HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/27/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. Page 1 of 1
6-27-07
James F. McKinley, Palm Springs
Once again our beautiful town gets assaulted by private interest profits over the residents' health and
safety....Corporations over Constiuents.AGAIN.
We are avid promoters of wind power.
But,the§e are the wrong design, in the wrong place.
The Planning Commission and the City Council are responsible. We should say, IRRESPONSIBLE. Reams of data about
these windmills, sent to Council and the Board of Supervisors, are being ignored. No one wants to jeopardize the lavish,
ignoble campaign contributions, from Fred ig-Noble, to almost every candidate out there. From his prospective$65
million in tax subsidies, it's chump change. Literally. That same subsidy, if applied to solar, would service just as many
homes and not ruin the landscape and kill wildlife, as far as the eye can see!We consider ourselves to be local wildlife,
too.
But, several officials in DHS refused the blood money, and they still won, You could follow their lead, and pass a
resolution to remove PS from the county's overlay zone, as they did.
If you have an iota of care about global warming, the depletion of our resources, and our health and safety, you can do
this. Our entire quality of life is threatened.
These unclean, ungreen windmill fields, is where they kill and bury injured raptor birds to avoid reporting them. That is
illegal. Yet corrupted public officials ignore the public's evidence, believe the grossly inflated claims, and refuse to conduct
studies BEFORE they sign on the dotted line! Instead, you give credence and approval to the employee-signed, form-
letters of support, for these killer windmills!
Placed in the Pacific Fly-way of migratory birds and bats, they are killing Nature's pest control. Now we have massive rat
infestations, which carry Hanta Virus, in Painted Hills and Whitewater. Prove that they are safe, FIRST. Conduct
thorough, independent studies.
Just Say NO.
7
v�e.5
(0
http://us.C333.mail.yah000.con/ymlCompose?DMid=8579_12958774_19677_480_2426 0_50802... 6/27/2007
June 26. 2007
The Supervisors/Planning Commissioners
Riverside County
Southern California
Gentlemen/Madam:
For the past 25 years since the inception of the I'Windmill Farm here in the County, I had
monitored with optimism that this new clean form of energy would soon provide a significant
contribution to the power needs in California. With due respect, please allow me to share with
you some hard facts that I have gathered during all those years about our current Wind Energy
program,to wit;
1. According to Edison, the current windmill farms in the San Gorgonio Pass area has a total
annual aggregate capacity of 375 MW at full utilization but because wind is a very unreliable
source of power it could only generate an average of 93.5 MW per year for a dismal 25%
power output. Compared to Edison's average annual power requirement of 13,000 MW, the
whole Windmill Farms in the Pass could only contribute 0.7%to Edison's annual needs_ I am
sure everybody agrees that this is a very insignificant contribution to the power needs of
Edison.
2. To make matters worse,the 0.7%windpower contribution to Edison's grid line is not a
constant and steady supply throughout the day due to a highly erratic wind blowing pattern.
In this regard, Edison breaks down the Windmill power contributions into four categories
namely; peak, partial peak, off-peak and super off-peak. To know the times of the day that
these categories fall into please refer to attachment # 1.
3. Attachment#2 is a 15-year Wind Power Statistics that I got from Edison that quantifies the
amount of power generated and subsequently supplied to Edison's grid during the four
different categories. It says that from 1992 to 1997,the then existing windmill farm could
only generate a measly 6% of its total annual output during peak hours, 33%on partial pear
46°/a on off-peak and 16% super off-peak.for an average of 2525%_For the next 9 years the
figures has not changed notwithstanding the aggressive expansion of the windmill £arms
particularly in the Pass area. It is still a paltry 5.62% at peak, 32.73% partial peak, 45.67%
off-peak and 15.97% super off-peak for an average of 24.99%.
4. To analyze fiarkher the data contained in attachment 9 2, we could then honestly deduce that
even if we convert the entire land area of the County into Windmill farms, still, the Windmill
operators could only generate 25%of its designed/rated capacity. Is it not the time to rethink
our strategy and plan in this field?Why not refocus our efforts on how to increase the power
generation output of these farms from 25%to say 75%? If the Windmill operators could only
do that,then the 93.5 MW would then become 281.25 MW annually which would then
become a significant contribution to the power needs of Edison_
5. If the Windmill engineers would say that is not possible because the Wind energy available
in the Pass is only good for 25%of their designed power output, why not tell them to look
somewhere else where they could generate more?
Given the proliferation of the Windmill Farms in the San Gorgonio Pass area, I am pretty sure
that in the very near fixture the honorable members of this commission would be confronted with
the task of approving applications for additional Windmill farms in the Pass. I would highly
appreciate if the decision makers would consider the data/information listed below which to my
mind might become an indispensable tool that might guide them in deciding whether further
expansion of the existing farms would be for the best interest to the tax paying and rate paying
community as a whole.
Subj: Southern California Edison Facts About San Gorgonio Pass Windmills
Date: Wednesday, June 27, 2007 4:52:15 pm
To: Les Starks 164 vista de Oeste Palm Springs, Ca 92264 760-323-
4089
For 25 years we've been told thatah*��, given a chance wind energy will
make a significant contribution to our energy supply.
These are the results according to Southern California Edison: For all the
windmills in the San Gorgonio Pass, their contribution is 7 tenths of 1 % of all
the 13,000 megawatts of power Southern California Edison uses annually... You
heard me correctly, I said 7 tenths of 1%.
But, it even gets worse... 60% of their generation is off peak, at night when its
not needed. Only 6% is generated when we actually need it.
I have 15 years of their production records and their production times are
consistent for all 15 years which is proof that wind patterns haven't changed.
What everyone is missing is the obvious... You can cover the entire country
with windmills, butbecause wind is not constant...What happens when the wind
stops? The utilities will always need the same amount of power, windmills will
NEVER preclude the building of new power plants as demand increases. Its a
duplication of power that the utilities have to have.
For all the billions of dollars that have been given to the wind energy industry
for 24 years by Southern California Edison ratepayers and our tax dollars, all
there is to show for it are monthly electric bills that have tripled and
quadrupled. And we're still only getting 7 tenths of 1% of the power we use
from San Gorgonio Pass windmills.
The entire wind industry should be re-examined for their actual production and
performance before these or any more windmills are approved.
0&1d 71.?v0 '7
�Y+ / . R
6/27/07 America Online : SNOWCREEKPRES Page 1 L!-es sna4,,45
0M&441
Cindy Berardi
From: Robin, Renee L. [rlrobin@stoel.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2007 7:26 PM
To: CityClerk@palmsprings-ca.gov; dholland@wss-law.com
Cc: Ron.Oden@palmsprings-ca.gov; Steve,Peugnet@palmsprings-ca.gov;
Ginny.Foat@palmsprings-ca.gov; Michael.McCulloch@palmsprings-ea.gov;
Chris.Mills@palmsprings-ca.gov; Linehan, Andrew
Subject: Letter re: Dillon Wind Response to Appeal
IL
Dillon SanFran 2253
seCounty.pdf(_1.DOC (89 K
To the City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs:
Attached please find our correspondence regarding the pending appeal for CUP 5.1115, and Varaince 6.493, scheduled
for consideration by the Palm Springs City Counsel on June 27, 2007. We would appreciate your assistance by including
this information in the Council's materials in prepartion for the hearing. Please also provide a copy of this correspondence
to any other appropriate members of the City or the public you consider appropriate.
I am happy to respond to any questions regarding these materails at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
Renee L. Robin
Renee Louise Robin
Stoel Rives, LLP
111 Sutter Street
San Francisco, CA 94104
415-617-8908 (direct)
415-617-8900
416-676-3000 (fax)
rlrobin@stoel.com
rI 0I9 (%lOW d1Z k*-F—r— lAel
,77i44�5; a-
t
S T o III yupGr Strnet Suan RID
Svn frau[nw C'111'mn 9J 109
RIVES "P,❑S SIP S91ID
L L P Ndn^i 15 f np
tp wmd'.'n
n.
A rTQ RN rS AT LW
RENFF L.ROBIN
Direct(475)677-8908
Jane 18, 2007 r1robin0astool com
VIA FACSIMILE AND MESSENGER
Ms_Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street, 1"Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Re: Response to Appeals filed to the Planning Commission Approval of Commercial
WECS Permit 116 and Variance No 1797, and certification and approval of FEIR
No, 487
Dear Madam Clerk, and Honorable Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors:
On behalf of Dillon Wind,LLC, this letter is provided to the Board of Supervisors with a
concise summary of the extensive documents, substantial evidence and supporting materials
contained in the record of this natter, which thoroughly supports the unanimous approval by the
Riverside County Planning Commission of the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)No.
487, the Commercial Wind Energy Conversion System ("WECS") Permit 116 and the related
Variance No 1797 (referred to herein as the "Project")_ and which will support similar findings
and approvals of the Project by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The information and
evidence contained in this record is voluminous, comprehensive and substantial, and can be cited
to demonstrate that all such actions by the County of Riverside through its Planning Department
and its Planning Commission have been in full compliance with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the California Environnanental Quality Act,the California Planning and Zoning
Laws, and the Riverside County Code of Ordinances that pertain to the issues raised in the
appeals brought to this Board with respect to the Project.
The two appellants to this project are adjacent landowners who have apprehensions about
the potential diminution of their property values they believe may result fronn the proposed
Project. The motivations of these landowners are not based on legitimate claims of
environmental or land use law inadequacies where the public interest is at risk, but racier these
claims have been raised to enhance a speculative hope for residential development on their
parcels at a density far greater than allowed by the County. In addition, a small number of
ol[,. n
14'.Ihl n;,lnn
C.II lnl nla
❑In ,
SanFran-225252 1 0099999-09001
11U.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 2
nearby residents who dislike the presence of wind energy facilities in proximity to their
neighborhood have also voiced opposition to the project. However, a greater number of
residents and interests groups in Riverside County have testified in favor of this Project as being
the right type of project in an area specifically designated by the County for wind energy
development. Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have
testified in favor of this Project and the corresponding FEIR.
The following is a summary of the key points raised by the appellants and opponents in
their opposition to this project,with a short summary of how these issues have been fully
addressed in the administrative process, with a cross reference to evidentiary materials in the
record, which support the findings of the Planning Commission, and which will support a similar
(finding in support of certification and approval of the project by the Board of Supervisors.
1. Claims asserted in the appeal by the Estate of Reba Wolf based on the letter of
January 29,2007, provide uo supportable basis to discredit the certification of the FEIR or
the approval of the Dillon Wind project. All such claims have been fully refuted or
addressed in the FEIR subsequently issued in April 2007, in the Conditions of Approval for
the project, and iu the Findings and Conclusions approved by the County Planning
Commission.
In the FEIR, issued by the County in April 20077 Section 2.0 sets forth Responses to
Comments in a matrix format. The matrix cites the comment letters received and corresponding
detailed responses are provided. The 'Wolf letter of January 29, 2007 appears in this matrix as
"Letter Z". In addition to specific responses to specific letters, a Master Response (MR) matrix
was also provided, with information on common issues or question raised in more than one
comment letter.
The responses to issues raised in Letter Z are found commencing at page 2-92 through
page 2-110 ofthe FEIR. These 64 responses isolate each query raised in the letter; and provide a
specific detailed response to each question or claim. Each and every assertion made in Letter Z
has been addressed by the County and the Applicant in a comprehensive manner, with
supporting documentation or references. In most instances the information requested was
already located in the DEIR, and in sorne instances, clarification was provided in the form of
maps, supplemental photos or citations to additional supporting references.
In some instances, the appellant made broader claims that were not supported by the
evidence in the record, and the response contained in the FEIR demonstrates and clarifies the
basis for the County's refuting conclusions. k or example, at Comment Z-16, the appellant
SunPr.m-225252 1 0099999-00001
�. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 3
charged that the proposed project was inconsistent with the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Energy
Policies as stated in PASS 6.3. The FEIR Response to Comment Z-16 demonstrates that the
appellant mischaraeterized the PASS 6.3 Policy, which not only reconfirms the appropriateness
of wind power development in the Project area, but also acknowledges there will be future wind
projects in this area. The response by the County in the FEIR notes that the PASS 6.3 does not,
in fact, discourage or limits wind energy in the area, but rather, it confirms the San Gorgonio
Wind Area as one of the most important in the nation, it anticipates potential visual and related
impacts from future projects, and reasserts the importance- of this wind energy zone as a high
priority to the County. The policy also reconfirms the appropriateness of related industrial and
energy supporting facilities in the area, but does not suggest these accessory facilities are
preferred or should replace the energy facilities themselves— but merely are appropriate to
support such operations.
Other illustrative examples of unfounded claims made in Letter Z include assertions of
impacts to fringed-toed lizard (at Z-34, where the County response cites 1994 and 2001 reports
that show that no preferred habitat is present);that plant surveys were insufficient(Z-35, where
the County repeats detailed citations of survey dates and compliance with USFWS and CDFG
protocols), and an assertion that the DEIR"ducks the issue of delineation of jurisdictional waters
where a 404 permit is required" (Z-36, where County cites field surveys and five prescribed
Corps evaluation criteria applied to the site to determine absence of jurisdictional waters and
citations to correspondence in the DEIR). These and many other unsupported and inaccurate
claims by the appellant are used to attack the credibility of the environmental impact assessment
undertaken by the County, and its compliance with CEQA. The claims asserted by the appellant
have no basis in ,fact,and no new evidence is supplied to the Commission or the Board to support
a conclusion other than approval of the Project.
