Page 3 Attachment 1 Grounds for Appeal The Estate of Reba Jo Wolf appeals the Palm Springs Planning Commission's May 23, 2007 decision to approve the Dillon Wind, LLC project as more particularly specified on page 1 of the Notice of Appeal for the following reasons: 1. The decision violates, inter alia,the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Res. Code § 21000 et seq.) and its implementing Guidelines(14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15000 et seq.) for those reasons stated in the letters submitted by the Estate of Reba Jo Wolf to the County of Riverside on: a. January 29,2007 (due to their length, the attachments to this letter are not included;these attachments are located in full as part of Comment Letter Z to the FEIR), b. April 17, 2007, and c. May 15, 2007. These letters are part of the record of the EIR and axe attached hereto; they, along with all attachments to these letters, are incorporated into this appeal by this reference. 2. As a responsible agency,the City of Palm Springs by and through the Planning Commission improperly approved and adopted the EIR referenced on page 1 of this appeal because the EIR has not yet been certified by Riverside County, which is the lead agency for this environmental document. 3. All reasons raised by any person providing written or oral comments on the Dillon Wind,LLC project, which comments are part of the record for this project. 4. Any further reasons as may be raised prior to or during the appeal hearing scheduled for this matter. - The appellant hereby requests that the City Council disapprove of this project on the basis that the environmental documentation violates CEQA for those reasons stated in this notice of appeal and the attachments bereto. ,nP30 zis�rozs356-oaoi SI6699.D7 aO6/DUDS -- - ----- R v TA David B.Cosgrove Direct t1i,YP 17 Ill 063-16112 9r TrOR ki )-% AT LAW E-❑ i;,dcosgro1u'ur ISM,ILIM January 29, 2007 VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS Jay Ulivas Planning Department County of Riverside 2nd Floor,Room 211 82-675 Highway I 1 I Indio,CA 92201 Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dillon Wind Project, Riverside County WIECS 116 and 117, General Plan Amendment No. 811. Change of Zone Nos. 7346 and 7449, Variance Nos. 1797 and 1798, City of Palm Springs CUP 5JU,and Variance 6.493 Dear Mr. Olivas: ,I-his office,and the undersigned in particular, represent the Estate of Reba Wolf,the owner of the property located immediately notch of the area designated as Area 3 in the Draft Environmental Impact Report("DEIR")referenced above. My client was given until January 31, 20U7, to provide these comments, and appreciates this accommodation, My client opposes this project for a number of reasons, My client's property, and the property for the proposed project,particularly Area 3,presently serve as a transitional buffer between more intensive,established wind energy uses to the west,and the area cast of Indian -Avenue, on which wind energy production facilities are prohibited, As such, this area retains a number of characteristics of its open,desert nature, particularly the broad and sweeping view sheds to the San Jacinto and San Gorgonio mountains. The proposed project tuns roughshod over any notion of transitioning the environmentally intrusive wind energy uses to the west,with the more natural and scenic areas to the cast- It does so by essentially cramming the maximum possible number of turbines --33-story,400 foot wide megastructures-- up the very limits of where axisting law permits them to be, and in many cases beyond those limits. It dues so based on an environmental analysis that turns a blind eye to a host of very real environmental impacts, which it glosses over with insufficient analysis and extrapolated evidence, Moreover, the DEIR attempts to justify the environmental intrusiveness of the proposed project with an assertion of air quality and other environmental benefits from displaced pollution kom fossil fuels, These benefits are based on exaggerated production from the project's proposed facilities,a complete disregard for the limitations of the cutrcnt electrical grid to utilir_e what power the project can generate,overstated figures on pollutants generated by I,to e. '4 + I !], i fill Anion a1vu 's 0P'` 1400 �, r.ln Me4,r UA 921,.C6 n^ i3-• P, ,J ':• '.II CA '126D8.19,50 1 714 od 1•61 U11 1 f 'iY ;14-5,.8 !RU'7'. I7 Nlnl ?i.:': '_'J..r 4w r, rut l(i corp "F:191 42 0_'Agtl 1:•oU: RUTAN Jay Oliva$ January 29,2007 Page 2 existing sources,and an entirely theoretical presumption that wind power generated by the project will somehow displace fossil fuel generation. These series of fictions are the sole basis the DER uses to dismiss what limited and"insufficient project alternatives it does examine. The DEIR therefore offers no reasonable basis for the County to conclude that the project proposed is actually the environmentally superior alternative. The County of Riverside Planning Department itself has already exposed the fallacy of the DEIR's presumed beneficial impacts. In its WECS policy memorandum, dated October 2, 2003,to the Board of Supervisors,Mr.Robert C. Johnson listed no less than five hurdles of speculation wind energy advocates were relying on to argue the exact type of pollution avoidance benefits this project now claims. These are: 1. How the engineered capacity of WECS projects translate into actual-energy output, which varies considerably depending upon weather patterns. 2. Whether a replacement source would indeed be necessary, which depends on future market conditions, weather, and energy efficient technology. 3. The market conditions and technical feasibility of various replacement options. 4. The polluting potential of various replacement options,which varies depending un the energy source chosen by the energy project proponent. 5, The precise location of replacement energy sources and that location's prevailing meteorological conditions, which depends on the decisions of future energy project proponents and weather.i That same memorandum goes on to identify the serious aesthetic impacts attributable to WECS facilities,their threat to regional tourist revenues, and the destruction WECS development creates to specialized desert habitats,vegetation, and wildlife. (Id„ at pp.4, T) The County had it right in 2003, and this DEIR offers no logical or evidentiary basis for reversing itself. This project is poorly conceived, environmentally insensitive,and jarringly inconsistent with prevailing land use designations and regulations. Indeed, one need only look at the string of General Plan Amendments, Variances, and other land use special privileges the applicant needs to request, to see that this is an exercise in pounding a round peg into a square hole. 1 Sec, Memorandum from Robert C. Johnson to Honorable Board of Supervisors, dated October 2,2003,Tab 1, p. 15-16. 11'AI:2515e�po1 42167 U 40I::nW `a C, RUTAN , ,�rv,V ,. ,w Jay Ohvas January 29, 2007 Page 3 The specific areas of deficiencies we have found in the DEIR and its analysis,and the evidence refuting the DEIR's analysis and unsupported conclusions,are included under separate headings belcw. I. Proiect Desertion and Objectives An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative and legally sufficient EIR. (County of Inyo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Ca1.App.3d 185, 193.) A curtailed or distorted project description can stultify the objectives of the environmental impact report's reporting process. Only through an accurate view of the project may affected outsiders and public decision makers balance the proposal's benefits against its environmental costs, consider mitigation measures, and assess the advantages of terminating the proposal 1 i.e., the "no project"alternative)and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (Id.,at 192-193.) The DEIR's project description fails in this important task, both because it contains internally contradictory statements, and because it leaves too many aspects of the project, upon which serious environmental impacts turn, unspecified. One example is with respect to fencing. At p. 4-$ and 4-16, the DEIR indicates that security fences "may be installed," Such installation would effect both aesthetics and biology, in terms both of creating available places for bird perching and potential barriers to wildlife movement- If security fences are a pact of the project, they need to be specified, as to dimension, configuration,and location, in order for impacts to be assessed. In addition, the project description omits critical components of the proposed wind turbine design and operation. For example, each turbine has 186 tons of weight, 400 tons of concrete foundation, generates 107 decibels of sound, and has up to 142.5 mph blade speed. More important, each turbine extends up to 327 feet in height. These ominous statistics are buried in the WECS project application? 'they should be included as part of the project description. The meteorological towers included in the project are another item of uncertainly. Referenced at p. 4-14 of the DEIR, the number and precise location of these meteorological towers is not specified, It is therefore impossible to assess view impacts, impacts from shadow, and potential avian perching tendencies and subsequent impact on species and habitat, from these structures. Nor are these towers merely incidental In its approval of Plot Plan No. 21093, the County allowed a meteorological tower on the project area to be built to height of 193 feet. The DEIR proposes additional towers some 32 feet higher. This important component of the project must be described and assessed, Z See Tab 2, pp. 4-5, 59,02$k%0001 'K:187 02 M,211 b1 RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 4 The same uncertainty occurs with the utility interconnection facilities the project will implement. Referenced at pp. 4-8 and 4.16 through, 4-17, these facilities are apparently to be some 40-50 feet in height, within 400 feel of right-of-way. The routes on these interconnection facilities need to be specified and depicted, to assess what impacts they will have, and what mitigation is required. In addition, the DEIR seems to leave open the issue of whether electrical transmission lines created by the project will be above ground or below ground. This "hedge" appears in a number of places in the DEIR. For example, at p. 1-1, the Executive Summary indicates the three areas will be connected electrically by an underground electrical collector cable system connecting to an new substation_ At p. 2-3 of the Biological Assessment in the Appendices, however, the DEIR states that the substation electrical collectors will be either by underground or overhead collector cable systems. Page 4-2 references "underground or overhead electrical transmission and communication lines," Page 4-16 references offsite construction of"about 3-2 miles of underground or overhead collector cables." The placement of the electrical transmission and collector lines the project will utilize, whether overhead or underground, has serious environmental consequences. Overhead lines would create view impacts, provide an attraction 'for migratory birds and raptors, potentially increase avian mortality, have electromagnetic field . implications, and impact interference with radio and television transmission signals. The precise plan for the location and nature of all such lines must be included in the project description. The DEIR's description of turbine color is internally contradictory. At p. 4-13, the turbine color is listed as white, but in assessing aesthetic impact, at p. 6,1-1, the DEIR says that they will be a pale gray or off-white color, The FAA has already required all turbines to be painted a "bright white color." (Appendix C,p. 3.) This inconsistency must be remedied and the aesthetic impacts must be assessed, not with respect to The originally proposed, muted gray or off-white coloring" but the actual bright white coloring that the project apparently now must adopt. There is also some question whether the project description has appropriately characterized the areas of ground disturbance_ Page 4-18 indicates the cleared compacted area around each turbine would be approximately 200 feet, but does not indicate whether this is a rounded foundation, square, rectangular or other configuration. One would presume it is round, because of the reference of a diameter of 49 feet. This should be specified. In addition, the C'ounty's approval of Plot Plan No. 21093 included a requirement of vegetation clearing for a 10 foot radius around all transformers and wind turbine towers.a The areas of calculated disturbance for each proposed turbine should therefore include this 10 toot additional area already required by The County, a See-Fab 3. I sn vlsJ s+-aun i l_!!r.' '1+ u RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 5 There is also some uncertainty with respect to the strobe lighting to be placed on the turbines. The DEIR, at p. 4-15, indicates that"up to" 17 turbines would be lit, Appendix C, p. 3, indicates that the FAA requires all 17 to be lit. At p. 4-19, the project description references maintenance and a need for cranes. It is my understanding these are not ordinary cranes, but rather super-sized cranes commensurate with the outsized dimensions of the wind turbines themselves. The specification of the type of cranes that " will be brought on to the property, their height and weight, and their ability to access the site with existing roadways must be identified and described, for aesthetic, transportation, and safety impacts analysis. There is also an indication at p. 6-3-27 that one of the collector routes will cross the Garnett Wash, which is habitat for the threatened Coachella Valley Fringe Toed Lizard. The DEIR project description must specify what collector routes are being proposed and will be pursued, including the one impacting Garnett Wash- 2. Existing Environment. The DEIR is somewhat inaccurate in its characterization of the existing environment and project surroundings, At p.4-6,it indicates that Area 1 previously contained WECS facilities, but this is misleading. There may be certain foundations and concrete block structures, but no WECS turbines or generation facilities were there at the time of the baseline condition. Indeed, p. 6.1-17 indicates that there are no WECS where the project now proposes to place them. This inaccuracy is apparently designed to characterize the project area as already hopelessly overrun with the industrial uses and the detrimental environmental impacts of existing WECS uses, but this simply is not the case. 'Mere are a number of residential uses,proposed and underway, for this area. The Skyborne residential development is being constructed at State Route 62 and Pierson, which is a master-planned residential community.a I understand that other residential projects are being proposed for the area by Mayer-Luce and Roger SneMriberger. Alpine Development is also contemplating a residential development on Pierson Avenue's south side. A ten acre combination of retail and residential uses, called Center Point, is also advertised near the project site. (See,Tab 4.) The DEIR should fairly characterize the surrounding General Plan uses and zoning of the property in the area of the project,and not just Areas 1, 3 and 5 themselves. Moreover, there should be some description of all development proposals, including informal consultations that 4 A brochure put out by D.K. Horton, the developer of the project, explaining its character is attached at Tab 4. 1%,02IM-naal 78:IB^02 aalC�b� t: Q-11 RUTAN � i'W VY` •f .•i Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 6 have occurred with County Planning staff, for development within a 1-2 mile radius of the project site,as pad of the cumulative impacts analysis. Such additional information would reflect the transitional buffer this area serves from existing WECS facilities to the areas east of Indian Avenue, where no WECS facilities are permitted, In addition, the existing environment section should contain some explanation of flight paths and the potential for navigational interference from overflights with the Palm Springs Intemational Airport_ The DEIR's assertion that risks to both aircraft safety and national defense capabilities have been eliminated by the move of radar facilities to Edom Hill(DEIR, p. 6.6-1) is inadequate, since those facilities have apparently now been moved back to the Palm Springs International Airport. In addition, the assertion that the area only constitutes 2%of Palm Springs' delegated air space unrealistically minimizes its significance to air traffic. A better explanation needs to be furnished of flight pattems in and around of the Airport, to provide a mare accurate picture of the impact to the location and frequency of air traffic corridors actually used. 3- band Use Impacts. It appears that the proposed project has improperly invoked Fast Track processing at the County. The Fast"Track rules promulgated by the Economic Development Agency on March 7, 2003, Board Policy'A-32, indicate that no applications requiring an EIR are eligible for such processing s The very existence of the DEIR,and the Fast'riuck nature of the application, seem to point up a processing irregularity for this project. Spearheading the project with review by the Airport Land Use Commission,which occurred on November 9,2006, also seems inappropriate. It is questionable how the ALUC could assess environmental impacts, including navigational interference and national defense implications, before the environmental disclosure document for the project was released on December 1,2006. Moreover, Areas 1 and 3 are located within the Desert blot Springs sphere of influence. As the County is certainly aware,the City of Desert Hat Springs has passed a resolution stating its opposition to the project, and has called upon the Riverside County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors to deny further windmill applications within the City of Desert Hot Springs' sphere of influence,based in part on the environmental costs associated with the placement and operation of wind turbines and their destruction of the desert flora and tauna.° 5 See Tab 5, p. 2. See Resolution No. 2006-134, at Tab 6. s,,,u:+Isnainnl -92IRS 02 401 Pm,1 Ii1��� RIUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 7 ,T'he DEIR makes reference to the San Gorgonio Wind Energy Community Policy Area, alleging consistency. Policy PASS 63 from that document indicates otherwise. It requires other renewable resources, including solar generators,to complement wind energy uses, This project creates a proliferation of wind energy turbines and precludes devotion of the project area to such alternative renewable energy uses. Policy PASS 6.3 also calls for limited industrial/commercial uses to be integrated with existing wind parks,consistent with residential uses. This project accomplishes none of that and, in fact, requires safety and scenic setback variances that are inconsistent with residential uses. Page 5-9 of the DEIR asserts that the project addresses the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Energy policies,but nowhere recognizes its inconsistency with Policy PASS 6.3. At p. 5-4,the DEIR reaches the somewhat Orwellian conclusion that the project is consistent with the Rural Foundation Component for Areas 1 and 3. According to the RC IP,the Rural Foundation Component is for"remote cabins, residential estates, limited agriculture, equestrian,and animal keeping uses." The noise,vibration and disturbances of WECS turbines is totally inconsistent with these uses. On Area 3, the Community Development Foundation Component calls for"urban and suburban development." The WECS use is inconsistent with these as well. The W-2 uses listed at pp-5-11 and 5-12 of the DEIR— For dwellings, light agricultural, grazing of farm animals, and animal husbandry—are similarly inconsistent. The land use consistency of the project must be assessed against not only existing,but also proposed, uses for the area, The very fact that the project needs to change General Plan designations,safety setbacks, habitable dwelling setbacks,and scenic setbacks says all one needs to know about the project's consistency with existing land use regulations. Moreover, the land use section of the DEIR points out a Fundamental flaw running through the entire document. At p. 5-11, in connection with the wind access setback of 1007 feet, it states"'Without a variance allowing greater space between turbine strings, an economically viable project could not be developed."7 This broad and dubious assertion is completely unsupported by any evidence. Mere increased costs or decreased profits do not ipso Jacro lead to a conclusion of infeasibility. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1988) 197 Ca1,App.3d 1167, 1181.) If infeasibility is to be asserted, it must be supported with spceilic financial information. This holds true both for the asserted infeasibility of mitigation measures and for project alternatives. The DEIR is wholly deficient in providing this required evidcnLiary support. The project attempts to secure a variance from the scenic highway setback on the basis that Highway 62 has reduced scenic value. (See, DEIR p. 5-11.) The DEIR's own view study 7 The same economic viability argument is invoked in rcjection of each one of the alternatives listed under Section 9 of the DEIR. H 19412515611001 18e 11701 AI 2"7 174 RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page & contradicts this conclusion. At p 6.1-19, the"before project" photo of KOP-3 belies any assertion that there is a"reduced scenic value"in the existing condition.k The DEIR similarly fails to indicate any justification for waiver from the setback requirements from habitable structures, It is important to note that all habitable structures here are in the immediate vicinity of Area 3, which supports a need for a project alternative that abandons any WF,CS turbines in Area 3 whatsoever, There is no asserted justification for this variance,other than existing utility constraints and the alleged economic viability of the project, neither of which is supported by any type of evidence or alternatives analysis. in addition, waiver of setbacks to habitable dwellings creates a serious safety issue. Turbines do catch fire, as demonstrated by an attached Press-Enterprise article dated July 8,2006.9 Tliat article records an eye-witness account of a WECS turbine fire with"chunks of burning fiberglass the size of an egg raining down,"and noxious fumes. This was a real-world occurrence,not a fear of what might happen. It speaks strongly to preserving the integrity of the habitable dwelling setback requirements. 4, Aesthetics. The DEiR's sole admission of significant adverse environmental impact is to aesthetics, .and oven that admission is grudging, and too narrow. The County has already determined "The development of WECS entails significant environmental impacts to air quality, visual resources, wildlife,and ambient noise. (Tab 1,p.4; emphasis added.) In addition, Appendix G to the CEQA regulations specifically references rock outcroppings and State scenic highways as features which are presumptively significant for aesthetic impacts. Both arc implicated with this Project. The Dl IR's aesthetic view analysis is based on an unduly restrictive study. That study takes only six points of view, none of which includes the view impacts from my client's property, immediately north of Area 3, looking southward. Nor are there any view analyses from Pierson Avenue,which the DEIR acknowledges at p. 6,15 as a designated scenic corridor in the Western Coachella Valley Plan. Any fair analysis of aesthetic impacts must include impacts to these view sheds. s To remedy this and other deficiencies in the DEIR's aesthetics impacts analysis, we are submitting a DVD of recorded views and vistas in and around the project area, including views taken from a car traveling north on State Route 62,and east on Pierson. It is attached under'i•ab 7. This video record demonstrates the exact quality of views in the area from a number of different vantage points, not merely the six selected for the limited DEiR view study. This video record refutes any characterization the DEIR attempts to make of"reduced scenic value" for this area. 9 Attached as Tab 8- ;U I m%_,75o•ualu iN; Y<2 nut."