The examples cited above are a shall sampling of the types of issues raised in the letter
of January 29, 2007. This letter to the Board will not repeat the level of detail contained in the
all the County's response to each of these issues in both the Response to Comments,the
Conditions of Approval, and in the findings and conclusions in support of the Statement of
Overriding Considerations. The approval of the FEIR and the project by the Planning
Commission took into account the full range of issues raised in that and other correspondence,
and the responses to those comments in reaching a fully supportable conclusion that the project
and the FEIR are fully in compliance with applicable law.
San Fran-225252.1 0099999-UOool
ems. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 4
IL New Assertions Made in the Letter of April 17,2007 to the Riverside Planning
Commission submitted by the Estate of Reba Wolf, are incorrect and unsupported, and
provide no basis for denial of the Project.
1. The April 17°i letter erroneously asserts that the County did not adequately study
the impacts of the project on surrounding properties by claming that the project is not consistent
with the Rural Foundation Component in Areas I and 3, and is not consistent with the policy of
transitioning intensive industrial uses of WKS to the west (p. 3.)
RESPONSE,: As noted in the FEIR at Response A13-21, on page 2-221, the County
expressly discussed the, impacts on surrounding properties in the context of the Rural
Foundation Component. Specifically, the FEIR explains that the Rural Foundation
Component of the County's General Plan (RCIP) has three distinct subcategories (RR,
RD and RC). While the entirety of Area 1 and the vast majority of Area 3 of the Dillon
Wind site are located in an area designated as RD, where Wind Energy Development is
expressly allowed, a small portion of Area 3 currently designated as EDR is proposed in a
OPA to change to PF or Public Faculties, with a W-E zoning, to be consistent with the
Foundation Component. A twenty-acre portion of this proposed change was denied by
the Planning Commission, and the remaining portion of the parcel was recommended to
the Board to be changed as requested. The consistency of the project with the Rural
Foundation Component, and impacts connected with the adjustment of the EDF to PF
designation are fully discussed and evaluated in the FEIR and the 1 IR at Section 5.0.
2. The April 17`I' Letter erroneously claims that the County did not consider the
effect of the project on nearby residential landowners (p. 3.)
RESPONSE: As set forth in the FEIR at Response MR-22, on page 2-19, The DEIR
specifically evaluated the potential impacts of the project on adjacent and nearby
properties and determined that they will not have a significant effect on their continued or
contemplated use for residential or other development. The FEIR clarifies that when a
project is in compliance with the applicable land use and zoning standards, as is the case
For the Dillon Wind project,the impacts on the adjacent properties have also been
evaluated as part of the overall general plan and zoning of the County. Moreover,
because the County Wind Energy Policy Area (WEPA) abuts land zoned for residential
development, the visual effect of wind turbines on those adjacent areas were expressly
contemplated in the designation of the WEPA,which noted that a wind project would
have some unavoidable visual impacts. These visual impacts were evaluated and noted
where significant in the Dillon project. The FEIR further elaborates on the evidence in
SanPran•22525? 1 00999QM0001
�. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18,2007
Page 5
the record that demonstrates that continued and new residential development adjacent to
wind energy project has been compatible in the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, in
Palm Springs, and throughout the United States. The FEIR cites examples such as
residential developments near WECS 3, WECS 10 and WECS 52. The FEIR notes that
the visual impacts on adjacent properties were thoroughly examined, and those which are
significant are delineated. The FEIR reiterates that economic impacts on adjacent
development are outside the scope of CEQA unless they result in physical negative
environmental impacts. The FEIR provides substantial evidence that no such negative
economic impacts result. Additional references to support this conclusion were found in
the Renewable Energy Policy Project (REPP) Report of 2003, which found no empirical
data that negative economic impacts resulted on surrounding properties in 10 case studies
throughout the US -including the Coachella Valley,
3. The April 17a' Letter erroneously states that the Statement of Overriding
Considerations is inadequate because there is no evidentiary foundation in the record for the
cited environmental, energy and economic benefits.
RLSPONSL: The FEIR and the DEIR go well beyond the standard cited in Woodward
park Association Inc. y. City of Fresno (Feb 13,2007),No. F049481,_Cal
App. 4"' , where a statement of overriding considerations should make a good faith
effort to infonrt the public and have an evidentiary foundation in the record. On the
contrary, the FEIR and the EIR contain detailed quantified evidence of the economic,
environmental and energy benefits of the project. The evidence in support of these
conclusions by the County in the Statement of Overriding Consideration can be found in
multiple locations in the County's analysis. These include, but are not limited to:
a. Environmental - Pollution Reduction Benefits:
PEIR,p. 2-2, MR-1, (which also cites the DFIR at Section 6.2),provides evidence of the
energy and environmental benef is of the project rioting that 45 MW of wind power from
the Dillon project will reduce CO2 emissions by 186 million pounds, SO2 emissions by
9.6 million pounds and NOX emissions by 5.8 million pounds. In addition the FEIR
notes the reduction of PM10, PM 2.5. VOCs and other toxic contaminants. The FEIR
identifies the reduction of global warming, lack of water consumption, and lack of long-
term waste disposal in wind power projects. Questioning the ability of new renewable
energy projects to reduce fossil fuel energy emissions goes against extensive scientific
knowledge and public policy. The April 17`11 letter also does not acknowledge the
California Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires utilities such as SCE.to increase
Sunman-22S252 1 0099999-00001
�s.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 6
the contribution of renewable non-polluting electrical supplies at an accelerated pace;
specifically to reduce fossil fuel emissions. The Dillon Wind project specifically
contributes to the reduction of fossil fuel energy sources in SCE's portfolio, and resulting
reduction of pollutants per megawatt is provided in the record of this project (see also
1v1R-15).
b. Environmental - Open Space and Biological Flabitat Preservation Benefits
The following are a few examples of evidence in the existing record that verify open
space and biological benefits of the project that can be found in numerous sections of the
DEIR and the DEIR. These include, but are not limited to, Section 4.4 of the DEIR which
provides a detailed description of the activities that will occur on each of the Project
areas,provides maps, statistical evidence and survey verification that 1.6 percent of Area
1 will have permanent disturbance, 1.7 percent of Area 3 will have permanent
disturbance. Area 5 in Palm Springs will have 1.6 percent of permanent disturbance.
These provide the initial basis for the conclusion in the Statement of Overriding
considerations that approximately 98% of the project area will remain in open space, In
addition,the Statement of Overriding Consideration notes that the value of this remaining
open space for plant species and for foraging habitat is significant—especially when
considering the elimination ofthese species and habitats that could occur from other
industrial, or residential development on the same property.
Section 6.0 quantifies the number of plant and animal species observed in the vicinity and
project area, verifies the value of these habitats to these species, and confirms that the
potential impacts to these species is not significant when applying the criteria prescribed
by the applicable regulatory agencies and by CEQA. Potential negative impacts from
lighting and noise to wildlife were considered in the DEIR(see p. 6.3-34)and were not
found to be significant based on specified criteria
The FEIR, p, 2-14-16, Section 6.3 of the DEIR, along with supplemental information
requested by the Planning Commission and presented in written and oral testimony by the
applicant at the public hearing on April 18, 2007, provide additional evidentiary support
to the assessment of low avian mortality.
Sanfr. -225252 1 0099999-00001
Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 7
c- Economic Benefits to the County and the City
The April 17'11 letter erroneously claims a lack of evidence for the economic benefits of
the project and questions the applicant's basis for tax revenues generated, claims
uncertainty regarding the WIMP fee contribution and job creation.
In fact,the DEIR,the FEIR and testimony provided in the applicant's presentation to the
Planning Commission verify that the current local tax rates in Riverside County and the
City of Palm Springs will generate approximately S 12,000,000.00 in tax revenues to the
local governments. In addition, the DEIR, the FEIR and the Conditions of Approval
require and confirm the payment of WIMP fees to the County based on the current rate
per acre. The project has consistently stated that approximately 80 full-time construction
jobs will be created during the construction phase of the project and approximately 10
Permanent positions for full time employees will be provided. These job estimates are
based on the direct experience of the County, the applicant and other WECS in the
project vicinity.
4. The April 17`h Letter incorrectly describes development on the project site as
"checkerboard," and claims the analysis does not make sufficient use the entire WEPA in its
analysis.
RESPONSE: The alleged"checkerboard"configuration of the project raised in the letter
is hyperbole and has no basis in fact. The turbines are at opposite ends of their respective
parcels, in fact maximizing the amount of contiguous open space on the Project parcels.
It should also be noted that the parcels separating Area 1 and Area 3 already contain a
large number of existing wind turbines, all of which are fully contained in the WEPA,
and that the Dillon project is viewed by the County as an in-fill project The scope and
range of the alternatives considered in the D13IR are prescribed by a number of factors
under CEQA. These include the role of the no-project alterative (not considered the
preferred option in this case), the proximity of infrastructure such as transmission lines
and the Devers substation, and the extent to which those alternative will offset the
specific significant impacts identified by the project, which are narrowed to certain visual
impacts. The criteria and selection of alternatives within the WEPA are described in
detail in the DEIR, the FEIR and in the accompanying Statement of Overriding
Considerations,and are fully compliant with the requirements under Section 15126.6(b)
of CEQA.
SanFran•225252.1 0099994-OOo01
5�. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 8
5. The April 17`h Letter questions the inclusion of right-of-way dedications in
relation to the required setback variances, and questions whether the setbacks from dwellings are
actually met.
RESPONSE: The project fully complies with all safety setbacks as shown on Figures 4-
1, 4-2 and 4-3 of the FEIR. With regard to road dedications, the project landowner,
Southern California Edison,has committed to comply with the County Transportation
Department condition requiring rights-of-wavy right dedications within 18 months of
project approval, and the applicant has provided sufficient space to ensure that the proiect
would comply with safety setbacks as measured from the newly dedicated public streets
by moving the turbines 30-60 feet back as agreed in the FEIR Section 3 (pg 3-5).
III. Issues Raised in the Letter of May 15,2007 to the Riverside County,Planning
Department from the Estate of Reba Wolf have been fully satisfied as requested by the
Planning Commissiou.
1. The May I5'" letter erroneously claims that the FEIR's analysis of biological
impacts is flawed, specifically with regard to avian mortality findings.
RESPONSE: This assertion by the appellant relies on a letter from the USFWS, which
was subsequently clarified by both the USFWS and the applicant in written and oral
testimony at the May 16, 2007 hearing before the Planning Commission. The April 18`h
letter from the USFWS mistakenly described the Dillon project as a different,ridge-top
location (rather than its actual flat, valley-bottom location), and made requests for
mitigations or conditions that had already been incorporated into the County's Conditions
of Approval- It became clear on closer examination that the letter had not been written
with specific knowledge of the proposed project ELR. Each and every claim appellants
assert based on that letter were subsequently demonstrated to the Planning Commission
to be satisfied in the FEIR or in the Conditions of Approval.
Because the initial letter from the USFWS made requests for conditions that had already
been included in the Dillon project, or raised issues that were not relevant to the project
site (i.e. ridgelines), a clarification was subsequently obtained from the USFWS by the
County's Department of the Environment. The clarification was provided by the USFWS
in the form of an e-mail to the County and oral testimony by the Director of the County's
Environmental Programs Department.which is contained in the record of the Planning
Commission hearing. Once received and clarified, the County was able to demonstrate
that the vast majority of conditions were already included, and those that remained were
S;mFran-225252 1 0099999-000Q1
�. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
page 9
addressed as directed by the County's Environmental Programs Department.A small
number of additional preventive conditions were added to the Conditions of Approval as
a result of consultation with the USFWS as required by CEQA Guideline § 15088(c) (p.
2_). These additional conditions would have been incorporated in the County conditions
had the USFWS provided their additional comments prior to the hearing. Instead their
comment letter was received as a facsimile midway through the April 18 Planning
Commission hearing None of these additions to the County conditions were to address
any newly identified environmental impacts, but rather, these were increased preventive
pleasures that the County and applicant agreed to include based on the USFWS
comments. These conditions were reviewed and accepted by the applicant and the
Planning Commission prior to approval of the Project.
2. The May 15`h better asserts that the FEIR does not provide data on nocturnal
avian use of the project area and improperly relies on extrapolaLions from other sites
RESPONSE: The FETR and DEIR cited a comprehensive nocturnal migration study
conducted in the San Gorgonio area (McCrary et al. 1983, McCrary et al. 1984) that
showed that the vast majority of night migrants fly at elevations well above the turbine
heights. The EIR relied on existing nocturnal avian studies, as described in the DETR and
FEIR.
3. The May 151h Letter asserts that the FEIR's conclusion that avian displacement is
minimal is not supported by a study on localized effects of turbines on wildlife, in contradiction
of Fish And Wildlife Service Guidelines (pp. 3-4_)
RESPONSE: Asa result of the additional consultation with the USFWS discussed in
response 1111.1, and the supplemental evidence requested by the Planning Commission
and presented by the Applicant on May 16, 2007, potential impacts to avian species were
found to be less than significant, and to have been have been fully addressed and satisfied
in the FEIR according the appropriate protocols, including post-construction monitoring.