-U7 I ,o RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29, 2007 Page 9 In an attempt to remedy this truncated analysis,we. are submitting a DVD transcription of a video taken on January 10,2007,of the project area and its environs. This DVD,attached under Tab 7, shows a number of important aspects of the site and its characteristics.all of which will be impacted aesthetically by the project. There are view angles taken from a standing ground view, Crum the northwest comer of Area 3 looking southeasterly, and from Indian Avenue looking westerly. The DVD contains extended footage of a view from a passenger car traveling northward on State Route 62,and traveling eastward on Pierson Avenue. It also contains views of Area 5 and Area 1,and indicates surrounding developments, including the Skybome development, signs announcing additional commercial and residential development, and an example of the type of aesthetic impact we can expect from this project by looking at existing WECS facilities right next to Area 3, with security fencing and loose parts stored on the grotmd. Perhaps more to the point, the DVD shows what the DE1R's view analysis conspicuously avoids—the relationship of the existing meteorological tower and background mountain views. This meteorological tower was approved to be built to 193 feet by Plot Plan 21093. The meteorological tower is an incomplete reference for view impacts, because it is at least 134 feet 'lower than each of the proposed WKS towers,and has no lateral turbine rotors to blot out views. Still, view depictions including the tower show it extends significantly above scenic mountain skyline views. This paints a troubling picture of the significance of view impacts from the project's proposed arrays of much larger,more intrusive WECS towers, from all viewing angles, The significance of all of these view impacts must be recognized, assessed,and mitigated. In an attempt to minimize the impacts of these views, the DE1R characterizes the importance of scenic vistas on the valley floor as"less critical." (DEIR, p, 6.1-6.) Again, refutation of this point comes from the County itself, Areas in the San Gorgonio Pass that are located on flat terrain on the valley flour, which were described above as "less critical,"can still be very important to the visual character of the area. This depends largely on where such areas of flat terrain are located. If flat terrain areas are located in the foreground of important view sheds or in high traffic areas, the blanket designation "less critical"may not be appropriate. Studies of existing WECS development on flat terrain indicate That this development can have a significant impact on visual resources in the area.10 See, Tab 1, p. 6, 159 0;'3?400ff1 �, RUTAN r„L.,.. , Jay Otivas January 29, 2007 Page 10 The same is true here. The broad views of the San Jacinto and San Gorgonio mountains from the project area and the high traffic areas of State Route 62, Indian Avenue, and Pierson refute the`less critical"designation this DEIR relies upon_ In addition, the DEIR is completely silent on impacts of shadows from the large WECS turbines the project proposes. Perhaps not coincidentally, all photos included in the DEIR were taken on a stormy day,when lighting conditions were muted and shadows were indistinct. (DEIR,p. 6.1-15.) This is suspect,and offers an incomplete picture of impacts. The effects of shadows,particularly those from broad, moving rotors,are important, and cannot be ignored as part of the project's impact analysis. In her article "Wind Turbine Syndrome. Noise, Shadow Flicker,and Health,"Nina Pietpont,M.D., Ph.D., talks about the health impacts of"shadow flicker"from the moving shadows cast by rotating turbines. She indicates that such shadows can trigger migraine headaches,vertigo,or epileptic seizures., Such impacts are too important to be ignored,12 In an effort to fill the complete evidentiary void the DEIR creates on this issue, my office conducted a field study of shadows in the area on January 24, 2007. In the absence of a 327 foot structure, shadows were measured from an existing telephone pole at various times throughout the day. The results of this shadow study are attached under Tab 11. Calculated from field measurements,the height of the phone pole was 33 feet. This pale cast a shadow as far as 1980 feet, at 7:46 a.m. By simple arithmetic calculation,a WECS tower of almost 330 feet would therefore cast a shadow of 19,800 feet,or over tGree and three quarter miles. The DEIR should undertake a shadow analysis, at a minimum using these figures,and more properly undertaking a full formal analysis of the shadow range of each one of the 47 WECS turbines proposed, under both winter and summer sun conditions. Only then can the full aesthetic impact,including the strobe effect of shadows from rotating turbines, be realistically assessed. Further, what mitigation measures are proposed for aesthetic impacts are vague. The contribution to the WIMP, referenced at p. 6.1-29, does not provide any identifiable mitigation standard against which the project proponent's performance can be assessed, or any real mitigation at all. Mere contribution to a funding of a future study may be an appropriate condition of approval, but it is not mitigation. Further, the mitigation measure for onsite lighting Sec, Tab 9,p. 8-9_ Similar conclusions were offered by Jon Boone before the Maryland Public Utilities Commission in testimony given July 25, 2005. Mr. Boone indicated that shadow impacts affect nearby residences, and can cause sickness or nausea. (Tab 10. p. 3I j The shadow impacts are potentially significant,on both existing and potential future housing, and impact wildlife as well. '8219'02 A 1,:9 07 RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page I states: "The brightness of this lighting sball be kept relatively low," (DEIR,p.6.1-28.) This is impermissibly vague. What type of lighting will be utilized? How low will the lighting be kept? Relative to what? Again,some type of standard must be set for mitigation performance,and the mitigation monitoring program must set up an effective,discernible way to assess whether the identificd measure has been met_ 5, Biological Impacts. The DEIR concludes that there will be no significant impacts to any biological resources. With all due respect, the Biological Assessment relied upon to reach this conclusion is inadequate. Appendix E,p. 3-4, says all field work for the Biological Assessment occurred from March 23,2006 to July 24,2006. Page 3-5 says wildlife surveys began in March 2006, but fails to identify what specific surveys were done when. A survey of literature and resource agency guidelines indicates this falls far short of the type of biological data collection required to properly assess biological impacts from a proposed wind farm development. The California Energy Commission has issued its"Assessment of Avian Mortality From Collisions and Electrocutions,"dated June 2005,attached tinder Tab 12. It is a comprehensive study pointing up the dangers of wind turbines to birds, including threatened and endangered species. That report recites a number of dangers that the DEIR dues not address, and deficiencies the DEIR does not remedy. For example, it indicates that information collected by utilities to date may be grossly underestimating impacts to avian resources in California. (Tab 12, p, 2.) Up to 85%of collisions and electrocutions may be undetected. (Tab 12,p.4) It also indicates that wind turbines kill disproportionately large numbers of golden eagles,red-tailed hawks, burrowing owls,and other raptors. (Tab 12,p. 14.) Virtually every bird killed by wind turbines results in a violation of Federal or State law and regulations. (Tab 12, p. 25.) Further, the expansion of rotor-swept areas of turbine blades puts even more birds at risk of collision. (Tab 12, p. 3.) The DEIR apparently attempts to cover the paucity of its field data, by reference to an earlier study of avian use of the San Gorgonio Pass area conducted by Dick Anderson,and an August 31, 2006 letter attached to the Biological Assessment as Appendix E. Unfortunately, neither of these provide any evidence of the nature, range, or expected species distribution of likely avian fatalities from the project. As the CEC has pointed out, the Anderson study did not estimate bird fatality due to the high uncertainty of long search intervals, and the unknown impact of scavenging rates. (Tab 12, pp. 20-21.) Moreover,Mr.Anderson's vague, conelusory statements that he believes-'bird fatalities will be low"offers no quantitative analysis, point of reference,or other evidentiary support for what Mr. Anderson might consider to be low,and what kind of birds are involved.) Indeed, Anderson himself acknowledges that there will be 17 For example, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has no provision for any take, such I5v1_'S75n•n1,01 'U I s"tO A 1Q4,117 RUTAN Tay Olivas January 29, 2007 Page 12 red-tailed hawk and burrowing owl fatalities from the project. (Biological Assessment, Appendix F.) More broadly, he admits the failure of his 2004 study to serve as a basis for predicting bird fatalities: It would be difficult to extrapolate the number of bird fatalities in San Gorgonio per year from our data due to long intervals between carcass searches at each carcass search site. If I were starting the research today, I would search fewer sites more often. I( d-) This admittedly flawed study therefore cannot serve as substantial evidence supporting the extrapolated conclusion of 1.3 bird strikes per year, per turbine, appearing in the Biological Assessment at p. 5-8. More fundamentally, the assignation of a ratio of bird kills per turbine is flawed analytical methodology. This was demonstrated in the California Energy Commission's "Response to Public Comment on the Staff Report Titled 'Assessment of Avian Mortality From Collisions and Electrocutions' (CEC-700-2005-015) (Avian White Paper) written in support of the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report:'1° There, the CEC found that for avian studies of the duration that have been done for San Gorgonio,and taking into consideration statistical confidence intervals, estimates of fatalities per turbine dipped below zero. (Tab 14, pp. 10-13;28-29.) As the CEC staff noted, this is absurd. WECS turbines kill birds; they do not create them. The CEC critique points up the fundamental inaccuracy of the primary artifice the DEIR uses to estimate avian impacts from the project. The CEC recommends a significantly more detailed protocol for siting wind turbines and reducing impacts to avian species. It references the U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service Interim Guidance, which calls for a three-year baseline survey and avoidance measures (such as seasonal shutdown)when there are concentrations of bird use at the sites, (Tab 12,p. 8-) The"Service Interim Guidance On Avoiding And Minimizing Wildlife Impacts From Wind Turbines"'are attached under Tab 15. Those guidelines call for an average of three years of monitoring data, including acoustic, radar,infrared,or observational monitoring to be collected. (Tab 15, p. 4.) The five months of data collected here falls far short of that three-year standard. In addition, the DEIR finds that there is bat foraging habitat onsite. (DEIR, p. 6.3-23.) According to the CEC, bat surveys should be done from April through October. (Tab 12, p. 16.) that any golden eagle fatality would be considered significant, (Tab 12, p. 7.) At least one local homeowner in the area indicates personal observation of golden eagles in the area, and the negative impact WECS facilities have had in driving them away. (See e-mail front Abby Silverstone dated January 9. 2007,attached as Tab 13.) 14 Attached as Tab 14. 15,1 3s°.oiwi e:i s+nz nmsm; 3�1n'1,`j�Cd RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 13 Here, no bat surveys of any type were done, and no surveys of any type were done during the fall,for either bird or bat species. The DEIR's flawed studies, leading to conclusions of low bird use of the project area, are refuted by the Los Angeles Audubon Society, Its letter of June 9,2006, to the California Energy Commission,cites studies indicating that an estimated 70,000,000 songbirds pass through the San Gorgonio Pass annually. (Tab 16,p,2) It also indicates such songbirds are most vulnerable to collision in the two or three hours after sunset,as they begin night migratory activity. The DEIR contains no study, discussion,or assessment of nighttime avian activity in the project area, since its field observations were limited to daytime,personal observations.ls The Audubon Society recommends use of existing radar data to assess night bird use of proposed wind turbine sites_ which should be required of the project applicant here- The significance of the likely avian mortality cannot simply be willed away. The DEIR indicates there are likely to be no collisions from burrowing owls because they forage low to the ground. (DEIR,p. 6.3-39.) Mr.Anderson himself indicates there will be burrowing owl fatalities in his"Comments Regarding the Dillon Wind Project." (See,Biological Assessment, Appendix E. See also,Tab 12, p. 14.) The DEIR also makes the totally unsupportable assertion that bird deaths will be lowered by a larger rotor with slower revolutions per minute(RPMs). (See, DEIR p. 1-8.) According to respected experts on bird mortality, the true determinants are tip speed, rotor invisibility due to tip speed,and rotor swept area. Tip speed is determined from RPM plus blade length, not RPM alone. (See, G.G.Thelander, Smallwood, K.S.,and L. Rugge; Bird Risk Behaviors and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area; Period of Performance: March 1998—December 2000, December 2003;NRELISR-500-33829 [Tab 17, pp. 27-281; National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting IV; Meeting Summary;May 16-17, 2000; Carmel, California[Tab 18,p.3].) The 19.8 RPM cited as relatively harmless in the DEIR (DEIR, p. 1-8 ) is therefore meaningless. The real statistic,and the real threat, is three rotor blades of some fifteen total tons, moving at 142.5 miles per hour. Evolution has yet to produce a bird,or any living creature, that can withstand a blow of this force. The biological deficiencies in the DEIR arc not limited to bird analyses, however, For example, the DEIR.p. 6.3-20 indicates no impact to the Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard because of a lack of preferred habitat- Nevertheless, at p. 6.3-6, the figure shows the Fringe- Toed Lizard area as a big part of Area 1, and a portion of Area 3. In addition,p. 3-6 of the Biological Assessment states blowsand transport to the White Water Flood Plain Reserve could 11 The Biological Assessment, at p. 3-6, indicates that the avian surveys were limited to•four dates. of approximately 30 minutes each. It also references an illustration of the areas observed as being depicted in Fig- 2, which is not attached to the Appendix. IFI.0].SIfF-00111 79115702.01.29.0Y fly I RU.TAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 14 be impacted by the project, which contains Coachella Valley Fringe-Toed Lizard habitat. These inconsistencies must be reconciled. In addition,the DEIR states that no special plant species occur on the site based upon a pedestrian field investigation. (DEIR, p. 6.3-16) It is questionable whether the Field investigation referenced is sufficient to determine the existence of these species. The US, Fish & Wildlife Service is currently undergoing a spectral analysis from satellite imagery in connection with habitat characterization for the San Bernardino Wash Plan Habitat Conservation Plan- This technique takes enhanced satellite imagery and characterizes habitat based on a spectral analysis of superior satellite imagery. This type of analysis should be undertaken in the existing context,to be sure that any special plant species which occur on this site have been identified. The DLIR also seems to duck the issue of delineation of jurisdictional waters,and whether a 404 permit will be required. Informal consultation with Mr. Sheridan, referenced at DEIR p. 6.3-27, is not sufficient- A specific delineation should be done to determine if any areas of project impact come under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers or the Department of Fish& Game. If 404 or Streambed Alteration Permit is required, it must be identified as one of the discretionary approvals this DEIR is intended to cover. More broadly,the DEW adopts erroneous thresholds of significance for biological impacts. Reliance on areas identified as mitigation areas in the proposed Coachella Valley 1vISHCP has nothing to do with specific impacts to specific species,on this site, from this specific project. Significantly more field work and correlation of project features to biological resources,,zither found on the site or likely to use it, are required. The impacts to Sonora Creosote Bush Scrub communities is also insufficient. Areas of lubricant spills,drippings, and road areas need to be calculated within the 27 acres of disturbance. In addition, the disruption is not to 27 contiguous acres, but over 1500 acres. Interruptions in the continuity of habitat must be assessed, not just a tallied acreage of "checkerboard"disturbances, that ignore the impacts to the spaces in between_ Page 6.3.30 of the DEIR indicates that three-strand barbed wire fencing is`likely." This statement offers no real information. T-he DEIR must indicate whether security Fencing or this type of barbed wire fencing will be used, and where. In order for those using the DEIR to balance security,view, and biological impacts,more information is required. The DEER is also devoid of data on the assertion at p• 6.3-34 that there will be no noise impact to wildlife. The claim is particularly suspicious given the 107 decibel rating the manufacturer gives to these turbines. (Tab 2, p. 5.) It is also refuted by personal, first-hand observation by residents. (Tab 11) I510$cJSh-4UU1 %X;I r'IC aU 1.3Y U7 RUTAN n i ,vl, ,' I,z .lay Qlivas January 29,2007 Page 15 6. Geolocv/Soils. At p_ 5-3,the DEIR shows that the project site is susceptible to subsidence. This is a particular concern with the interaction of proposed turbines and the Southern California Gras high-pressure gas line traversing Area 3. A potential leak or rupture of the gas line can combine with heat,oil, or Friction of turbines to create a fire or explosion hazard. There should be some recognition of this risk,and proposed mitigation for it and any potential failure collapse of any of the proposed WECS turbines. The risk is made more acute by the high seismic vulnerability of the site acknowledged in the DEIR. (See,DEIR Appendix F, Executive Summary.) Mitigation Measure 6 at p. 6,5-7 of the DEIR states "Preventative measures to reduce seasonal flooding and erosion should be incorporated into site grading plans." This is again impermissibly vague. There is no indication of what specific preventative measures are even suggested,nor any statement of a standard to which the project applicant must be held in mitigating what impacts there are. Page 6.5-9,and its reference to flooding,suffers from the same defect. It states"If significant changes are proposed for the site, appropriate project design, construction and maintenance can minimize the site sheet flooding potential." This statement is meaningless. It describes no project Features,assesses no impacts, and identifies no mitigation. Given that at least 27 acres will be converted to impermeable surfaces, increased runoff should be quantified, and a specific drainage plan should be included, 7. Noise. The DEIR contains no measurement, analysis, or discussion whatsoever for the project's noise impact on biological resources,only for human receptors. (DEIR,p. 6.7-2) Under CEQA, there must be a finding of significance if a project will "expose persons to or generate excessive groandborne vibration or groundborne noise levels. (CEQA Regs., Appendix G.)There are no vibrations studies whatsoever in the DEIR,and no noise measurements,only references to technical specifications from the manufacturer. From this, it is impossible to determine what noise or vibration impacts there may be to biological resources,and both must be analyzed. The impact of noise to humans is given short shrift as well. Anthony Rogers, Ph.D., • presented a study indicating the appropriate rule of thumb for noise setbacks to the nearest residence is three times the blade tip heippht, which is consistent with existing County setback requirements in Section 18,41(d)(1)(a).1' The project proposes a variance to bring turbines as close as 544.75 Feet Any reduction from this accepted industry standard on noise impacts should be considered significant. 16 See, Wind Turbine Noise, Jnfrawand and Noise Perc•epflon,January 18, 2006,Tab 19. IYykT q1 d01r_9u19 4 f RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 16 The safety of even this standard is questionable, however_ In"Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise."by Nina Pierpont, M.D.,Ph.D.,a minimum setback distance of 1.5 miles is called for because of the effects of all noise, including low frequency sound, from industrial wind turbines. (See Tab 20,p. 2) Dr. Pierpont's conclusions were based on the"Guidelines for Community Noise" issued by the World I•lealth Organisation in 1999. (See Tab 21.) Finally, given the existing General Plan designations(which include Community Development), the project's noise impacts should not be assessed only with respect to existing residential dwellings, but also any potential residential development consistent with existing coning on surrounding properties,as a cumulative impact. The project should not be afforded the opportunity to preclude residential development, or reduce its value on surrounding properties,simply because it is first in time. S. Cumulative Impacts. The DEIR should undertake an analysis of the impact of prior WECS development in other areas of the San(Gorgonio Pass on surrounding development. It should assess whether the project's expansion of WECS uses will impair or inhibit development of surrounding properties, specifically for the rural and residential uses that are called for under the existing foundation components. It should also assess what value impact the WECS development has on surrounding homes and properties. In addition, the DEIR should assess impact from potential turbine blade throw, and identify the zone of potential blade throw for all proposed WECS turbines. There must be some evidentiary support for the claim made in the WECS application that"blade throw of 150 feet is highly unlikely." (Tab 2, p, 5) The DEIR should also acknowledge and assess the cumulative visual impact of the FAA- Nquired red strobe lights on the towers. The V.S. Fish& Wildlife Service indicates these lights should not be used,since they appear to attract night-migrating birds at a much higher raze than white strobe lights. (Tab 15,p, 4.) The DEIR is silent on this impact,since it undertakes no night time avian use analysis. The cumulative biological impacts of the FAA-required use of red strobe lights should be acknowledged,and assessed. At p. 6.1-29,the DEIR cites FAA safety concerns as overriding the acknowledged cumulative visual impact of warning lights. This fails to address the potential mitigation measure of reduction in the number of turbines, or relocation of the turbines,to mitigate, In addition, while the FAA requirement was that 17 turbines be lit, nothing in Appendix C indicates the specific location of the turbines which are required to be lit. This is necessary for-an assessment of all impacts from the required strobe lighting, including cumulative impacts. I STiV35351•VUVI • .3'197 02 011'9107 01 RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 17 9. Alternatives and Project Objectives Me DEIR includes a project objective of taking advantage of economies of scale on projects sized above 25 MW. (DE1Tt pp.4-6.) There is no financial data supporting this implicit assertion that projects above 25 MW involve economies of scale, or that there is any need to take advantage of them in connection with this project. The DEIR must,have this evidence if it is to rely on fulfillment of this project objective as a justification for the proposed project, and the rejection of alternatives, in the face of significant adverse environmental effects, The DEIR's alternatives analysis is deficient in a number of important respects. First, there is no assessment or discussion of any potential alternative locations. DEIR p 6.3-33 indicates there are 3500 turbines on 20 square miles in the San Gorgonio Pass and the Upper Coachella Valley. The October 2, 2003 WECS policy memo says there are 35,000 total acres available. (Tab 1, p. 14.) "Twenty square