In addition, the USFWS letter mistakenly conflates the national Interim USFWS
guidelines with research specific io the Altamom Pass study conducted by Shaun
Smallwood, which does not pertain to the USFWS guidelines. The applicant has
addressed the Interim guidelines in Section 2 of the FEIR(p.2-36—2-40) in response to
the USFWS letter dated January 16, 2007. For example, the Interim guidelines
recommend avoiding the placement of turbines in documented location of any species of
wildlife, fish or plant protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and there are
no turbines in this project in such documented locations. It should be noted That these
SdnFmn-225252.1 0099999.00001
�. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 10
USFWS guidelines are voluntary, that the USFWS has issued correspondence
emphasizing that the guidelines are voluntary and interim, and that the USFWS is
initiating a process to revise the guidelines, and the applicant has been an active
participant in this review and revision process. The Smallwood study that recommends
three years of avian survey efforts was conducted for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, and is not applicable to the Dillon project area The USFWS letter also stated in
error that the applicant only conducted a few days of pre-construction avian studies,
another indication that the letter had not been written with specific knowledge of the
proposed project EIR.
To verify the County's conclusion regarding avian impacts, the Applicant was asked by
the Planning Commission to provide additional evidence to support the position that
avian displacement was minimal. A supplemental memorandum was provided to die
Planning Commission by the applicant as requested, and the Commission found the
evidence to be credible and substantial.
4. The letter of May 15`h erroneously asserts that the FEIR did not address the need
for project applicant to secure take permit or potential impacts to endangered golden eagle- (p.
4)
RESPONSE: The golden eagle is not a federally or state listed threatened or endangered
species. While golden eagles are a California state-listed as species of special concern
and fully protected in California under the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, a California
Incidental Take Permit is not required for golden eagle fatalities. As described in
Section 2 of the FEIR(2-14 —2-16), the project is not expected to have a significant
biological impact on birds, or golden eagles in particular. Both the DEIR and the FEIR
describe why there would be no significant effect to golden eagles. The analysis for
golden eagle is cited at DEIR, p. 6.3-3, and at 63-21, which notes that the probability of
golden eagle occurring at the project area is low, has not been observed during any site
surveys, and while there is some presence of suitable foraging habitat,the absence of any
nesting habitat is consistent with a probability evaluation as low. Unlike some other
projects located on gddelines,rather in than in the Rat central area of the pass, this
species is not at issue, and no take permit is required.
,anFlan-225252 1 0099999-00001
�. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 11
IV. Claims Made on Behalf of Seven Fortune Partners in their Letter of January 20,
2007 have been fully addressed and refuted in Letter AA in Section 2.0 of the FEIR, and in
subsequent information provided in the record of the project.
As discussed herein in Section I, the FEIR issued by the County in Apri12007, Section 2.0
sets forth Responses to Comments in a matrix format. The letter of January 30, 2007 submitted
by Mr, Steven Quintanilla, on behalf of Seven Fortune Partners III, appears in this matrix as
Letter AA. In addition to specific responses to specific letters, a Master Response (MR) matrix
was also provided, with information on common issues or question raised in more than one
comment letter.
The responses to issues raised in Letter AA are found at pages 2-111 through page 2-110
of the FEIR. These 61 responses isolate each query raised in the letter, and provide a specific
detailed response to each question or claim- Each and every assertion trade in Letter AA has
been addressed by the County and the Applicant in a comprehensive manner with supporting
documentation or references. In most instances, infortnation requested was already located in
the DEIR, and in some instances, clarifying information was provided in the form of maps,
supplemental detail regarding studies performed, photos, and citations to additional supporting
references. Responses also clarified the rationale for the feasible alternatives selected, the
rationale for the scenic and wind access setbacks, and question directed at potential diminution
of property values.
This letter does not reiterate all the County's response to each of these issues in both the
Response to Comments,the Conditions of Approval, and in the findings and conclusions in
support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The approval of the FOR and the project
by the Planning Commission reflected a thorough examination of these 61 queries and responses.
V. Claims made in the Letter of April 16,2007 From Seven Fortune Partners III are
unsupported and are inconsistent with the facts and evidence in the record before the
County.
1. The letter of April 16t,h questions the rationale for the Scenic Setback variance based on
questionable reduction of scenic character of the area. It also indicates that the variance must
satisfy the variance criteria by demonstrating special circumstances including supporting
documentation that the planning highway interchange no longer has a functional relationship
with the land.
Sunman-225252 1 0099999.00001
14�s. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18,2007
Page 12
RESPONSE: Further evidence of the special circumstances for evaluating the scenic
resource is provided in the FEIR in Section 3.0 at p 3-15, and at Section 2.0,MR-11 at p-
2-7, and visual exhibits presented, as well as in the variance application correspondence.
With respect to the measurement of the setback distance, additional information was also
requested by the Planning Commissioners- The applicant provided such supplemental
information to the Commission on May 16, 2007 in the form of a letter from CalTrans
that verifies the abandoned status of the interchange and provided evidence that the
setback should be measured from the existing alignment of IIighway 62, and therefore
would be consistent with goals of the scenic highway designation. This information is
quantitative as well as supported by the reviewing agencies, and supplements the
information provided in the FEIR at MR-1 1.
2. The letter of April 16th questions the rationale in support of the Wind Access Variance.
RESPONSE_ the County and the applicant have provided evidence in the record
maintaining the wind access setback for all the adjacent properties is not feasible due to
the narrow shape of the properties and their small acreage and/or the property is already
developed for the Devers substation or is outside the WEPA. Waivers have been provided
for several of the properties; for others, the dawn-wind properties are outside the WEPA,
and are thus inappropriate for future wind enexgy development. The data in support of the
infeasibility of wind development on those adjacent parcels is provided in numerous
locations in the record, including but not limited to the Variance letter provided to the
County on May 17, 2006, and in the FF..IR at MR-19, MR-6 and MR-11, and at Section
3.0 at pp. 3-13 through 3-16.,as well as in the materials provided by PPM Energy's Andy
Linehan in his presentation to the Planning Commission on April 18, 2007,
3. The letter raises concerns regarding the proposed Safety Setback Variance
RESPONSE,: This variance request was withdrawn and the project meets all safety
setback criteria.
4. The letter of April 16th claims that the Dillon Wind project would destroy neighboring
land values and other potential development, and will result in loss of tax revenues and
employment, and place the County in jeopardy of litigation on grounds of inverse condemnation
RESPONSE: Empirical evidence has been provided in the Record in Master Responses
21 and 22 and Appendix G of the FEIR, which demonstrates that wind energy does not
Snnrrdn-225252.10099999-00001
Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
)gage 13
have a significant negative effect on adjacent property values,tax revenues, or
employment.
5. The Letter of April 16`h questions the value of wind energy in Riverside County, and
asserts that the project will not result in clean up of degraded sites.
RESPONSE: Two of the three areas that snake up the project (Areas 1 and 5) formerly
contained wind turbines. As Andy Linehan of PPM Energy testified at the April 18
Planning Commission hearing, PPM Energy has removed several tons of abandoned
equipment and illegally dumped domestic trash from the project site. As noted at that
hearing,the adjacent Mountain View III wind project, owned by PPM Energy, is well
maintained in working order and the grounds are cleaned regularly, The value of wind
energy is adopted public policy in Riverside County and in the State of California, and
has been verified in RCIP and the WEPA and the related documentation for this Project,
all of which provide quantifiable data of the amount of renewable energy generated and
economic benefits from the project.
V1. Letter of April 17th challenges the use of the County's FastTrack Status in
relationship to the Dillon Wind Project.
REPPONSE: In fact the project has followed the ordinary County project review
timelines and no prejudice has resulted, and no reduced time has been provided for its
review by the County agencies and the public
VII. CONCLUSION
The environmental and teclmical in Formation developed for the Board's consideration on
this Project, contained in the permit applications, corresponding environmental analyses, public
testimony, and the record as a whole is comprehensive and technically sound. This information
far exceeds any legal test for adequacy for any of the proposed action by the Board of
Supervisors.
The analysis of an issue under CEQA is determined by the substantial evidence in the
record to support it. In this context, substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant
information and reasonable inferences from that information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion, even if other conclusion might also be reached(Laurel Heights
Improvement Association v._R,egents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal 3d 376 at
393.). While the appellants have raised munerous claims regarding the accuracy or credibility of
Snnl'ran-225252.1 0099999-00001
. Nancy Romcro
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 14
the Cotimy's process on this project,their claims are without evidentiary support, and contrary to
verifiable technical information in the record.
We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors uphold the unanimous approval of
this project by the Planning Commission, and certify the FEIR, the application for WECS 116
and Variance 1747, including their the Conditions of Approval, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as well as the accompanying preliminary approvals by the Planning Commission
associated with WECS 117.
Very truly yours,
Renee L. Robin
Cc: Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Mr, Jay Olivas and Mr. Paul Clark,Riverside County Planning Department
Mr, Andrew Linehan, PPM Fnergy,Inc
RLR:jlh
Sunt'ran-225252 1 0099999-00001
ST O E L III SntterStrcet Sulte 700
RIVESI V ` S San phone415 1 Call rnla 94104
-44 LL 1.11115 617&90D
LLP Nu 4156763000
muNgJ.Cnnl
ArIOKNFY1 AT LAW
RE•NEE L.ROBiN
Direct(415) 617-8908
June 21, 2007 rlrobin@stocl.com
VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Mr. James Thompson
City Cleric
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, Ca 92262
Re: Response to .Appeals filed to the City Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit No, 5.115. Variance No. 6.493, and certification and
approval of Riverside County FEIR No. 487 (EA 40878, EA 40879)
Dear Mr. Thompson and Honorable Members of the Palm Springs City Council:
On behalf of Dillon Wind, LLC, this letter is provided to the Palm Springs City Council
with a summary of the extensive doCLLlnent5, substantial evidence and supporting materials
contained in the record of this matter, which thoroughly supports the approval by the Pahn
Springs Planning Cozmmission of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR)No. 487, the
Conditional use Permit No. 5.115, and the related Variance No 6.493 (referred to herein as the
"Project"), and which will support similar findings and approvals of the Palm Springs City
Council. The information and evidence contained in this record is voluminous, comprehensive
and substantial, and can be cited to demonstrate that all such actions by the City of Palm Springs
through its Planning Department and its Planning Commission have been in full compliance with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the
California Planning and Zoning Laws, and the Riverside County Code of Ordinances that pertain
to the issues raised in the appeals brought to this Board with respect to the Project.
Attached to this letter to the City of Palm Springs is a letter we presented to the County of
Riverside on June 18, 2007. In that letter of June 18t", we responded to many of the specific
claims raised in letters by the appellants to the County of Riverside on this project. These same
letters by the appellants have been submitted to the City of Palm Springs as partial grounds for
their appeal to the City. As a result, we have attached a copy of our earlier response to those
letters directed to the County of Riverside to this letter-to the City, and it is hereby incorporated
by reference to this letter.
n1L>,„n
W.1,1, nrinn
Ca I I 1 0 1 nld
11 t n h
SanPran-225321.1 0058892-00170 1 d J 11 o
June 21, 2007
Page 2
The two appellants to this project are landowners adjacent to the Project's Area 3 (in
Riverside County) who have apprehensions about the potential diminution of their property
values that they believe may result from the proposed Project. They do not own property in the
City of Pahn Springs or adjacent to the City. The motivations of these landowners are not based
on legitimate claims of environmental or land use law inadequacies where the public interest in
Palm Springs is at risk,but rather these claims have been raised to enhance a speculative hope
for residential development on their parcels at a density far greater than allowed by the County in
the land us zone where their property is located. In addition, a small number of nearby residents
who dislike the presence of wind energy facilities in proximity to their neighborhood, have also
voiced opposition to the project. however, a greater number of residents and interests groups in
Palm Springs and in Riverside County have testified in favor of this Project as being the right
type of project in an area specifically designated by the City and the County for wind energy
development.
As previously stated to the County of Riverside, no claims of environmental deficiency in
the FEIR have been raised by any local, regional, state or federal agency or public interest group
charged with the protection of these public interests. On the contrary, environmental groups
such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have testified in favor of this Project and the
corresponding FEIR.
In addition to the response and evidence cited in our letter of June 181h to the County,
attached hereto, the Following are additional points raised by the appellants and opponents in
their opposition to this project in both the City and the County, with a short summary of how
these issues have been fully addressed in the administrative process, with a cross reference to
evidentiary materials in the record This material supports the findings of the Planning
Commission, and will support a similar finding in support of certification and approval of the
project by the Board of Supervisors.
I. Claims made in the Fetter of April 25,2007 From Seven Fortune Partners III to the
City of Palm Springs are unsupported and are inconsistent with the facts and evidence in
the record before the County.
I. The letter of April 25th raises questions regarding the required conditions for a CUP,
specifically asserting that the life of the wind turbines are shorter than the permit term, with the
implication that the area would become an "industrial junkyard."
RESPONSE: This is incorrect and is contrary to the specific conditions of approval of
the project, and Section 3 of the MR. In Section 2.0 of the FEIR, at MR-5, at p. 2-3, it
San Fran-225321.1 0058892.00170
1
June 21, 2007
Page 3
is clarified that the current lease arrangement with SCE is for 31 years, combined with
the expectation that the proposed turbines are anticipated to be upgraded to more efficient
equipment before the end of their manufacturer guarantee. This upgrade would be
associated with an application to the City or County to re-power or upgrade the project
based on new technology. However if the project is not permitted for re-powering, the
project would be decommissioned and the area restored as required in the lease with
SCE, as required with the current County and City ordinances, and as set forth in the
project's conditions of approval. Removal of the project and site restoration is included
in the DEIR, the FEIR and is a contract requirement. Moreover, the Dillon Wind project
has already removed many tons of debris from the proposed project site and has a track
record of excellent maintenance on its adjacent Mountain View III site.