miles is 12,800 acres, The DEIR offers no explanation why, with 22.000 other acres available,additional WECS from this project must be sited immediately adjacent to Indian Avenue, the outer limit of any WECS development, and immediately adjacent to existing residences. The DEIR should also include an alternative that proposes only repowering existing WECS sites that have fallen into disrepair,on non-use, The DEIR relies on the S13 1078's energy goal of 20°fo renewable energy by 2017. (DEIR, p. 4-6.) This objective could equally he met by an alternative of repowering existing WECS sites which have become outmoded, or otherwise fallen out of productivity, A repowering option would advance all energy production objectives, without exacerbating the environmental impacts of additional expansion of WECS turbines into areas where none previously existed. Such repowering would also avoid the existing utility transmission facility and easement constraints identified at DEIR, pp.5-10 to 5- 13, as justification for setback variances. At a minimum, the DEIR should consider an alternative which has no WECS turbines on Area 3. "this alternative would minimize impact to existing habitable dwellings,since all those dwellings are immediately adjacent to Area 3. In addition, it would prevent the eastward expansion of the limit of WECS in the area, since the area west of Area 3 represents the easterly limit of the encroachment of turbines in this area, It would also avoid safety and utility conflict issues from the proximity of WECS turbines and electrical facilities in close proximity to the high pressure gas line that traverses Area 3. The fundamental flaw running throughout the entire alternatives analysis, however, is the selection of the project as the environmentally superior alternative. This is based on alleged air quality and other environmental impacts which arc wholly fictional. �5�9±$1$rvpW l 'N216'+If}Np IR9A1 L)P, RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29, 2007 Page 18 Page 6.2-3 of the DEIR asserts that wind-generated electricity displaces on average 1.35 lbS.of CO2.0.07 lbs. of S02,and 0.042 lbs. of NOx for every kilowatt hour generated. The multiple stages of speculation required to reach this conclusion have already been exposed by the County,and were quoted at the outset of this letter. (See p.2,supra.) There are other defects in this extrapolated analysis. First, the fossil fuel energy generation Figures cited by the DEIR are drastically overstated, Relying on the California Energy Commission's Gross System Electricity Production for 2005,the actual rate for CO2 is 0,049 lbs., for S02 is 0,000000643 lbs.,and NOx is 0,0000235 lbs. (Sec, U.S. Electric Power Industry Estimated &missions by Stare(EIA-767 and EIA-906)of the U.S, Department of Energy; California Energy Commission's Gross System Electricity Production for 2005; collectively attached under Tab 22_) The DEIR overestimates the impact of fossil fuel electrical generation by anywhere from 28 to 100,000 times. Second, the DEIR presumes 3,000,000 kw-hrs per year from each I megawatt turbine. This presumes a 34%capacity factor.17 Industry statistics already relied upon by the County contradict this figure. In its October 2,2003 WECS policy memorandum, the County noted that of I,832.2 MW of installed capacity in California, the California Energy Commission for 2002 reported that wind energy contributed only 404.8 MW to the State's total supply. (Tab 1,P. 15, n?.) This translates to a 22%capacity factor,as do the latest available 5-year data for California Wind Energy from UC Davis' Wind Performance Reporting System. (See Tab 23.) By overstating the amount of electricity generated from the WECS turbines,the DEIR also overstates the air quality impacts from avoided fossil fuel generation pollutants. Third, it is simply false that additional wind energy generation capacity results in replaced or displaced fossil fuel generation. As explained by Glen R. Schleede in"False Wind Industry Claims About the Integration in,Electric Grids of the Intermittent, volatile,and Unreliable Electricity from Wind Turbines,"dated August 2,2006(Tab 24),wind energy is not reliable because of the variability of the wind source. Electrical grids require the ability for nearly instantaneous increase or decrease of electrical supplies in order to match variable demand. Since there is no way to store electricity on an industrial level,the grid must have the capacity to match demand as it fluctuates, not simply as the wind blows. The grid must therefore have and utilize more traditional fossil fuel or other methods to assure available supplies consistent with variability of demand. Wind energy simply is not that flexible. 17 The DEIR does not sp ecifically identify this aggressive, unsupported presumption, but it is evident from a few calculations. Assuming 100% generation at a full megawatt for-24 hours over 365 days yields 8.760 MW, or 8,760,000 KW hours, The 3,000,000 presumed is 34% of that 8,760,000 figure. -32187 IK'/An5W fj 119 1 1 RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29, 2007 Page 19 This is particularly true in peak electrical demand times, most notably summer heat waves. In July of 2006,wind energy contributed less than 5% of its total installed capacity, and made a negligible contribution to supplies required by the grid as whole-le Fourth, the DEIR analysis ignores the energy drain the WECS towers will place on existing energy resources, from the need to maintain back-up generators,maintenance activities, and the like. If the DEIR is to rely on an"energy budget"analysis,all energy implications of the towers, both from the cost and the benefit side,must be included if the analysis is to be intellectually lionest19 The project applicant should be required to provide this information, Given these realities, it is obvious the numbers the DEIR uses to justify selection of the proposed project as environmentally superior are drastically inflated, and ultimately meaningless' unless the project applicant can demonstrate actual avoided fossil fuel generation pollution from the electricity to be generated from this proposed WECS project. Once the fallacies of these presumptions are exposed,the DEIR's conclusions regarding the project's environmental superiority fall like a house of cards. Nothing in the DEIR even comes close to analyzing the energy realities of this supposed pollutant avoidance, let alone proving the vague and unsubstantiated claims of benefit the DEIR relies on as the lynchpin of the supposed environmental superiority of the project. Title 14, California Code of Regulations § 15126.6(b)states: Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment(Public Resources Code § 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project,even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives,or would be more costly. (Emphasis added.) a See articles by Mr. Schleedc, including "Stretching or Ignoring Facts and Making Unwanted Assumptions When Attempting to Justify Wind Energy" and "The True Cost of Electricity From Wind Power and Windmill `Availability' Factors,' also collectively attached under 'Fab 24. These articles explain the interrelationship between grid requirements, wind energy capacity factors, and transmission capacity limitations in much more detail. They also explain the tax cledit mechanism which drives wind energy facility development. The project also requires some 47 cement foundations of 7,5 feet of thickness, entailing some 400 tons each. (Tab 2, p.4.) For every ton of cement produced, a metric.ton of carbon dioxide is also produced. (See, Tab 25, p 3.) This additional 18,000 metric tons of CO2 generated by the project must be assessed against any supposed pollutant savings the project is said to create. 111)N25156-0001 19212102 101f29107 i RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 20 Here,the DHIR's narrow range of alternatives, and its"one-note song"of avoided fossil fuel pollutants as the basis for the prcject's'supposed environmental superiority, utterly fail to meet this CEQA mandate.20 l0. Conclusion- The DEIR is rife with truncated analyses, ignored significant environmental effects, and fabricated project benefits. Approval of the project as proposed requires a series of General plan Amendments,variances,and zone changes that amount to land use gymnastics. The County has already recognized the serious,deleterious environmental effects of the installation of WECS facilities generally,and this project is no different. Neither the surrounding landowners nor the City in whose sphere of influence the project is located wants this project,and the County of Riverside does not need it. The DEIR fails to comply with CEQA in recognizing,analyzing and mitigating the myriad significant environmental effects this project would create. To meet the requirements of CEQA,wholesale revisions are required in its project description, its analysis of aesthetic, biological, noise,and land use impacts,and its consideration of cumulative impacts and alternatives. Such extensive revisions will require recirculation, and another opportunity for surrounding landowners and interested members of the public to comment. I look forward to reviewing a recirculated DEIR if the County opts to continue processing this project, because the current one simply will not sustain approval of the project it purports to justify. 20 In addition, each of the alternatives dealing with reduction or elimination of turbines is rejected as being not feasible. As indicated above, the DEIR is devoid of any financial or economic data indicating that a reduction in the number of turbines, or an alternative involving repowering of existing outmoded WECS facilities, is somehow infeasible. The infeasibility simply is not shown, In the absence of such evidence, the assertion has no merit, and cannot serve as the basis of rejecting each of the alternatives listed in the DEIR, as the DEIR presently recommends. 321 M70: VJ-2 'ntid-o:,afar>.m i RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29.2007 Page 21 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEJRt If you have any further comments or questions, or require further information from me, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP David B. Cosgrove ` DAC;tr Enclosure �i,u�,isa.naul 'YLY`n= NV79d1� RUTAN Jay Olivas January 29,2007 Page 22 Exhibits to Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dillon Wind Project, Riverside County WECS 116 and 117,General Plan Amendment No.811,Change of Zone Nos. 7346 and 7449, Variance Nos. 1797 and 1798,City of Palm Springs CUP 5.115,and Variance 6.493 _ Tab _-~ _ Description ll _ Count of Riverside Planning Department Memorandum dated October 2, 2003 2 Application for Commercial Wind Energy Conversion Systems(WECS) Permit-Case Na. WCS00117, dated May 22,2006 3 Conditions and Approvals for PF21093R 1 W 4 Skyborne Development Brochure; Development Sign 5 Submittal to Board of Supervisors from Economic Development Agency, dated March 2003 6 Resolution No. 2006-134 _ 7 — Comments to DE1R; WECS 116-117; Estate of Wolf; Site Environs--January 10, 2007 _ (Disk) _ 8__ Press-Enterprise Anicle dated July 8,2006 ` 9 Wind Turbine Syndrome: Noise, Shadow flicker, and Health-• by Nina Pierpont,M.D., Ph.D„dated August 1,2006 F10_ Direct Testimony of Jon Boone u _ � 11 T- Shadow Study- Dillon Wind Project __ 12 Assessment of Avian Mortality From Collisions and Electrocutions 13 E-mail from A. Silverstone dated January 9,2007 __ _ 14 Memorandum from California Energy Commission to Commissioners Geesman and Boyd, dated August 31, 2005 re Response to Public Comments _ 15 U.S. Dept. of Interior Memorandum to Regional Directors, Regions 1-7, dated May 13. 