2. The Letter of April 251h questions the special circumstances that exist on the physical site of
the project that justify the approved height variance and questions whether the variance provides
a grant of special privilege.
RESPONSE: The requested variance is consistent with the City's criteria due to specific
and unique physical characteristics and constraints of the Area 5 parcel. This parcel,
which previously contained wind turbine facilities authorized under County WECS
Permit No. 9, is bisected by existing SCE transmission lines. In addition the site is
uniquely constrained by utility easements, setback requirements, and the drainage
channels of the Garnet Wash, where all impacts are being avoided. As a result the
location on the parcel where wind turbines may be located are narrowed to the alignment
in the project plan. (See DEIR, Figure 4-3, and FEIR, MR-5). In order to maximize the
wind resource in this narrowed location, the turbine height is increased by a small
increment. These physical constraints of this project site fall into the category of location
and surroundings which are specifically included in the City's municipal code as an
acceptable basis for granting a variance.
A grant of a variance due to the physical constraints of this parcel as described above and
in the FEIR at MR-5 does not constitute a grant of special privilege. These constraints
are not present on the adjacent WECS parcels and thus the variance does not provide a
bonus or merit system. The fact that the increased height would occur on a site that is
otherwise surrounded by other WECS approaching 300 feet in height is a factor to be
considered in the context of any burden, hardship or imposition such a variance might
place on those property owner most likely to be affected. There is no assertion that the
merits of this variance are warranted by an over-compliance with another City policy.
The common zoning of the parcels does not reveal the specific siting challenges with this
$an Fran-225321.1 0058892-00170
1
June 21, 2007
Page 4
site for WECS proposes, and therefore the variance stands on the merits of its own
special circumstances,
II. The Letter of April 25, 2007 raising claims of destroyed or diminished property
values and specifically cites the opposition of the project by the City of Desert Plot Springs.
In an attempt to support this position, the appellant provided the City with an erroneous
copy of that City's resolution.
RESPONSE: The attached letter to the County submitted by Dillon Wind and the
contents of the DEIR and PEIR demonstrate conclusively that claims of diminished
property value and economic damage to the adjacent community are simply
unsubstantiated, and in fact are directly refitted by extensive studies provided in the
record of the project (See PEIR, pp. 2-21, NM-22 and MR-23).
We are alanned that the appellants have misrepresented the Resolution of the City of
Desert Hot Springs to the City by providing an erroneous copy of that City's Resolution,
which clearly is not representative of the City of Desert Hot Springs, and which has been
used to inflame public opinion against the project, and which further undermines the
credibility of their opposition to this project.
111. The issues raised by the Estate of Reba Wolf in opposition to the City of Palm
Springs action on these applications are fully contained in their letters to the County of
Riverside, are addressed in full in the applicant's Letter of June 18°i addressed to the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and are fully satisfied by the documents, testimony
and findings in these proceedings.
VII. CONCLUSION
The environmental and technical information developed for the Council's consideration
on this Project, contained in the permit applications, corresponding environmental analyses,
public testimony, and the record as a whole is comprehensive and technically sound. This
information far exceeds any legal test for adequacy for airy of the proposed action by the City
Council.
The analysis of an issue under CEQA is determined by the substantial evidence in the
record to support it. In this context, substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant
information and reasonable inferences from that information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion, even if other conclusion night also be reached "(Laurel Heights
San Fran-225321 10058892-00170
7 1
June 21, 2007
Page 5
Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California(1988) 47 Cal 3d 376 at
393.). While the appellants have raised numerous claims regarding the accuracy or credibility of
the County's process on this project, their claims are without evidentiary support, and conixary to
verifiable technical information in the record.
We respectfully request that the City Council uphold the unanimous approval of this project by
the Planning Commission, and certify the PE1R, the application for CUP No. 5.1115 and
Variance No. 6.493, including their the Conditions of Approval, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Very truly yours,
//original signed//RLR
Renee L. Robin
Attaclunent: Letter of June 18, 2007 from Renee L. Robin on Behalf of Dillon Wind, LLC.,to
the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors in Response to Request for Appeal.
Cc: Members of the Palm Springs City Council
Mr. Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney
Mr. Craig Ewing and Mr. Edward Robertson, City Planning Department
Mr. Andrew Linehan, PPM Energy, lnc., Dillon Wind LLC.
$an Fran-225321.1 0058892.00170
23801 Calabasas Road ` 35.325 Date F81ri7 Drive
suite loss Green, de Bortnowsky &. Quintanilla, LLP suite 202
Calabasas. CA 91302 nttomeys 2t Law Cathedral city, CA 92234
818,704.0195 700 770.08;
FaX 818.704 4729 www gdCllaw Corn Fax 7G0.770.1724
Direct E-mail Address:
squintanilla@gdqlaw.com
Reply to:
Cathedral City Office
June 27, 2007
*Via Facsimile and U.S. Mail*
Douglas Rolland, City Attorney
City of Palm Springs
3200 East TahGuitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262 —
(760) 322-8360 l a1
:. _U
Re. Dillon Wind.Project
G
Dear Mr. Holland:
This letter pertains to the Dillon Wind Project which is scheduled for a hearing
tonight before the City Council. As we discussed, a draft resolution from the City of Desert Hot
Springs was inadvertently attached to my letter to the Planning Commission(dated April 25, 2007)
rather than the final version of the resolution. A copy of the correct final version is attached hereto.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
GREEN,DE BORTNOWSIC'Y& QUINTANLLLA, LLP
Steven Q. metal I a
Counsel for Se n Fortune Partners Ill
Attachment:Final Version of Desert Hot Springs Resolution
P:\APPS\WPDATA\SEVEN FORTUNE PAId7NFFS\WIND 00011LTR\021 -Ltr to D.Holland(6-27-07).dw
1�11v�
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 hevers Substation on the east, and the 16th Avenue tight-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 690 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; end
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
5.000 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 Poo,2006-134
Page 1 of 3
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 Y
absence of archaeologicallpaleontological 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 CFTY 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 on western borders of
our City and its Sphere of Influence.
4. That, per the aforementioned paints, many unacceptable risks associated with the wind
turbines result in substantial adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, water
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 Board 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
F.^sulud-un tJn 3799 3•t
Paq? l �i i
7. That the City Council of the City of Desert Hot 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•Ml
rage 3of3
P LM s''9
fy
c
u m
F �OHaARiC fin', +
c4`'�Oxa`P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUNE 27, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: TWO APPEALS OF A DECISION BY PLANNING COMMISSION TO
CERTIFY THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 5.1115 AND ASSOCIATED
VARIANCE NO. 6.493 FOR THE INSTALLATION AND OPERATION OF
FIVE WIND ENERGY CONVESION SYSTEMS LOCATED
APPROXIMATELY 6000 FEET WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF
1-10, SOUTH OF DILLON ROAD AND EAST OF HWY62.
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Planning Department
SUMMARY
The Council will hear two appeals of the Planning Commission's approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Variance for five new wind machines to be constructed
north of Interstate 10. The project is part of an installation of 45 machines, with the
remaining forty units located outside the City in unincorporated land immediately to the
northwest and northeast of the subject site. An Environmental Impact Report has been
prepared by the County of Riverside (the Lead Agency) on the project. A public hearing
is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. Close the public
testimony portion of the hearing
2. Continue the item to the meeting of July 11, 2007 and direct staff to prepare
resolutions for upholding the decision of the Planning Commission and denying
the appeals.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
On May 23, 2007, the Planning Commission, by a vote of 4 to 1 (Hochanadel against;
Marantz and Hutcheson abstain) certified an Environmental Impact Report and granted
STEM NO.�t_l—
City Council Staff Report June 27,2007
Appeals of Planning Commission Decision—5,1115 CUP,6.493 Variance
Dillon Wind, LI_C--Southwest of Dillon and Indian Avenues Page 2 of 2
approval to a Conditional Use Permit and associated Variance to Dillon Wind, LLC to
erect and operate five wind energy conversion systems. The Variance was granted to
allow the wind conversion machines to exceed the maximum height limit of 300 feet.
The new units would be located on about 200 acres of vacant land near existing wind
energy farms in the northerly part of the City.
The appellants — Steve Quintanilla on behalf of Seven Fortune Partners III, and David
Cosgrove on behalf of the Estate of Reba Jo Wolf — have filed letters detailing their
objections to the approvals. Renee Robin, on behalf of the applicant, has submitted a
response to the Quintanilla and Cosgrove letters, and is attached to this memo.
Staff has concluded that the Commission's action complies with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act and the City's zoning ordinance, as detailed in the
attached Commission staff report, resolution, meeting minutes, and the correspondence
referenced above. Since the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) will not be
certified by the County of Riverside until July 3, 2007, staff believes that final Council
action should be held until July 11, 2007.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No fiscal impact.
I wing, P Thomas J. Wil on
Dire or of PI nin Services Assistant City anager, Dev't Svcs
Da id d H. Ready
City Manager
Attachment
Appeal Letter; Green, de Bortnowsky & Quintanilla, LLP (June 1, 2007)
Appeal Letter; Rutan & Tucker, LLP (June 1, 2007)
Response Letter; Stoel, Rives LLP (June 21, 2007)
Planning Commission Resolution No. 7004
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (May 23, 2007, draft excerpt)
Planning Commission Staff Report (May 23, 2007)
4
23801 Calabasas Road 35.325 Dare Palm Drive
Suite loss Green, de Sorrnowsky & Quintanilla, L.hP Suite 202
Calabasas,CA 91a02 Attorneys at Law Cathedral City CA 92234
818.704-0195 750.770 0873
Fax 818 704.4729 www.gtiglaw corn Fax 760.7 7 0 1 724
Direct E-mail Address:
nhemtsen@gdglaw.com
Reply to:
Cathedral City Office
June 1, 2007
�3
N
0
*Via Hand Delivery*
James Thompson, City Clerk r "
City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way "F
Palm Springs, California 92262
.tie: Notice of Appeal of Approval of the Dillon Wind Project: Variance No.
6.493 (Height Variance) and Conditional Use Permit No, CUP S.1115
Dear Mr, Thompson:
This letter is being submitted pursuant to Pahn 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 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 ofDesert Hot Springs.
My office represents Seven Fortune Partners M,who own a 320 acre parcel ofproperty 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 M
11423 East 187t'Street, Suite#101
Artesia, California 90701
(NOTE:As my office is counsel ofrecord,copies of all notices and correspondence should be 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
�0-3
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
June 1,2007
Page 2 of
5.1115.
Grounds for Anneal:This appeal is being brought on the grounds that the Planning
Commission abused its discretion in approving the projeet,variance,and conditional use permit. We
respectfullyrequest 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 Soueht: We respectfully request 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 trine and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
GREEN, DE BORTNOWSIKY&QVINTANILLA,LLP
By: � �
Nicholas E. Hermsen
Counsel for Seven Fortune Partners 1H
Aff2chment:
Letter to Planning Con u-nission Dated April 25
P.IAPPS\WPOATA)savF.N FORTUNE PAWINEAS\WIND 000 RLTR\022-Nonce of Appeal(Palm Sprin�p).doc
2-3801 Calabasas Road • 35-325 Date Palm Drive
Suite loss Green, de Sorinow5ky &Quintanilla, LLP Suite 202
Calabasas,CA 91302 Attorrle '3 at)�1w Cathedral OtY,CA 92234
S i&704.0195 760.770,0873
Fax 818 704 4729 www.gdglaw Corr) Fax 760 770.1724
Direct E-mail Address:
squintai i @gdglaw.com
Reply to:
Cathedral City Office
April 25, 2007
*Via Facsimile*
The Honorable Dianne Murantf, Chairperson
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Patin Springs Planning Commission
Pahn Springs City Hall
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Patin Springs, California 92262
(760)322-8360
Be: L'ntitlementApplicationsfor the Dillon Wind.Project: Variance No. 6493
al- eight 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 Proj ect
(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 Fortune Partners III, who own a 320 acre parcel of
properly 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 denial 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.
• e .
i
The Honorable 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 h and 3 of this project are within the sphere of
influence of Desert Hot Springs,Desert IIot Springs has no recourse to try to stop the project outside
the public comment arena. There have been numerous community meetings regarding this prof 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.
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.
L LACK OF SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
None of the Application materials submitted explain whether special circumstances
are applicable which aMct 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 the 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 IIonorable 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 WE CS 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 ofthis 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 a way 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 determhxing 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."'
(Orinda Association 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. MATERIALLY DETRIMENTAL TO HEALTH AND SAFETY AND
INJURIOUS TO PROPERTY
The Applicant argues[hat 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.
i
The Honorable Dianne Murantz, Chairperson
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Pahn 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 bas revealed that the model of turbines proposed for the Project 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 unposed 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 spur. 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 TI4E ENTITLEMENTS ARE PREMATURE
As you are aware,the County is the lead agency for this project 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 bas 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 Dianne Murantr Chairperson
Members of the Planning Commission
City of Palm Springs
April 25,2007
Page 5 of 5
entitlement process remains ongoing and unresolved.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
GREEN, DR BORTNOWSKY& QUINTANI.LLA,LLP
By
r-�
f car Steven B. Quintanilla
Counsel for Seven Fortune Partners III
Attachment:
Desert Trot Springs Resolution
Desert Sun Article dated April 19,2007
Letter from United States Fish and Wildlife Service dated April 18,2007
cc: Mr. Danny Chen
lvls. Julian Chen
Mr. Wilson Chen
P.IAPPSMPDATAISEVEN FORTUNF PARTNERSMINI)OOORLTR1015-RnM lemcnt Letter to Palm Spnngs doc
i
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-cf-
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 690 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
5,000 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 It 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 archaeologicallpaleontological 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 Hat 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 on western borders of
our City and its Sphere of Influence.