2003, re Service Interim Guidelines on Avoiding and Minimizing Wildlife Impacts from Wind Turbines _ 16 Letter dated June 9, 2006, from Los Angles Audubon Society to California Energy Commission __ 17 Bird Risk Behaviors and Fatalities at the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area IS Meeting Summary for the National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting IV dated May 16-17, 2000 _ 19 Wind Turbine Noise, Infrasound and Noise Perception report,dated January 18,2006 20 Health Effects of Wind Turbine Noise by Nina Pierpont, M.D., Ph.D., dated March 2,� 2006 ll �21 _ Guidelines for Commturtt�Nolse __ __ j _2 11.5. Dept. of Energy Gfeenhouse Emissions for California in 2005 Wind Pcrfbnnance Reporting System •utinr n:.m.tv,m 004 22 R-UTAN Jay Ulivas January 29,2007 Page 23 Exhibits to Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dillon Wind Project, Riverside County WECS 116 and 117,General Plan Amendment No. 811,Change of Zone Nos. 7346 and 7449,Variance Nos, 1797 and 1798,City of Palm Springs CUP 5.115,and _ Variance 6.493 7'ab Description 24 False Wind Industry Claims about the Integration in Electric Grids of the intermittent, Volatile and Unreliable Electricity from Wind Turbines, dated August 29, 2006 25 Quick-SettinS Concrete and a Method for Making Quick-Setting Concrete I I`.'1112 1]e,-QWI 'YTIN]IC pQ 12')Oi . 0�4� f V TAN , Michael R.W.Houston Direct Dial:(714)338-1859 •l l `I(+`.E r I' L A A E-mail:mhoustonlj�rutanxam April 17,2007 VIA)FACSIMILE & OVERNITE EXPRESS Honorable Chairman and Members of the Riverside County Planning Commission Planning Department County of Riverside Second Floor, Room 211 82-675 Highway I I I Indio, CA 92201 Re; WECS 116 and 117 Honorable Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: I represent the Estate of Reba Wolf, which owns approximately 80 acres of property located immediately north of a portion of the area proposed for development of some 45 WECS windmill facilities. My client opposes this project for a number of reasons, many of which were laid out in the January 29, 2007 comment letter submitted to the Draft Environmental Impact Report County Staff now proposes to rely upon, in recommending approval of the project. The responses to comments in the proposed Final EIR now before you fail to address a number of significant adverse environmental impacts from the project. Among these are light and shadow impacts, impacts to avian and bat species using the area (particularly at night), and land use impacts on surrounding properties, my client's being among them. My client urges the Planning Commission not to approve the project, and instead to undertake additional environmental and land use studies required to assess the full impacts of the WECS development being proposed, and the cumulative land use impacts it will create for the surrounding properties. We believe Staffs recommendation flows from procedural irregularities in project processing, unrecognized environmental impacts, reliance on unexplained supposed project benefits, and a practical elimination of developability of surrounding properties, all created by the Project. Significantly more analysis, and a fairer opportunity for the concerns of surrounding land owners to be weighed, should be required of any applicant proposing a project of this magnitude, and impact. As such, my client recommends the Planning Commission deny approval of the project, or in the alternative, convene a committee consisting of Planning Staff, the project applicant, and surrounding landowners and stakeholders, to develop a more reasoned and balanced evidentiary record upon which the Planning Commission, and ultimately the Board of Supervisors, can render a decision on the project. n./1r,la.l Tlr44Y I_I_F � Ell A•I[gfl @lorl •;nite 11';q C,;rq !n:;a CA 02F,•'=5 �'-� FQ 3`,N 119i0, A '4 2a 1950 714-•341•ilOn Ge. 714; 10-90.5 5114 F, r.• 4�1 1 Y:-V� i FLU I NW'N ',Tai ;0 mi 139/p_315h•OOOI 9 81)ah10()I AVI9^n-r ,4 RUTAN 01 v TIP I,1I A: { rz Honorable Chairman and Members of the Riverside County Planning Commission April 17,2007 Page 3 2. The County Should Stud.V and Evaluate the Iw 2ets of This Project on Surrounding! Properties. More important than questions whether the County can give accelerated processing to this project proposal, is the question whether the County should. This project proposes to place a string of 327-foot towers immediately up against the outer boundary of the WECS-exclusion area within the San Gorgonio Pass, as described in the County's October 2, 2003 WECS memorandum2, The Rural Foundation Component applicable to Areas 1 and 3 calls for"remote cabins, residential estates, limited agriculture, equestrian, and animal keeping uses" The Community Development Foundation Component calls for "urban and suburban development." These are hardly consistent with the industrial nature of the proposed WECS turbines, particularly given the acknowledged impact on visual resources they create. In my client's view, this does violence to any notion of transitioning the more intensive industrial WECS developments to the west, with areas east of Indian Avenue, where all WECS facilities are prohibited. Particularly in Area 3, where no WECS facilities have previously been proposed, sound planning would seem to call for smoother transitional uses, such as those called for under Policy PASS 6.3 from the San Gorgonio Wind Energy Community Policy Area. That policy calls for limited industrial/commercial uses to be integrated with existing wind parks, consistent with residential uses. In addition, my client urges the Planning Commission to consider the practical effects of this project on its property. That property is presently zoned for residential development, one unit per every 2 acres. Under present market constraints, this zoning requires larger, estate-type homes, because of the large lot size requirements. It is simply unrealistic to expect this type of high-end residential product to develop immediately adjacent to an intensive, industrial wind farm use. The likely consequence of approval of this project, therefore, is a requirement for my client to pursue some sort of change in zone, with the attendant costs and uncertainties any such request entails. The same situation is faced by other surrounding landowners. In fairness, my client requests the County to analyze whether the variances, zone changes, and general plan amendments now being considered by the County--tailored specifically for this project--should be expanded to analyze the impacts on surrounding properties as well. It may well be that transition to commercial or more industrial uses for these surrounding properties is appropriate, if the project is to go forward. The onus of analyzing and proposing such zone changes should '- This memorandum was attached under Tab I to my client's letter on the DEIR, and is also . posted on the County Planning Department's website. 104610 35GA00 M7 �aasiani awnvo� �LJ RUTAN r l „. Honorable Chairman and Members of the Riverside County Planning Commission April 17,2007 Page 4 not rest with surrounding property owners as an unfortunate after-effect of the project, but more properly should be studied in connection with the proposed project approval. Unquestionably, the project has regional impact. The County's consideration of zoning matters in connection with the project should have an equivalent regional scope. Such regionally integrative planning should precede commitment to the project, not be thrust upon nearby property owners as a consequence of it. 3. The Proposed Statement of Overriding Considerations is lnadenuate_ The "County of Riverside Planning Department Staff Report," at pages 7-8, proposes a statement of overriding considerations under section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. My client believes this statement is inadequate, and in support points to the very recent judicial decision of Woodward Park Homeowners Association Inc. v. City of Fresno (Feb. 13, 2007, No. F049481) _ Cal.AppAth In that case, the court of appeal reiterated that a statement of overriding considerations must make a good faith effort to inform the public, and must have an evidentiary foundation in the record. (Id., Typed Opn. at p. 36-39.) In Woodward Park, the court struck down a statement of overriding considerations that contained misleading statements regarding the proposed benefits of a project, and failed to fairly balance the decision to approve the project, in the face of its environmental effects. (Id.) The proposed statement of overriding considerations for this project bears many of the same defects. The record is devoid of any evidence of the alleged energy benefits, since there is no analysis of the frequency of utilization of the wind energy it might generate, or correlation'of such generation to energy demand. Nor is there any evidentiary basis to conclude that fossil fuel pollutants from the generation of electricity will actually decrease, given the realities of limitations on the facility capacity ratios of wind energy, its reliability, and its role in the overall management of the grid? The environmental benefits cited in the statement of�overriding considerations are likewise unsupported. The statement asserts the project preserves 98% of the land, but this ignores noise, shadow, and upset from the movement of the "checkboard" disturbances of the WECS facilities over the entire 1,500 acres. In any event, if the proper existing environmental baseline is used as the point of reference, the proposed project "preserves" nothing, and actually disturbs at least 27 acres of ground surface, and significantly more with the visual, biological, 3 These points were all made in the County's WECS memorandum, referenced.above, at pp. 4- 7. Nowhere does staff explain how the situation with this project remedies the multiple layers of speculation that memorandum refused to accept, when it refused to accept rosy predictions of air quality improvement from WECS facility construction. u��azsssn.aoai 30461001&oamior E, RUTAN Honorable Chairman and Members of the Riverside County Planning Commission April 17, 2007 Page 5 and other impacts created by the project. Moreover, the project does not make full utilization of the County's San Gorgonio Wind Energy Community Policy Area- This is an area of some 35,000 acres, and the absence of any analysis of alternative locations for the project in the EIR, within this broader area, offers no evidentiary support for any allegation of its"full" utilization. The claimed economic benefits are also unsupported. The statement of overriding considerations cites 80 new full-time jobs to be created during construction. The DEIR directly contradicts the recognition of this as a significant benefit. The DEIR, in attempting to minimize the population and growth inducing impacts of the project, specifically states that it would not serve as a "substantial source of employment" (DEIR, p. 74.) Further, there is no mention anywhere in the draft EIR of the basis of the claim for $12,000,000 of property taxes 4, nor any quantification of the contribution to the County's Wind Implementation Monitoring Program. All this falls short of the good-faith balancing required of the County, implicit in CEQA's requirement for a statement of overriding considerations: "There is a sort of grand design in CEQA: projects which significantly affect the environment can go forward, but only after the elected decision makers have their noses rubbed in those environmental effects,and vote to go forward anyway." (Vedanta Society of So. California v, California Ouartet Ltd (2000) 84 Cal.AppAth 517, 530.) With all due respect, this statement of overriding considerations serves more as a gloss than any frank disclosure, and in light of the Woodward Park case, is unlikely to be held adequate under CEQA. 4. Tack of Clarity on Right-of-Way Dedications Raise Questions Regarding Setbacks. The staff report seems to betray a level of uncertainty regarding right-of--way dedications on the project, stating: "The applicant has expressed concerns about the public need and justification for additional right-of-way adjacent to the proposed wind farms within this project." 4 The fallacy of this point is demonstrated by looking at the most recent property tax information for property on which WECS 12 placed some 102 wind turbines, near Indian and Two Bunch Palms (A.P. Nos. 668-120-018, -020, and —021). That property generates $858 of taxes on land only, with improvements (i,e., the still-existing WECS towers) assessed at zero. The WECS are still there, the tax revenue is not. This proves the negative environmental and land use impacts from these rapidly depreciated wind energy facilities long outlive any short- term tax revenue increases. i semas3so•aoo i 90161U DI OV17,07 FtUTAN \ i `PY 1. 