A. That, per the aforementioned points, many unacceptable risks associated With the wind
turbines result in substantial adverse environmental impacts to natural resources, water
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 "faune" (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� .
7. That the City Council of the City of Desert Hot 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 or 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 3EI3�.
Federal agency's criticism stalls wind turbine vote I Riverside County I PE.eorn Southern--- Page I of 2
m
7-
17
e-,
Federal agency's criticism stalls wind turbine vote
ffiff IN ML� 01 a
=Download story,12odcas
MOO PM PDT on Wednesday,April 18,2007
By JULYA CLICK
The Press-Enterprise
A last-minute letter from the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service prompted the.Riverside County Planning
Commission to postpone a vote Wednesday on dozens of 327-foot wind turbines proposed for land north
of Pahn Springs and-west of Desert blot Springs.
While many property owners spoke out against the project and commissioners unanimously decided to
delay the vote until May 16,most commissioners expressed support for the pToj ect.
"Everyone seems to understand the need for renewable resources, but they want it down the road, in
somebody else's backyard;' Commissioner James Poiras said after more than an hour of heated public
comment at the meeting in La Quinta.
PPM EneMy.an Oregon coonFanywifli one wind fami,nnrPalm Springs,pmposos 45 windiurbuics.Ppula,
M these in Whiw�tar,on about 1,500
htq)://www.pp-.conVIocalnews/riveounty/stoiies/PE-Nf,ws-Local-H-windmillsl9.3d67147... 4/24/2007
.1 Federal agency's criticism stalls wind turbine vote I Riverside County I PE.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,pzopose's 45 wind turbines for
three parcels totaling about 1,500 acres. The Dillon Wind Project would be north of Interstate 10, cast 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 Planting 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]rids," said Esperauza
Nunez,who lives along Indian Avenue. "Even though we are low-income people, we have a right to
peace and quiet."
Desert Hot Springs passed a resolution in December opposing the project, and City Councilman Hank
Hohenstein 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.
7he world faces a crisis in global warming," 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 ori�KLhck E.cam
http://www,pr.com/localnews/riveounty/stories/PE_Nows_Local H—windmil]sl9.3d67147... 4/24/2007
04/18/2007 14:37 FA% 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE U002
�S�pgT aF v��6�E
United-States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WEDLIFE SERVICE
. .P.colo&al Services .. �
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad,California 92011
In Reply Refer To
FWS ERI -4844 3 APR 18 2007
Jay T. 4livas,Project Planner
Riverside County Planning Department
82-675 Highway,1111 Second Floor
Indio,California 92201
Subject Comments on the Final Euviroameatal Impact Report and the Fast Track General
Plan Amendment No. 811,Fast Tract Change of Zone(CZ7346 and CZ 7449),
Fast Track Commercial WECS Permit No. 116 and No. 117,Fast Track Variance
Case No. 1797 and No. 1798 for the Dillon Wind Project;Riverside County and
Palm Springs,California
Dear lv&.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 Conversion System(WECS)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 Enviromneutal Impact Reportt(FEIR)and�h�ve concerns with the iznpacls that_
the proposed project likel would have on the followin sensitive or listed s ecies: desert
tortoise(Uopheras agassizit) (Federal threatened species),Coachella Valley round•-tailed ground
squirrel(Spermophilus tereticaudus) (Federal candidate- species),Patin Springs pocket mouse
(Perognathus longimembris bangsa),flat-tailed homed lizard(Phrynosoma mcallia),Coachella
Valley Jerusalem cricket(Stenopelmatus cahuflaensis),Coachella Valley giant sand-Treader
cricket(Macrobaenews valgum),southem yellow bat (Lasiurus ega),Le Coate's thrasher
(Tvxostoma lecontea),burrowing owl (Athene curnicularia), and other migrat4Tlt Dints..
Reductions of these resources through conversion of lands to other uses are of concern to the
Service.
Discussions of minimisation 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-
ERIV-4844.2 and dated January 17,2007. We now that Xoy did not consider all of our
recommendations for minimi ntiori and avoidance measures to•reduce the adverse efrect5 of this
TAm M ERICA
04/18/2007 14:37 FA% 7604318902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE U 003
Mr.Jay T.Olivas,Riverside County Planning Department(FWS-ERN-4844.3) 2
project below a level of significance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). We are therefore resubmitting on revious con 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 recommended,there is an appropriate
clearance protocol found on the following websites:
lhM://www.fws.gov/venture./suninfo%rotocols and bttv:/Iwww,deseTttog(iise.org.
While we understand that no desert tortoises were found during the initial survey effort,given
that there are nearby desert tortoise territories,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
contraction. Again,we emphasize that placing boards or other equipment in 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 excavation
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 notified immediately. All work should cease until
the Scrvice has been notified and determines if authorization under the Endangered Species Act
of 1973,as amended(Att)is necessary.
The Migratory Bird lkeaty Act(MBTA)(16 U.S.C.703-712)prohibits killing or takiog eggs,
fledglings,or nests of migratory birds such as the burrowing owl or Le Conte's thrasher. Based
on the META,the Service issued an interim guidance document(U.S.Fish 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 Theiander 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-coustruction and post-construction wildlife concerns be discussed and developed in
consultation with Federal and other agency biologists.
04/18/2007 14:38 FAX 7804316902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE IM 004
W. JayT.Olivas,Riverside County Planning Department(FWS ERIV-4W.3) 3
Typically,bird fatalities cannot be estimated without three veers of 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-constmctaon avian survey effort as satisfactory and
required no post-construction avian fatality monitoring for this project in the San Gorgornio
Wind Energy Resource Area(SGWERA),the Service strongly disagrees with the statement in
the FEIR on Page 6.3-34,Section 6.3.3.4.3,Cumulative Impacts. The FOR states,' be 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)3". The Service has a concern that this previous
statement is unsupportable due to the minimal pro-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 SGWERA. 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 sift 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 requiring that the majority of the project area should
remaiu as wildlife habitat. ]Aitigation.measure DR-4 will likely provide wildlife habitat for
Coachella Valley round-tailed ground squirrel,Palm Springs pocket mouse; Coachella Valley,
giant sand-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 FEIR 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
klabitat Conservation}Plan(CVIASEICP). This species qualifies as a raze or threatened species
under CEQA. We commend the County/City for stipulating the California Department of Fish
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;38 FAX 7604315902 US FISH AND WILDLIFE [Moos
I '
I
I
Mr. Jay T.Olivas,Riverside County Planning Department(PWS-ERlV4S44.3) 4
their occupied nesting burrows. Etcavatiou of burrows and installation of one-way doors must
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
thewebsite: hMgLwMMLcv
MEh_M.ordindox.htm.
We are available to work with you on avoidance and minimi�&ion 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'Rourke'
Assistant Field Supervisor
Smallwood,JCS.and Thelander,C.G.(2004).Developing methods to reduce bird mortality in
the Altamont Pass Wind Resource.Area-Final Report. PEE-EA.Contract No.500-01-019.
Ojai,California:Bic-Resource Consultants.
cc:
Kim Nicol(California Department of Fish and Game)
John Wohlmuth(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 X]epartmeut,County of Riverside
RUTAN DavidCosgrove
Direct Dial:(714 6624
) G2�4G02
ATTORNEYS AT LAW E-mail:dcosgrovc{arutnn cam
k�l�1r�PI E4w
r !"!'Y CIF F Li'i SP;�1. !G:
20H JUN -1 PH f: 31
1;'I,I'I S '1-,10Y5P�Crs
June 1,2007 CITY CLERIl
VIA FACSIMILE AND COURIER
Mr. James Thompson
City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Pain Springs, CA-92262
Tel: 760-323-8204
Fax: 760-322-8332
Ile: 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, FA40879)
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 Cotmmission's action and the Estate has previously
conunented 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-D
(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. 487 (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 is 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
lfl• �
Rutan & Tucker, LLP I 617 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400, Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PO Box 1950, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1950 1 714-641.5100 1 Fax 714-546-9035 2156)03535B.Qoa1
Orange County 1 1`1010 Alta I www.rutan com 6165990laWaII07
RUTAN
ATTOHNLY5 AT LAIC
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 1 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 from any other interested
parries (including, without limitation, the project applicant) prior to any hearing scheduled on
Us 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
Alin.: 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
/A, &9WIL.
David B. Cosgrove
DBC:MRWH
Attachments
cc: Mr. Charles B. Wolf(via electronic mail)
Renee L. Robin, Esq. (via Fed Ex)
2156/025356-0001
81659901 a06/01107
r.y,
RUTAN
ATTORNGY. AT LAW
Mr. James Thompson
,Tune 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 FOR),
b. April 17,2007, and
c. May 15, 2007.
These letters are part of the record of the Elf{and are 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 E1R 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 proj ect, 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 hereto.
2156/oz5356.0001 �
616$99.01 n06/0{/m
RUTAN
David B.Cosgrove
!>ircCl❑ia1:1714)!r6?-1 002
ATTUH NF•1"1 A I. LW J..-Mall:(tCn9('rGc!)rUlJtl.[ORI
January 29, 2007
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
Jay Olivas
Planning Department
County of Riverside
2nd Floor, Room 211
82-675 Highway 11 I
Indio,CA 92201
Re: Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dillon Mind Project,
Riverside County WECS 116 and 117, General Plan Amendment No. 911,
Change of Zone Nos. 7346 and 7449, Variance Nos. 1797 and 1798, City of Palm
Springs CUP 5.115,and Variance 6.493
Dear Mr" Olivas:
This office,and the undersigned in particular, represent the Estate of Reba Wolf the
owner of the property located immediately north of the area designated as Area 3 in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report("DEIR")referenced above, My client was given until January
31, 207, 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 east 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 runs 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 existing law permits them to be, and in many cases beyond those limits.
It does 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 from fossil fuels. These benefits are based on exaggerated production from the
project's proposed facilities, a complete disregard for the limitations of the current electrical grid
to utilize what power the project can generate,overstated figures on pollutants generated by
i•lp ,, >, n-. I :b lilt Anq;n Blvd 14 U11 i, ,•,1.1 vecI CA p26?6
Pr, 1; I'r•rry C .r 1+ Us✓ 6. CA 9Q 626 1g50 1 !1 I ,d 1.6I OU 1 F'.,X 7111-So6 41193, 1saNErlfe-ngpl
'i r;:.:•i '�v„r Iy ' a,(n 4w" '04rr r,n^1 'Xtla'n] dll2•,11:
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
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 DEIR 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 DElk's presumed beneficial impacts. In its WECS policy memorandum,dated October 2,
2001 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:
I. 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 tcchnical feasibility of various replacement options-
4. The polluting potential of various replacement options,which varies depending
on 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.t
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, 7.)
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.
�Sce, Memorandum from Robert C. Johnson to Honorable Board of Supervisors. dated
October 2,2003,Tab 1, p. 15-16.
I S9 Oyf 756•UUIII
+621Y9 02 hOI WW,
0
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
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 below.
I• Project Descrimion and Obiectivus
An accurate, stable and finite project description is the sine qua non of an informative
and legally sufficient ) IR. (County of Invo v. City of Los Angeles (1977) 71 Cal.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 (i.e.,
the '`no project"alternative)and weigh other alternatives in the balance. (1d.,at 192-193.)
The DEIR's project description fails to 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. 4-8 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 part 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 WKS project application.' They should be included as part of the project
description.
'rhe meteorological towers included in the project are another item of uncertainty.
Referenced at p. 4-14 of the DEIR, dtc 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.
a See Tab 2, pp, 4-5,
I F1e1L)ISE•IPIIII
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 arc, apparently to be
some 40-50 feet in height, within 400 feel of righo-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 DCIR. 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 OEIR 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 DFIR 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-while 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 4-13 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 48 feet. This should be specified. In addition, the
County'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.3 The areas of calculated
disturbance for each proposed turbine should them-fore include this 10 toot additional area
already required by the County.
3 Sec Tab 3.
W4.035J%-000I
•�+Ix+n,oul.m,n�
R_ UTAN
1 �G�In ,! N
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 I 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.
There 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.° I understand that other residential projects are being
proposed for the area by Mayer-Luce and Roger Snellenberger, 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 DUR 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
J A brochure put out by D.R. Fiction, the developer of the project, explaining its character is
attached at Tab 4.
I suioz+t<o-uam
7A:I3'O±aU I,'
J _
RUTAN
!ay 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 part 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
International 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( DEXR,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 patterns in and around of the Airport, to provide a
more accurate picture of the impact to the location and frequency of air traffic corridors actually
used.
3. Land Ilse 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; The very existence of the DEIR,and the Fast Track 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 I and 3 are located within the Desert Hot Springs sphere of influence.
As the County is certainly aware,the City of Desert Ilot 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 fauna.°
S See Tab S,3 p. 2.
Sec Resolution No. 2006-134,at Tab 6.
RuTANI
Jay Olivas
January 29,2007
- Page 7
'rhe DEIR makes reference to the San Gorgonio Wind Energy Community Policy Area,
alleging consistency. Policy PASS 6.3 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 RCIP,the
Rural Foundation Component is for`remote cabins, residential estates, limited agriculture,
equestrian,and animai keeping uses." The noise,vibration and disturbances of WKS 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. 5-1 I 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 Claw running
through the entire document. At p, 5-I1, 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
facto lead to a conclusion of infeasibility. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors
(1998) 197 Cal.App.3d 1167, 1181.) If infeasibility is to be asserted, it must be supported with
specific 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
evidentiary support.
The project attempts to secure a variance from the scenic highway setback on die basis
that highway 62 has reduced scenic value. (See, DEIR p, 5-11.) The DEIR's own view study
' The same economic viability argument is invoked in rejection of each one of the alternatives
listed under Section 9 of the DEIR.
�yam_5154-nnoi '
xa i rt n: o ia•,,a�
AN
. oNUTN
Jay Olivas
January 29,2007
Page S
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 conditions
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 WECS 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, 2006.1 That 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 even 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 I,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 DEIR'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.IS as a designated scenic corridor in the
Western Coachella Valley Plan. Any fair analysis of aesthetic impacts must include impacts to
these view sheds.
9 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 T'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-
Attached as Tab 8.
154N$435041003
ikl l47 02 ni l 21)V7
In—
r
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 t0,2007,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, from 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
ground.
Perhaps more to the point, the DVD shows what the DEIR'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 lower is an incomplete reference for view impacts, because it is at least 134 feet
'lower than each of the proposed WECS 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 DEIR 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 fluor,
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.t0
See, Tab 1, p. 6,
1V A'025 U0111 1�1.+
e
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
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 Routo 62, Indian Avenue. and Pierson
refute the -'less critical"designation this DEIR relics 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-I5.) 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 Pierpont, 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.i7
In an effort to till 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 arc attached under Tab 11.
Calculated from field measurements, the height of the phone pole was 33 feet. This pole
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 aver three 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. 6.1-28, 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
" See. lab 9.p- 8-9-
12 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 affoct
nearby residences, and can cause sickness or nausea- ("lab 10. p. 31,) The shadow impacts are
potentially significant, on both existing and potential future housing, and impact wildlife as well.
I tg.p;4y<u-JObI
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
January 29, 2007
Page I
states, "The brightness of this lighting shall be kept relatively low." (DEIR,p.6.1-28.) This is
impermissibly vague. What type of lighting will be utilized? flow 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
identified 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 Fnergy Commission has issued its"Assessment of
Avian Mortality From Collisions and Electrocutions,"dated June 2005,attached under 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 does
not address,and deficiencies the DEIR does not remedy- For example, it indicates that
information edllccted 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 Slate 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 intorvals, and the unknown
impact of scavenging rates. (Tab 12, pp. 20-21.) Moreover, Mr. Anderson's vague, conclusory
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
13 For example, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act has no provision for any take, such
164.n]USn.nnpl
11137 11:.9)L 19,07
( COO
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
January 29,2007
Page 12
rcd-tailed hawk and burrowing owl fatalities from the project. (Biological Assessment,
Appendix E.) 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. U
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 WWre Paper)written in support of
the 2005 Environmental Performance Report and the 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report."14
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 fundamcntal
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 tinder 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 hero falls far short of that three-year standard.
In addition, the DEIR finds that there is bat foraging habitat onsite. (UEIR, 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 bad in driving them away. (See e-mail from Abby
Silverstone dated January 9, 2007,attached as Tab 13.)
14 Attached as Tab 14.
154 V2 43 s4-01101
7A?I iT 02 n0 1.129N:
atr
}
�• t:
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 DEM'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
Sum 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.' 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, C.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;NRFI.ISR-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.31.)
The 19.8 RPM cited as relatively harmless in the DF1R (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 ibis force.
The biological deficiencies in the DEIR are 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 I.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
us T•he 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.
�svu)5+5 wool
ite i n7 ua.ui.;•i,u>
V-`�
RUTAN
Jay Dlivas
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 DEfR 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 U3. Fish
& Wildlife Service is currently undergoing a spectral analysis from satellite imagery to
" 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 DEIR also seems to duck the issue of delineation ofjurisdictional 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& Uamc. If a 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 DEIR adopts erroneous thresholds of significance for biological
impacts. Reliance on areas identified as mitigation areas in the proposed Coachella Valley
MSHCP 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,either 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. The 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 DEfR 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.) h is also refuted by personal, first-hand
observation by residents. (Tab 11)
i c9m:usn.oup�
,42,1V a:au I:7n:a1
.�p
Y Qil
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
January 29,2007
page 15
6. Geology/Soils.
At p. 5-3,the DHIR shows that the project site is susceptible to subsidence. This is a
particular concern with the interaction of proposed turbines and the Southern California Gas
high-pressure gas line traversing Area 3. A potential leak or rupture of the gas line can combine
with heal,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 Hooding 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
groundborne 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 heiPt,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, Infresound and Noise Perception, January 18, 2006,-fob 19.
154IV 535p.000 I
147
n�'
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 Health Organization in 1999. (See"Cab 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
zoning 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.
8. Cumulative Impacts.
The DE1R 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 Waal 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-
required red strobe lights on the towers. The U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service indicates these fights
should not be used,since they appear to attract night-migrating birds at a much higher rate than
white strobe lights. (Tab 15,p, 4.) The DE1R is silent on this impact,since 4 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 OEIR 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.
'RIY71 311 97 5 5/•�P
f12 agIP,')N]
RUTAN
.r J "
Jay Olivas
January 29,2007
Page 17
9. Alternatives and Project Obiectives.
'rhe DEIR includes a project objective of taking advantage of economies of scale on
projects sized above 25 MW. (DEIR., 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 SB 1078's
energy goal of 20%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 or 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 are wholly fictional.
154.Vi535 .000I
'N:1 tl'n:au IItbU7
( Of
RUTAN
• I \ + •115
Jay Olivas
January 29, 2007
Page I8
Page 6,2-3 of the DEIR asserts that wind-generated electricity displaces on average 1.35
lbs. of COz,0.07 tbs-of SO2,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 CO,is
0.049 tbs., for SO2 is 0.0000006431bs.,and NOx is 0 0000235 Ibs. (See, U.S. Electric Power
Industry Estimated Emissions by State(ElA-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 1,832.2 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. ('Cab 1,p, 15,
n,2.) This translates to a 22%capacity factor,as do the latest available 5-year data for California
Wind Energy from IJC 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 therelore
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 specifically 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.
i Samt556.aror i
n:ra%nt out 211 W,
so
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.18
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 honest.19 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 Elk must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant
elFects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Cade
§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,)
�s See articles by Mr. Schleede, 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 Tab 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.
ii•,uzyssa+nni
'N21YT 12 n01R90"/
����'f
i
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
January 29, 2007
Page 20
Here, the DE111's narrow range of alternatives, and its`one-pore song"of avoided fossil
fuel pollutants as the basis for the project's supposed environmental superiority,utterly fail to
meet this CEQA mandate.20
10- 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 CCQA 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 protect 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.
I Su,02tli4-Wjul
Ina lR,0:ae 1.19,07
1'R n
L,
RUTAN
• n .l+ • I•n
Jay Oltvas
January 29,2007
Page 21
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this DEIR. If you have any further
comments or questions, or require further information from me,please do not hesitate to contact
me.
Very truly yours,
RUTA--NJJ& TUCKER, LLP
David 8, Cosgrove
DBC:tr
Enclosure
rl
+eal8:
1921 02 l Ab01
mn•:mw '
RUYAN
Jay Olivas
January 29,2007
Page 22
Exhibits to Comments to Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Dillon Wind Project,
Riverside County WKS 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
1 County.of Riverside Planning Department Memorandum dated October 2,2003
2 .Application for Commercial Wind Energy Conversion Systems(WECS) Permit-Case
No WCS00117, dated May 22, 2006 _
3 - Conditions and Approvals for PP21093RI _W
4 Skybarne Development Brochure; Development Sign
5 Submittal to Board of Supervisors from Economic Development Agency, dated March
_ 7a 2003_
Resolution No. 2006-134� _
7 Comments to DEIR; WECS 116-117; Estate of Wolf; Site Environs-January 10, 2007
_ (Disk) �µ�
8 _Press-Enterprise Article dated July 8,2006 _
19 Wind Turbine Syndrome: Noise, Shadow Flicker, and Health-by Nina Pierpont, M.D.,
Ph.D.,dated August 1, 2006
r10_ Direct Testimony of Jon Boone
TT Shadow Study-Dillon Wind Project
12 Assessment of Avian Mortality From Collisions and Electrocutions
13 - E-mail from A. Silverstone dated January 9, 2007
I4 Memorandum from California Energy Commission to Commissioners Ocesinan and
Bo d, 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'furbines
16 Leiter 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
18 Meeting Summary for the National Avian Wind Power Planning Meeting IV dated May
16-17, 2000 _ J
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
2006 _
21-- - Guidelines fqr C_ommumty Noise
122 U.S. Dept. of Ennr Greenhouse Emissions For California in 2005 23 Wind Performance Reporting System
Lv+u•]sn.uom
'd:IMf O]aJ L:vm]
_
r 017
RUTAN
Jay Olivas
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
Tab _ 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 wick-Setting Concrete and a Method for Making Quick-Setting Concrete
�s•ro;s�sr,.unu�
TAN (� (3 Dac'1 R.W.Houston
L?irca c[Dial,(714)338-1859
4 f l 1 i+` t 1 ^ 7• L A 11 E-mail.mhotistonnmmn.com
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 111
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 Staff's 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.
I.
ra' ul9 TIr Fer i.LP F ;11 A,w)n Shd 'iuilq : I,a Cr,;ra hda5a 4A, 926'[5
ter) _lox i')�0, 4., g IAr4a r:A 92n2a,-1'i54 I '7•}-3-11•:1rQ I F. . :19-; 46-31���
159lWS}56.nIN)I
f,nl,n F%try ni;p I AI BMW '47a:1 f,pR SOAfi IfI(Il.rpd/I"'0'/
. RUTAN
,.{1Y`il� ti N
Honorable Chairman and Members of the
Riverside County Planning Commission
Apri117, 2007
Page 3
Z. The County Should Study. and Evaluate the Impacts of This Proiect 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 I 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 WFCS 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
2 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_
159102n56.0001
8040001 AVP/07
RUTAN
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 Inadequate.
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)
_ Ca1.App.4th_. 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. (U)
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
Iikewise 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.
S04610 01 04 1
swaiooi aoarilror ' � '� _47�7
L ,
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." (DEK p. 7-4.) Further, there is no mention
anywhere in the draft E1R of the basis of the claim for $12,000,000 of property taxes4, 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 Quartet, 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. Lack 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.
1591025356-0001
30461001 a0V17,1)7 �-• C •�
RUTAN
,,I ,I..,, „ ,.,w
Honorable.Chairman and Members of the
Riverside County Planning Commission
April 17, 2007
Page 6
(Staff Report, p. 2.) The FE1R 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 analysis and recognition of impacts inherent in the DEIR, 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
MRWH:tnm
CC: David Cosgrove, Esq.
15461D O1 aD/1 On
i0i61D 01 n09/17l07 °�' "��
RUTAN
David B.Cosgrove
Direct Dial:(714)662-0602
ATTORNEYS AT LAW E-mail:dcosgrove(ajvtan.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; PlanninE 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. 1 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.i
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 past-construction avian
1 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 11SFWS.
Rutan & Tucker, LLP 1 $11 Anton Blvd, Suite 1400 Costa Mesa CA 92626
PO Box 1950 Costa Mesa, CA 52528-1950 1 714-641,5100 1 Fax 714.546.9035 150/015156ADD1
Orange County I Palo Alio I www.rutan.conl 812927 01 aU3lt5/07
AUUN
A'rrt'KNl Y1 nr l am
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 SGWEIlA.
(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
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.)
Here, 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 treasure 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
tanking various sites against each other, under what the guidelines tern 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 F1 IR, 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.z
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 Cam._v_._Board of Port Corrunissioners (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th
EI3827 01 a05/15107
y� ,
kUTAN
' ATTUa111k %T I�W
Jay 011vas
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. (Id., 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 fxom 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 15].)
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.)
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.)
159/025356-0001 _
01'827.01 a05/15107 �—
RUTAN
AI IUR\f Y%ni l.Aw
Jay Olivas
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 afterward.
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 significant3.
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 respectfully 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,
RUTAN & 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.)
lseroxsnss.aual
812327 01 05115107
S T O E L Ili sutler street suite 700
San I ianclsco Callrornla 94104
RIVES phon,A15GI)=0
L L P fa S Id com 0
wmw st<,el cnm
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RENEE L.RoBiN
Direct(413) 617-8908
June 21, 2007 rlrobin a stoel.com
VIA E-MAIL AND FACSIMILE
Mr. James Thompson
City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, Ca 92262
Re.- Response to Appeals tiled to the City Planning Commission Approval of
Conditional Use Permit No, 5.115. Variance No. 6.493, and certification and
approval of Riverside County FEIR No. 487 (EA 40878, EA 40879)
Dear Mr. Thompson and Honorable Members of the Palm Springs City Council:
On behalf of Dillon Wind, LLC, this letter is provided to the Palm Springs City Council
with a summary of the extensive documents, substantial evidence and supporting materials
contained in the record of this matter, which thoroughly supports the approval by the Palm
Springs Planning Commission of the I,inal Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) No. 487, the
Conditional use Permit No. 5.115, and the related Variance No 6.493 (referred to herein as the
"Project"), and which will support similar findings and approvals of the Palm Springs City
Council. The information and evidence contained in this record is voluminous, comprehensive
and substantial, and can be cited to demonstrate that all such actions by the City of Palm Springs
through its Planning Department and its Planning Commission have been in full compliance with
the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act,the
California Planning and Zoning haws, and the Riverside County Code of Ordinances that pertain
to the issues raised in the appeals brought to this Board with respect to the Project.