111.1`v Honorable Chairman and Members of the Riverside County Planning Commission April 17, 2007 Page 6 (Staff Report,p. 2.) The FEIR indicates revisions have been made to the project to eliminate the need for variances from safety setbacks to habitable dwellings. It is unclear whether, if the project is required to provide dedications, all safety setbacks are still met, even from the new right-of-way lines. My client requests this be clarified prior to any project approval going forward. 5. Conclusion My client believes that neither the FEIR nor its response to comments adequately address the deficiencies in both an and recognition of impacts inherent in the DEK and created by the project. Those objections are already a matter of record, and are not repeated here. Still, from a land use perspective, this project seeks processing privileges and legislative amendments that will unquestionably impact surrounding properties. My client believes regional land uses would be better served by a study of actual development patterns adjacent to existing WECS facilities, and development of land use strategies to transition the impacts of these proposed WECS uses to surrounding areas. These may include zone changes beyond the project-specific entitlements sought by the project, or direction to the applicant to implement alternative uses that buffer some of the WECS impacts the County has already recognized in its October 2, 2003 WECS memorandum, For all the above reasons, my client cannot agree with Staffs recommendation for approval of the project. Based on the existing record, my client believes the project should be denied, or at a minimum, forestalled until its regional impact, and regional solutions to such impacts,are fully analyzed, and developed. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important matter. Very truly yours, RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP Michael R.W. Houston MRWFi:mm cc: David Cosgrove, Esq. 04611.01 A4 1 CI ),P i 804G IQ.01 a0u17/U� C`l `✓RU ■AN David B.Cosgrove Dtrect Dial.(714)662-4602 ATTORNEYS AT LAW E-mail:dcosgroveplfutan.com May 15, 2007 VIA FACSIMILE Jay Olivas Planning Department County of Riverside 2nd Floor,Room 211 82-675 Highway I I I Indio, CA 92201 Re: WECS 116 & 117; Planning Commission Hearing of May 16, 2007 Dear Mr. Olivas: As you know from prior correspondence in the above-referenced matter, our office represents the Estate of Reba Wolf,the owner of property immediately adjacent to Area 3, which is part of the proposed site for the development of WECS facilities. I am submitting this letter to provide further input on the FEIR analysis of biological impacts in connection with the project proposal, and as a supplement to the April 18, 2007 letter provided by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.) Of particular note, that letter states as follows: "Typically, bird fatalities cannot be estimated without three years of avian survey efforts to determine the appropriate locations for turbines (Smallwood & Thelander 2004). Given that the County/City has accepted a few days of pre-construction avian survey effort as satisfactory and required no post-construction avian fatality monitoring for this project in the San Gorgonio Wind Energy Resource Area (SGWERA), the Service strongly disagrees with the statement in the FEIR on p. 6.3-34, Section 6.3,3.4,3, Cumulative Impacts. The FIER states: "The project would also not have a significant impact on birds as described in Section 6.3.3.4.5 and in the Avian Survey Report included as Attachment B." The Service has a concern that this previous statement is unsupportable due to the minimal pre-construction avian survey effort, the lack of post-construction avian t It is my understanding that comments for May 16, 2007, are limited to the'biological impacts raised by the USFWS letter, and Highway 62 scenic setbacks. My client has already commented regarding the Highway 62 setbacks (see FEIR, Comment Letter Z, p. 7-8.) This letter addresses only the biological issues raised by the USFWS. Ruian S Tucker, L4P I 911 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 (L)q-/7s PO Box 1950 Costa Mesa. CA 92628-1950 1 714-641.51oo I Fax 714-546-9035 y I59/035156A001 Orange County I Palo Alto I www rutan.com et?92701 a05/1511)7 RUTAN A'-TO I[!4Y3 AT I I6 Jay Olivas May 15,2007 Page 2 fatality monitoring, the lack of compliance with the Service's Interim Guidelines, and the general lack of knowledge and understanding of the impacts to avian species that migrate through the SGW.ERA. (USFWS letter of4/18/07, p. 3.) My client echoes this concern. An EIR must be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with the information needed to make an intelligent decision 1 concerning a project's environmental consequences. When experts disagree regarding appropriate methodologies for assessing impacts, the FEIR must summarize main points of disagreement. (CEQA Regs, § 15151.) Mere, the USFWS is without question expert in issues of impacts to biological resources, including avian species. Indeed, as indicated in my client's comments to the DEIR,this Agency has issued Interim Guidelines for siting of wind turbine facilities, that call for three years of pre- project avian studies, as the appropriate study protocol for providing an adequate existing baseline environmental description, against which to measure project impacts. CEQA Regulations § 15088(c) requires the County to address in detail why the comments and suggestions calling for compliance with the USFWS Interim Guidelines have not been accepted, and must be addressed with a "good faith, reasoned analysis in response." My client believes this remains lacking. Without question, the project applicant has not undertaken to comply with the USFWS Interim Guidelines. Apart from site specific surveys that are deficient, those guidelines call for ranking various sites against each other, under what the guidelines term. the "Potential Impact Index" (See, FEIR, Letter Z Attachments, Attachment 15, p. 5.) This failure ties into my client's critique of the alternatives analysis of the FEIR, which did not look at any alternative sites. The expectation in the USFWS Interim Guidelines is that alternative sites must be analyzed, and ranked for suitability. This sets what my client believes is the minimum analysis incumbent upon this project applicant to provide the County with a responsible basis for assessing the acceptability of acknowledged potential avian impacts. As stated in the Interim Guidelines: "All potential development sites within a geographic area should be evaluated before a site is selected for development." (See, USFWS Interim Guidelines,p. 2.) In addition, those Interim Guidelines indicate that songbird migration sites-may require radar surveillance. (Id., at 7.) This study protocol has been suggested by my client and others, but so far not undertaken 2 2 When a protocol exists for assessing an impact, such as the radar surveillance for. nocturnal bird use here, an EIR cannot refuse to implement it, simply stating the impact is unknown. (See, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Com_ v. Board of Port Commissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 159l07535600p l 812827.01 a05MAR RUTAN AT I'uxv Y% ITt W Jay Olivas May 15,2007 Page 3 The FEIR admits there has been no analysis of diurnal and nocturnal migration rates or their relationship to avian fatality rates(FEIR,Appendix B, p. 10), and what passerine studies do exist provide little reliable inference to the Dillon Wind project. (Td., at p. 13.) At the same time,the FEIR acknowledges up to 69 million birds migrate through the area annually (FEIR, p. 2-14), and passerines account for most bird fatalities at wind energy sites. (FEIR, Appendix B, p. 13.) Moreover,most migratory birds pass through the area in the fall. (FEIR,p. 2-14-) What little study has been done for the FEIR on avian use in the project area contains no fall surveying whatsoever. (FEIR, Appendix B,Table 1;'see Comment Letter Z, attachment 16 [surveys for fall to occur September 1 to October 30].) There simply is no data on nocturnal use of the project area,only extrapolations from other sites. As the USFWS Interim Guidelines state: "Data on wildlife use and mortality collected at one wind energy facility are not necessarily applicable to others; each site poses its own set of possibilities for negative effects on wildlife," (See,USFWS Interim Guidelines, p. I [Comment Letter Z, Attachment 151.) Moreover, the study the FEIR uses to base its conclusions of avian mortality, by Anderson and Neuman, specifically disclaims the.very use the FEIR makes of it. As pointed out by the Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter (see, Appendix K), that study's "Discussion/Conclusion"section cautions: "This study is not specifically designed to provide standardized estimates of avian fatalities. The wide interval between searches (90 days) led to a high level of uncertainty in the fatality estimates. The unknown impact of scavenging on the fatality estimates could greatly impact them." The search interval is a critical component of accuracy of avian fatality data, because most avian fatalities are rapidly scavenged, usually within 24 hours. (See, California Energy Commission, Avian Collision and Electrocution: An Annotated Bibliography, October 1995, Publication No. P700 95-001, citing reference 102, Crawford, R. L. 1971, incorporated herein by reference.) I In addition, the FEIR, Appendix B, p. 6-7, assumes that displacement will be minimal, asserting that wind turbine facilities typically occupy only a small portion of a project area, and surmising that environmental impacts are proportionately limited. This conclusion is contradicted by the USFWS Interim Guidelines, Appendix 4, which indicates the, need for additional study on localized effects of turbines on wildlife, in terms of habitat fragmentation and loss, and the effects of noise. (See, USFWS Interim Guidelines,p. 37.) That study is nowhere in 1344, 1369-71.) ' �S9/aZ$756.00pI seaz�oI sosnsro� L RUTAN A]rOR1fT%AT 1,1W Jay divas May 15,2007 Page 4 the record of this FEIR. There also needs to be some explanation of the requirements of the project applicant to secure a "take"permit under the Endangered Species Act , particularly since the FEIR includes as a specific mitigation measure a protocol for dealing with eagle collisions, and the possibility of golden eagle fatalities is acknowledged. (FEIR, Appendix B, p. 12-13.) Impacts to endangered species must be assessed and addressed before project implementation, not monitored•aRerward_ My client believes that given the scope of the project, the establishment of specific interim guidelines by the expert Federal agency overseeing biological impacts provides an expert agency protocol for examining baseline biological conditions that must be followed. Particularly given the substantial public controversy regarding avian impacts (as repeatedly reflected in the comment letters received to the DEIR), a study of twenty-one, thirty-minute visual inspections, outside of seasons of highest avian use, simply does not provide an adequate biological survey base to come to the conclusion that avian impacts are less than significant'. My client urges the County to demand from the project proponent a more responsible and thorough avian assessment, consistent with the USFWS Interim Guidelines. The environmental impacts of-this project, on biological and all other resources, will last much longer than the project proponent's apparent impatience with appropriate project processing timelines. More investigation is required, and the proposed project site must be compared with others, to determine the suitability of WECS facilities placement. My client respectuly requests the Planning Commission to deny this project or, at a minimum, withhold any certification of the FEIR until adequate avian studies have been completed. Very truly yours, RRUTAN& TUCKER, LLP David B. Cosgrove DBC:tr Enclosure 3 The FEIR also fails to indicate how the altitude of flying birds was determined in the studies, although it does rely on this factor in concluding that many birds fly above or below the fatal reach of the turbines. (FEIR, Appendix B,P. i; 5-6.) Issmzsaswwool � 9U1?707 a05/ISl07 `�'��� PROOF OF PUBLICATION Phis is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside APPEAL OF CASE NOS,5.1115 CUP and 6.493 VARIANCE APPLICATION WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE,NORTH OF 1-10, SOUTH OF DILLON ROAD d EAST OF HWY 62 NOTICE-IS HERESY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,California,will hold a public hearing at its meeting of Juno 20,2007. I am a citizen of the United Stales and a resident of The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m.,in Ills Council Chamber at Clry Hall,3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon yralTPWm Sp rings the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen -- years,and not a party to or interested in the The purpose of this hearing is to conslder"an appe'liof the Planning above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a Commiselon's May 23, 2007 approval of Type 1 Conditional Use Permit printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING application for this Dillon Wind LLC,fertile development of live 1-megawatt COMPANYanewspaper of general circulation, wind energy conversion systems(WECS).The approval also includes avari- ance application request to exceed the 3001o8t commercial WECS height printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, limit to 327 feet The project area consists of 3 separate project Files;each County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been is made up of multiple parcels,identified as Areas 1,3 and 5.Areas 1 and 3 adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the are located within the County of Riverside jurisdiction while Area 5 is loeat- Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of ed withm.ihe limits of the City of Palm Springs approximately 6,000 feel west California under the date of March 24,1988-Case of Indian Avenue and 2000 feet north of 1-10, Number 191236;that the notice,of which the ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller Report(FEIR)was been prepared far this project underthe guidelines of the than nun pariel,has been published in each regular California Environmental Quality Acl(CEQA)and was reviewed and adopt and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any ed by the Planning Commission at the hearing.Members of the public may supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: view this document at the Planning Services Department,City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a m.and 3.00 p.m.Monday through Friday. June 101h,7007 REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: -rho staff report and other sup- "' --^--^---^- poning documents regarding this project are available for,public review at City Hell between the hours of 8.00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m. Monday through ..................... Friday Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at(780)323.0204 if you All in the year 2007 would like to schedule an appointment to review inose documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. foregoing is true and correct. Written comments may be made to the Planning Commission by letter(for mail or hand delivery)to: Dated at Palm Springs,California this----II",---day Jamee.Thompson,City Clerk - _ -- _. `'3200-E.Tahqulti Canyon Way of----- .lane -- ��-----..---_---,2007 Palm Springs,CA9228Q " U� :\ Any challenge of the proposed project In Court may be limdad to raising only . . = those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or In C"J • written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at,or prior,to the public hearing. (Government Code -' Si nature section 650091b1I2D ® on.nm,mmvi - VonIrY An opportunity will be given at r—�� said hearing for all Interested per- I. r. �,ll h'I _ T sons to be heard. questions V{ Iij f 1 regarding this case may be directed to Edward O.Robertson, Principal Planner. Planning11 n V p Services Deportment, at (760) 'I' P � �fy 323.8245 - SI neceslta ayuda con cafe cads. — " podavor (lame a la Ciudad do cinoF PALM ePPm, Palm Springs y puede hablar con N, Nadine Fieger telefono (700)323.8245. :did W James Thompson,Cig(Clerk ,., F pALM SA City ®f Palm Springs " Office of the Gary Cleric "o °poxpvc�'� 3200 E.luhgwn.Cmiyun Way • Y:Jm Springs, California 92262 C-111 ��P Tcl (760)323-8204 • r;ix; (760) 322-8732 • Web www.tqlmcliryn.gs-ca.gov AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing, to consider an appeal pf the Planning Commission's May 23, 2007, approval of Type 1 Conditional Use Permit application for the Dillion Wind LLC for the development of five 1-megwatt wind energy conversion systems, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on or before the 81h day of June, 2007, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (43 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 11 th day of June 2007. MES THOMPSON City Clerk /kdh Affidavit Windmill Appeal 06 20 07 doc Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS APPEAL OF CASE NOS. 5.1115 CUP and 6.493 VARIANCE APPLICATION WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF 1-10, SOUTH OF DILLON ROAD & EAST OF HWY 62 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 20, 2007. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's May 23, 2007 approval of Type 1 Conditional Use Permit application for the Dillon Wind LLC, for the development of five 1-megawatt wind energy conversion systems (WECS). The approval also includes a variance application request to exceed the 300 foot commercial WECS height limit to 327 feet. The project area consists of 3 separate project sites; each is made up of multiple parcels, identified as Areas 1, 3 and 5. Areas 1 and 3 are located within the County of Riverside jurisdiction while Area 5 is located within the limits of the City of Palm Springs approximately 6,000 feet west of Indian Avenue and 2000 feet north of 1-10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was been prepared for this project under the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was reviewed and adopted by the Planning Commission at the hearing. Members of the public may view this document at the Planning Services Department, City Hall, between the hours of 8:00 a-m. and 3:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p-m. Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the Planning Commission by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Edward 0. Robertson, Principal Planner, Planning Services Department, at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y-puede habla_r Wcori. Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. - J s Thompson, City Clerk � Department of Planning Services W+E y(9 Vicinity Map s kNi I —ele .-` � _ ..._I- L _ _,Pr 1.4J• ... I li _ ___ — �P- �. ILL OIFCOUF.O .� L _...+.I I 9Iu0N L II PJ'i' -KIULINAv7� � IIF— I _ 1111 — p 1 _ �ti,. -- _� -• LAS PPL I ...FIQh III _ L� R•~w� �1,_`Ayily --Ip �ANEr ?�.. Ill�kll Legend Le a � _ 9 -I- Q400' Radius � Projectsite -- -- — L__ Surrounding Parcels — '— ® Freeways&Highways I I I CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5.1115 CUP DESCRIPTION: To consider an appeal of the Planning 6.493 VAR Commission's May 23, 2007 approval of Type 1 Conditional Use Permit application for the Dillon Wind LLC, for the APPLICANT: Dillon Wind LLC development of five 1-megawatt wind energy conversion systems (WECS). The application also includes a variance application request to exceed the 300 foot commercial WECS height limit to 327 feet. The project area consists of 3 separate project sites-, each is made up of multiple parcels, identified as Areas 1, 3 and 5. Areas 1 and 3 are located within the County of Riverside jurisdiction while Area 5 is located within the limits of the City of Palm Springs approximately 6,000 feet west of Indian Avenue and 2000 feet north of 1-10. NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case 5,1115 CUP, 6.493 VAR MR PETE MORUZZI The Dillon Wind Energy Project MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC meeting 06.20.07 HISTORIC SITE REP i 1 1 PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1115 CUP PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 1 1 ATTN SECRETARY 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS I I 1 1 I 1 INDIANS 777 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, STE. 3 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR ANDY LINEHAN MR DWAYNE WHITFIELD SARA MC MAHAN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON DILLON WIND LLC 2244 WALNUT GROVE AVENUE SPONSORS 1 1 I 1125 NW COUCH, SUITE 700 ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 PORTLAND, OR 97209 STANTEC 73-733 FRED WARING DRIVE MR NICHOLAS E. HERMSEN PALM DESERT, CA 92260 GREEN, DE BROTNOWSKY& INTERESTED PARTIES QUINTANILLA, LLP 35-325 DATE PALM DRIVE, STE.202 CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 "[[ CITY OF PALM SPRI14GS RSCVD BY: CR 0100000S232 PAYOR: '-ZUTAN & TUCKER LLP TO➢AY'S DATE: 06/01/07 REGISTER DATE: 06J01/07 TINS: 15-20 DESCRIPTION ANOIINT OTH3R CHARGES SVCS $387 00 COST ID: APPEAL FEE ---------------- TOTAL DUE: $357.00 CHECK PAID- $387.00 CHECK NO. 3046272 TENDERED: $387.00 CHANCE: $.00 ' I [ Roc#. 1 APN: 666-120-01-2 Roc#: 2 APN: 566-130-00-6 WIND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP WIND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 1059 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 1059 TORRANCE,CA 90503.6557 TORRANCE,CA 90503.5557 Rec# 3 APN: 666.130.00-7 Rec#: 4 APN.666-320.02.1 WIND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 1059 PO BOX 800 TORRANCE,CA 90503.6557 ROSEMEAD,CA 91770-0800 Rec#: 5 APN 566-3$0-00-1 Rec#: 6 APN: 668-260-05-2 INDIAN AVENUE CO WINTEC ENERGY LTD 3550 77TH ST 1000 N PALM CANYON DR A JACKSON HEIGHTS,NY 11372-4531 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-4435 Rec1k: 7 APN 668-280.00.5 Rec#: 8 APN: 668-280-00-7 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO DAVID G BUCK PO BOX 800 7834 MORGAN POINTE CIR ROSEMEAD,CA 91770-0800 RENQ NV 89523-4801 Rec#- 9 APN'668-280-01-2 Rec# 10 APN:668-280.01.3 KLEE ROSE K MORITA GEORGE E IVANQV 28927 SAN SOLARIE d725 MOORPARK WAY MISSION VIEJO CA 92692-4946 SACRAMENTO,CA 95842-3146 Rec# 11 APN.668-280-01-4 Rec# 12 APN: 668-280-01-5 WELLESLEY ROLLAND KIME ROBERT L CARTIER 4804 LAUREL CANYON BLV 118 31982 MOUNT RAINIER DR VALLEY VILLAGE,CA 91607 LAGUNA NIGUEL,CA 92677.2807 Rec#: 13 APN 666-280-01-7 Rece 14 APN'668-320-01-8 DAVID G BUCK MOUNTAIN VIEW POWER PARTNERS III 7834 MORGAN POINTE CIR 1125 NW COUCH ST 700 RENO, NV 89523-4801 PORTLAND,OR 97209.4120 Rec# 15 APN. 668-320-01-9 Rec#: 16 APN: 668-320-02-1 MOUNTAIN VIEW POWER PARTNERS III MOUNTAIN VIEW POWER PARTNERS III 1125 NW COUCH ST 700 1125 NW COUCH ST 700 PORTLAND,OR 97209.4129 PORTLAND,OR 07209-4129 Rec#. 17 APN:668.320.02-2 Rec# 16 APN.668-400-00-4 MOUNTAIN VIEW POWER PARTNERS III CHEM QUEST CORP 1125 NW COUCH ST 700 15723 KADOTA ST PORTLAND,OR 972094129 SYLMAR,CA 01342-3520 Rec#: 19 APN:668-400-00-5 Rec#: 20 APN: 668-400.00-7 CHEM QUEST CORP SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO 15723 KADOTA ST PO BOX 800 SYLMAR,CA 91342.3520 ROSEMEAD,CA 91770-0800 Rec#: 21 APN: 668-400-00-8 Rec#: 22 APN 368-400-01-0 FREDERICK W NOBLE INC RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT 41700 CORPORATE WAY D 1995 MARKET ST PALM DESERT,CA 92250-1023 RIVERSIDE,CA 92501-1719 Rec# 23 APN 668-400-01-1 Rec#- 24 APN: 66"00-01-6 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT ARTHUR GRESEN 1995 MARKET ST 4319 SALAMANCA CIR RIVERSIDE,CA 92501-1719 LAS VEGAS,NV 89121-6522 Rec#: 25 APN: 668-400-02-0 Rec#• 26 APN: 668-400.02.3 ZOLA SIEGEL ZOLA SIEGAL 1090 N PALM CANYON DR A 800 S RIDGELEY DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-4435 LOS ANGELES,CA 90036.4727 Rec#: 27 APN' 668-400-02-5 Rec#. 28 APN: 668-400.02.6 ZOLA SIEGAL ZOLA SIEGAL 800 S RIDGELEY DR 800 S RIDGELEY DR LOS ANGELES, CA 90036-4727 LOS ANGELES,CA 90036.4727 Rec#: 20 APN. 668-400-02-7 Rec#: 30 APN: 668.400.02.8 ARTHUR GRESEN ARTHUR GRESEN 4319 SALAMANCA CIR 4319 SALAMANCA CIR LAS VEGAS,NV 89121.6522 LAS VEGAS, NV 89121.6522 c4l-� 3. e/ ReC#' 1 AP . 666.120-012 Rec#: 2 APN: -280.017 RESIGEN �� RESIDENT X.11 17550 REN AVE 62125❑ ON RD C DES T HOT SPRINGS,CA 92240 Page 1 of 1 Kathie Hart From: Jay Thompson Sent: June 01, 2007 3:25 PM To: Craig Ewing Cc: Kathie Hart Subject: Appeal Case 5 1115 CUP Attachments; Green deBortnowksy Quintanilla.pdf; Rutan pdF Two appeals filed today on the Dillon Wind LLC, Project. Jay 06/01/07