Attached to this letter to the City of Palm Springs is a letter we presented to the County of
Riverside on June 18, 2007. In that letter of June 18"i, we responded to many of the specific
claims raised in letters by the appellants to the County of Riverside on this project. These same
letters by the appellants have been submitted to the City of Palm Springs as partial grounds for
their appeal to the City. As a result, we have attached a copy of our earlier response to those
letters directed to the County of Riverside to this letter to the City, and it is hereby incorporated
by reference to this letter_
O,egun
t ll' i hingl •n
cal l to r n la
- ulao
SmFrun-225321.1 0058892.00170
qft%%�
June 21,2007
Page 2
The two appellants to this project are landowners adjacent to the Project's Area 3 (in
Riverside County) who have apprehensions about the potential diminution of their property
values that they believe may result from the proposed Project. They do not own property in the
City of Palm Springs or adjacent to the City. The motivations of these landowners are not based
on legitimate claims of environmental or land use law inadequacies where the public interest in
Palm Springs is at risk, but rather these claims have been raised to enhance a speculative hope
for residential development on their parcels at a density far greater than allowed by the County in
the land us zone where their property is located. In addition, a small number of nearby residents
who dislike the presence of wind energy facilities in proximity to their neighborhood, have also
voiced opposition to the project. I-lowever, a greater number of residents and interests groups in
Palm Springs and in Riverside County have testi Ged in favor of this Project as being the right
type of project in an area specifically designated by the City and the County for wind energy
development.
As previously stated to the County of Riverside, no claims of environmental deficiency in
the FEIR have been raised by any local, regional, state or federal agency or public interest group
charged with the protection of these public interests. On the contrary, environmental groups
such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have testified in favor of this Project and the
corresponding FEIR.
In addition to the response and evidence cited in our letter of June I S'h to the County,
attached hereto, the following are additional points raised by the appellants and opponents in
their opposition to this project in both the City and the Cotmty, with a short summary of how
these issues have been fully addressed in the administrative process, with a cross reference to
evidentiary materials in the record This material supports the findings of the Planning
Commission, and will support a similar finding in support of certification and approval of the
project by the Board of Supervisors.
1. Claims made in the Letter of April 25, 2007 From Seven Fortune Partners III to the
City of Palm Springs are unsupported and are inconsistent with the facts and evidence in
the record before the County.
1. The letter of April 251h raises questions regarding the required conditions for a CUP,
specifically asserting that the life of the wind turbines are shorter than the permit term, with the
implication that the area would become an "industrial junkyard."
RESPONSE: This is incorrect and is contrary to the specific conditions of approval of
the project, and Section 3 of the FEIR. In Section 2.0 of the FEIR, at MR-5, at p. 2-3, it
SanFran-225321.1 0058892.00170
7 1
June 21,2007
Page 3
is clarified that the current lease arrangement with SCE is for 31 years, combined with
the expectation that the proposed turbines are anticipated to be upgraded to more efficient
equipment before the end of their manufacturer guarantee. This upgrade would be
associated with an application to the City or County to re-power or upgrade the project
based on new technology. However if the project is not permitted for re-powering, the
project would be decommissioned and the area restored as required in the lease with
SCE, as required with the current County and City ordinances, and as set forth in the
project's conditions of approval. Removal of the project and site restoration is included
in the DEIR, the FEIR and is a contract requirement. Moreover, the Dillon Wind project
has already removed many tons of debris from the proposed project site and has a track
record of excellent maintenance on its adjacent Mountain View III site.
2. The Letter of April 251h questions the special circumstances that exist on the physical site of
the project that justify the approved height variance and questions whether the variance provides
a grant of special privilege.
RESPONSE: The requested variance is consistent with the City's criteria due to specific
and unique physical characteristics and constraints of the Area 5 parcel. This parcel,
which previously contained wind turbine facilities authorized under County WECS
Permit No. 9, is bisected by existing SCE transmission lines. In addition the site is
uniquely constrained by utility casements, setback requirements, and the drainage
channels of the Garnet Wash, where all impacts are being avoided. As a result the
location on the parcel where wind turbines may be located are narrowed to the alignment
in the project plan. (See DEIR, Figure 4-3, and FEIR, MR-5). In order to maximize the
wind resource in this narrowed location, the turbine height is increased by a small
increment. These physical constraints of this project site fall into the category of location
and surroundings which are specifically included in the City's municipal code as an
acceptable basis for granting a variance.
A grant of a variance due to the physical constraints of this parcel as described above and
in the FEIR at MR-5 does not constitute a grant of special privilege. These constraints
are not present on the adjacent WECS parcels and thus the variance does not provide a
bonus or merit system. The fact that the increased height would occur on a site that is
otherwise surrounded by other WECS approaching 300 feet in height is a factor to be
considered in the context of any burden, hardship or imposition such a variance might
place on those property owner most likely to be affected. There is no assertion that the
merits of this variance are warranted by an over-compliance with anotber City policy.
The common zoning of the parcels does not reveal the specific siting challenges with this
SmFrm-225321.1 0058892-00170 "
7 1
June 21, 2007
Page 4
site for WECS purposes, and therefore the variance stands on the merits of its own
special circumstances.
IL The Letter of April 25,2007 raising claims of destroyed or diminished property
values and specifically cites the opposition of the project by the City of Desert Hot Springs.
In an attempt to support this position, the appellant provided the City with an erroneous
copy of that City's resolution.
RESPONSE: The attached letter to the County submitted by Dillon Wind and the
contents of the DEIR and FEIR demonstrate conclusively that claims of diminished
property value and economic damage to the adjacent community are simply
unsubstantiated, and in fact are directly refuted by extensive studies provided in the
record of the project (See FEIR, pp. 2-21, MR-22 and MR-23).
We are alanned that the appellants have misrepresented the Resolution of the City of
Desert Hot Springs to the City by providing an erroneous copy of that City's Resolution,
which clearly is not representative of the City of Desert Hot Springs, and which has been
used to inflame public opinion against the project, and which further undermines the
credibility of their opposition to this project.
III. The issues raised by the .Estate of Reba Wolf in opposition to the City of Palm
Springs action on these applications arc fully contained in their letters to the County of
Riverside, are addressed in full in the applicant's Letter of June I8`1i addressed to the
Riverside County Board of Supervisors, and are fully satisfied by the documents, testimony
and findings in these proceedings.
VII. CONCLUSION
The environmental and technical information developed for the Council's consideration
on this Project, contained in the permit applications, corresponding environmental analyses,
public testimony, and the record as a whole is comprehensive and technically sound. This
information far exceeds any legal test for adequacy for any of the proposed action by the City
Council.
The analysis of an issue under CEQA is determined by the substantial evidence in the
record to support it. In this context, substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant
information and reasonable inferences from that information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion, even if other conclusion might also be reached "(Laurel Heights
Sa F=-225321 1 0058892-00170
7 1
June 21, 2007
Page 5
Improvement Association v. Regents of the 13niversity of California(1988) 47 Cal 3d 376 at
393.). While the appellants have raised numerous claims regarding the accuracy or credibility of
the County's process on this project, their claims are without evidentiary support, and contrary to
verifiable technical information in the record.
We respectfully request that the City Council uphold the unanimous approval of this project by
the Planning Commission, and certify the FEIR, the application for CUP No. 5.1115 and
Variance No. 6.493, including their the Conditions of Approval, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
Very truly yours,
//original signed//RLR
Renee L. Robin
Attachment: Letter of June 18, 2007 from Renee L. Robin on Behalf of Dillon Wind, LLC., to
the County of Riverside Board of Supervisors in Response to Request for Appeal.
Cc: Members of the Palm Springs City Council
Mr. Douglas C. Holland, City Attorney
Mr. Craig Ewing and MT. Edward Robertson, City Planning Department
Mr. Andrew Linehan, PPM Energy, Inc., Dillon Wind LLC.
SanFran-225321 1 0058892.00170 r - -
sr o L L III SuIIer SWcel 511111 700
RIVES
znchm CaUrumre 94104
RIVES mum 415 GV 3900
I.I.P
1ne n IS 06 MOO
"M
,..Ind cnm
ATTOJIN rs AT lr.W
1UNEE L,,Ro81N
Direct(415)617-8908
June 18, 2007 ubin( sroel.cum
VIA FACSIMILE AND MESSENGER
Ms.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
Riverside County Board of Supervisors
4080 Lemon Street, lS1 Floor
Riverside, California 92501
Re: Response to Appeals filed to the Planning Commission Approval of Commercial
WE CS Permit 116 and Variance No 1797, and certification and approval of FEIR
No,487
Dear Madam Clerk, and Honorable Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors:
On behalf of Dillon Wind, LLC,this letter is provided to the Board of Supervisors with a
concise summary of the extensive documents, substantial evidence and supporting materials
contained in the record of this matter,which thoroughly supports the unanimous approval by the
Riverside County Planning Commission of the Final Environmental Impact Report(FEIR)No.
487, the Commercial Wind Energy Conversion System (-`WECS")Permit 116 and the related
Variance No 1797 (referred to herein as the "Project"), and which will support similar findings
and approvals of the Project by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. The information and
evidence contained in this record is voluminous, comprehensive and substantial, and can be cited
to demonstrate that all such actions by the County of Riverside through its Planning Department
and its Planning Commission have been in full compliance with the procedural and substantive
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the California Planning and Zoning-
Laws, and the Riverside County Code of Ordinances that pertain to the issues raised in the
appeals brought to this Board with respect to the Project.
The two appellants to this project are adjacent landowners who have apprehensions about
the potential diminution of their property values they believe may result fi-om the proposed
Project. The motivations of these landowners are not based on legitimate claims of
environmental or land use law inadequacies where the public interest is at risk, but rather these
claims have been raised to enhance a speculative hope for residential development on their
parcels at a density far greater than allowed by the County. In addition, a small number of
Oi c4on
11 ,hingl:n
C.II for ui.
ll ih
SanFmn-225252 t 0099999.00001
IR{s.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
.Tune 18, 2007
Page 2
nearby residents who dislike the presence of wind energy facilities in proximity to their
neighborhood have also voiced opposition to the project. However, a greater number of
residents and interests groups in Riverside County have testified in favor of this Project as being
the right type of project in an area specifically designated by the County for wind energy
development. Environmental groups such as the Natural Resources Defense Council have
testified in favor of this Project and the corresponding FEIR.
The following is a summary of the key points raised by the appellants and opponents in
their opposition to this project,with a short summary of how these issues have been fully
addressed in the administrative process, with a cross reference to evidentiary materials in the
record, which support the findings of the Planning Commission, and which will support a similar
Finding in support of certification and approval of the project by the Board of Supervisors.
1. Claims asserted in the appeal by the Estate of Reba Wolf based on the letter of
January 29,2007,provide no supportable basis to discredit the certification of the FEIR or
the approval of the Dillon Wind project. All such claims have been fully refuted or
addressed in the FEIR subsequently issued in April 2007, in the Conditions of Approval for
the project, and in the Findings and Conclusions approved by the County Planning
Commission.
In the FEIR, issued by the County in April 20072 Section 2.0 sets forth Responses to
Comments in a matrix format. The matrix cites the comment letters received and corresponding
detailed responses are provided. The Wolf letter of January 29, 2007 appears in this matrix as
"Letter Z". In addition to specific responses to specific letters, a Master Response (MR) matrix
was also provided, with information on common issues or question raised in more than one
comment letter.
The responses to issues raised in Letter Z are found commencing at page 2-92 through
page 2-110 of the FEIR. These 64 responses isolate each query raised in the letter, and provide a
specific detailed response to each question or claim, Each and every assertion made in Letter Z
has been addressed by the County and the Applicant in a comprehensive manner, with
supporting documentation or references. In most instances the information requested was
already located in the DEIR, and in some instances, clarification was provided in the form of
maps, supplemental photos or citations to additional supporting references.
In some instances, the appellant made broader claims that were not supported by the
evidence in the record, and the response contained in the FEIR demonstrates and clarifies the
basis for the County's refining conclusions. For example, at Comment Z-16, the appellant
SanFrin-225252 1 0099999-00001
i_ no
.ills-Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 3
charged that the proposed project was inconsistent with the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Energy
Policies as stated in PASS 6.3. The FEIR Response to Comment Z-16 demonstrates that the
appellant mischaracterized the PASS 6.3 Policy, which not only reconfirms the appropriateness
of wind power development in the Project area, but also acknowledges there will be future wind
projects in this area. The response by the County in the FETR notes that the PASS 6.3 does not,
in fact, discourage or limits wind energy in the area,but rather, it confines the San Gorgonio
Wind Area as one of the most important hn the nation, it anticipates potential visual and related
impacts from future projects, and reasserts the importance of this wind energy zone as a high
priority to the County. The policy also reconfirms the appropriateness of related industrial and
energy supporting facilities in the area, but does not suggest these accessory facilities are
preferred or should replace the energy facilities themselves---but merely are appropriate to
support such operations.
Other illustrative examples of unfounded claims made in Letter Z include assertions of
impacts to fringed-toed lizard (atZ-34, where the County response cites 1994 and 2001 reports
that show that no preferred habitat is present);that plant surveys were insufficient(Z-33, where
the County repeats detailed citations of survey dates and compliance with USFWS and CDFG
protocols), and an assertion that the DEIR"ducks die issue of delineation of jurisdictional waters
where a 404 permit is required" (Z-36, where County cites field surveys and five prescribed
Corps evaluation criteria applied to the site to determine absence of jurisdictional waters and
citations to correspondence in the DEIR). These and many other unsupported and inaccurate
claims by the appellant are used to attdek the credibility of the environmental impact assessment
undertaken by the County, and its compliance with CEUA. The claims asserted by the appellant
have no basis in fact, and no new evidence is supplied to the Commission or the Board to support
a conclusion other than approval of the Project.
The examples cited above are a small sampling of the types of issues raised in the letter
of January 29, 2007. This letter to the Board will not repeat the level of detail contained in the
all the County's response to each of these issues in both the Response to Comments,the
Conditions of Approval, and in the findings and conclusions in support of the Statement of
Overriding Considerations. The approval of the FEIR and the project by the Planning
Commission took into account the full range of issues raised in that and other correspondence,
and the responses to those comments in reaching a fully supportable conclusion that the project
and the FEIR are frilly in compliance with applicable law.
SmFrau-225252.1 0099999-00001 -
��Ir°
1DLs.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 4
11. New Assertions Made in the Letter of April 17, 2007 to the Riverside Planning
Commission submitted by the Estate of Reba Wolf, are incorrect and unsupported, and
provide no basis for denial of the Project.
1. The April 17`h letter erroneously asserts that the County did not adequately study
the impacts of the project on surrounding properties by claming that the project is not consistent
with the Rural Foundation Component in Areas 1 and 3, and is not consistent with the policy of
transitioning intensive industrial uses of WECS to the west (p. 3)
RESPONSE: As noted in the FEIR at Response AB-2 1, on page 2-221, the County
expressly discussed the impacts on surrounding properties in the context of the Rural
Foundation Component. Specifically, the FEIR explains that the Rural Foundation
Component of the County's General Plan (RCIP)has three distinct subcategories (RR,
RD and RC)_ While the entirety oFArea 1 and the vast majority of Area 3 of the Dillon
Wind site are located in an area designated as RD, where Wind Energy Development is
expressly allowed, a small portion of Area 3 currently designated as EDR is proposed in a
GPA to change to PF or Public Faculties, with a W-E zoning, to be consistent with the
Foundation Component. A twenty-acre portion of this proposed change was denied by
the Planning Commission, and the remaining portion of the parcel was recommended to
the Board to be changed as requested. The consistency of the project with the Rural
Foundation Component, and impacts connected with the adjustment of the EDF to PF
designation are fully discussed and evaluated in the FEIR and the EIR at Section 5.0.
2. The April 17`h Letter erroneously claims that the County did not consider the
effect of the project on nearby residential landowners (p. I)
RESPONSE: As set forth in the FEIR at Response MR-22, on page 2-19, The DEIR
specifically evaluated the potential impacts of the project on adjacent and nearby
properties and determined that they will not have a significant effect on their continued or
contemplated use for residential or other development. The FEIR clarifies that when a
project is in compliance with the applicable land use and zoning standards, as is the case
for the Dillon Wind project,the impacts on the adjacent properties have also been
evaluated as part of the overall general plan and zoning of the County, Moreover,
because the County Wind Energy Policy Ared (WEPA) abuts land zoned for residential
development, the visual effect of wind turbines on those adjacent areas were expressly
contemplated in the designation of the WEPA, which noted that a wind project would
have some unavoidable visual impacts. These visual impacts were evaluated and noted
where significant in the Dillon project. The FEIR further elaborates on the evidence in
yonFran-225252 1 0099999.00001
� ems.Nancy Itoznero
Clerk of the Board
June 18,2007
Page 5
the record that demonstrates that continued and new residential development adjacent to
wind energy project has been compatible in the Coachella Valley in Riverside County, in
Palm Springs, and throughout the United States. The FEM cites examples such as
residential developments near WECS 3, WECS 10 and WECS 52. The FEIR notes that
the visual impacts on adjacent properties were thoroughly examined, and those which are
significant are delineated. The FEIR reiterates that economic impacts on adjacent
development are outside the scope of CEQA unless they result in physical negative
environmental impacts. The FEIR provides substantial evidence that no such negative
economic impacts result. Additional references to support this conclusion were found in
the Renewable Energy Policy Projeet (REPP) Repon of 2003, which found no empirical
data that negative economic impacts resulted on surrounding properties in 10 case studies
throughout the US -including the Coachella Valley.
3, The April 17°i Letter erroneously states that the Statement of Overriding
Considerations is inadequate because there is no evidentiary foundation in the record for the
cited environmental, energy and economic benefits.
R1SPONSE: The FEIR and the DEIR go well beyond the standard cited in Woodward
park homeowners Association Inc. v. City of Fresno (Feb 13, 2007),No. F049481,_Cal
App. 4`h , where a statement of overriding considerations should make a good faith
effort to inform the public and have an evidentiary foundation in the record. On the
contrary,the FEIR and the EIR contain detailed quantified evidence of the economic,
environmental and energy benefits of the project- The evidence in support of these
conclusions by the County in the Statement of Overriding Consideration can be found in
multiple locations in the County's analysis. "Ibese include, but are not limited to:
a. Environmental -Pollution Reduction Benefits:
FEIR,p- 2-2, MR-], (which also cites the DEIR at Section 62), provides evidence of the
energy and environmental benefits of the project noting that 45 MW of wind power from
the Dillon project will reduce CO2 emissions by 186 million pounds, SO2 emissions by
9.6 million pounds and NOX emissions by 5.8 million pounds. In addition the FEIR
notes the reduction of PM10, PM 2.5, VOCs and other toxic contaminants, The FEIR
identifies the reduction of global warining, lack of water consumption, and lack of long-
term waste disposal in wind power projects. Questioning the ability of new renewable
energy projects to reduce fossil fuel energy emissions goes against extensive scientific
knowledge and public policy. The April 17th letter also does not acknowledge the
California Renewable Portfolio Standard, which requires utilities such as SCE to increase
Sanhran-225252,1 0099999-00001
S ems.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 6
the contribution of renewable non-polluting electrical supplies at an accelerated pace,
specifically to reduce fossil fuel emissions. The Dillon 'Wind project specifically
contributes to the reduction of fossil fuel energy sources in SCE's portfolio, and resulting
reduction of pollutants per megawatt is provided in the record of this project(see also
NM-15)-
b. Environmental - Open Space and Biological Habitat Preservation Benefits
The following are a few examples of evidence iti the existing record that verify open
space and biological benefits of the project that can be found in numerous sections of the
DEIR and the FEIR. These include, but are not limited to, Section 4A of the DEIR which
provides a detailed description of the activities that will occur on each of the Project
areas,provides maps, statistical evidence and survey verification that 1.6 percent of Area
I will have permanent disturbance, 1-7 percent of Area 3 will have permanent
disturbance.Area 5 in Palm Springs will have 1.6 percent of permanent disturbance.
These provide the initial basis for the conclusion in the Statement of Overriding
considerations that approximately 98%of the project area will remain in open space. In
addition, the Statement of Overriding Consideration notes that the value of this remaining
open space for plant species and for foraging habitat is significant—especially when
considering the elimination of these species and habitats that could occur from other
industrial, or residential development on the same property.
Section 6.0 quantifies the number of plant and animal species observed in the vicinity and
project area,verifies the value of these habitats to these species, and confirms that the
potential impacts to these species is not significant when applying the criteria prescribed
by the applicable regulatory agencies and by CEQA. Potential negative impacts from
lighting and noise to wildlife were considered in the DEIR (see p- 6.3-34)and were not
found to be significant based on specified criteria
The FEIR,p. 2-14-16, Section 6.3 of the DEIR, along with supplemental information
requested by the Planning Commission and presented in written and oral testimony by the
applicant at the public hearing on April 18, 2007,provide additional evidentiary support
to the assessment of low avian mortality.
SanFran-225252 1 0099999-00001
ems. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 7
C. Economic Benefits to the County and the City
The April 17'h letter erroneously claims a lack of evidence for the economic benefits of
the project and questions the applicant's basis for tax revenues generated, claims
uncertainty regarding the WIMP fee contribution and job creation.
In fact,the DEIR,the FE1R and testimony provided in the applicant's presentation to the
Planning Commission verify that the current local tax rates in Riverside County and the
City of Palm Springs will generate approximately $12,000,000,00 in tax revenues to the
local governments. In addition, the DEIR, the FEIR and the Conditions of Approval
require and confirm the payment of WIMP fees to the County based on the current rate
per acre. The project has consistently stated that approximately 80 full-time construction
jobs will be created during the construction phase of the project and approximately 10
permanent positions for fall time employees will be provided. These job estimates are
based on the direct experience of the County, the applicant and other WECS in the
project vicinity,
4. The April 171h Letter incorrectly describes development on the project site as
"checkerboard,"and claims the analysis does not make sufficient use the entire WEPA in its
analysis.
RESPONSE: The alleged"checkerboard"configuration of the project raised in the letter
is hyperbole and has no basis in fact. The turbines are at opposite ends of their respective
parcels, in fact maximizing the amount of contiguous open space on the Project parcels.
It should also be noted that the parcels separating Area 1 and Area 3 already contain a
large number of existing wind turbines, all of which are fully contained in the WEPA,
and that the Dillon project is viewed by the County as an in-fill project The scope and
range of the alternatives considered in the DEIR are prescribed by a number of factors
under CEQA. These include the role of the no-project alternative (not considered the
preferred option in this case), the proximity of infrastructure such as transmission lines
and the Devers substation, and the extent to which those alternative will offset the
specific significant impacts identified by the project, which arc: narrowed to certain visual
impacts. The criteria and selection of alternatives within the WEPA are described in
detail in the DEIR, the PEIR and in the accompanying Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and are fully compliant with the requirements under Section 15126.6(b)
of CEQA.
SanFran-225252.1 0099999-00001
1 Nis. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page S
5. The April fft Letter questions the inclusion of right-of way dedications in
relation to the required setback variances, and questions whether the setbacks From dwellings are
actually met.
RESPONSE: The project fully complies with all safety setbacks as shown on Figures 4-
1, 4-2 and 4-3 of the FEIR. With regard to road dedications, the project landowner,
Southern California Edison, has committed to comply with the County Transportation
Department condition requiring rights-of-way right dedications within 18 months of
project approval, and the applicant has provided sufficient space to ensure that the project
would comply with safety setbacks as measured from the newly dedicated public streets
by moving the turbines 30-60 feet back as agreed in the FEIR Section 3 (pg 3-5).
III, Issues Raised in the Letter of May 15, 2007 to the Riverside County Planning
Department from the Estate of Reba Wolf have been fully satisfied as requested by the
Planning Commission.
1. The May 151h letter erroneously claims that the FEIR's analysis of biological
impacts is flawed, specifically with regard to avian mortality findings.
RESPONSE: This assertion by the appellant relies on a letter Crom the USFWS, which
was subsequently clarified by both the USFWS and the applicant in written and oral
testimony at the May 16, 2007 hearing before the Planning Commission. The April 18'h
letter from the USFWS mistakenly described the Dillon project as a different,ridge-tap
location(rather than its actual flat; valley-bottom location), and made requests for
mitigations or conditions that had already been incorporated into the County's Conditions
of Approval. It became clear on closer examination that the letter had not been written
with specific knowledge of the proposed project EiR. Each and every claim appellants
assert based on that letter were subsequently demonstrated to the Planning Commission
to be satisfied in the FEJR or in the Conditions of Approval.
Because the initial letter from the USFWS made requests for conditions that had already
been included in the Dillon project, or raised issues that were not relevant to the project
site (i.e. ridgelines), a clarification was subsequently obtained from the USFWS by the
County's Department of the Environment. The clarification was provided by the USFWS
in the form of an e-mail to the County and oral testimony by the Director of the County's
Environmental Programs Department, which is contained in the record of the Planning
Commission hearing. Once received and clarified, the County was able to demonstrate
that the vast majority of conditions were already included, and those that remained were
StmFran-225252 1 0099999-00001
7
Ns. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 9
addressed as directed by the County's Environmental Programs Department.A small
number of additional preventive conditions were added to the Conditions of Approval as
a result of consultation with the USFWS as required by CEQA Guideline § 15088(c)(p.
2.). These additional conditions would have been incorporated in the County conditions
had the USFWS provided their additional comments prior to the hearing. Instead their
comment letter was received as a facsimile midway through the April 18 Planning
Commission hearing. None of these additions to the County conditions were to address
any newly identified enviromnental impacts, but rather, these were increased preventive
measures that the County and applicant agreed to include based on the USFWS
comments. These conditions were reviewed and accepted by the applicant and the
Planning Commission prior to approval of the Project.
2. The May 15`t'Letter asserts that the FEIR does not provide data on nocturnal
avian use of the project area and improperly relics on extrapolations from other sites
RESPONSE: The FEIR and DEIR cited a comprehensive nocturnal migration study
conducted in the San Gorgonio area(McCrary et al, 1983, McCrary et al. 1984)that
showed that the vast majority of night migrants fly at elevations well above the turbine
heights. The EIR relied on existing nocturnal avian studies, as described in the DER and
FEIR.
3. The May 15"' Letter asserts that the FEIR's conclusion that avian displacement is
minimal is not supported by a study on localized effects of turbines on wildlife, in contradiction
of Fish And Wildlife Service Guidelines (pp. 3-4.)
RESPONSE: Asa result of the additional consultation with the USFWS discussed in
response 1111.1, and the supplemental evidence requested by the Planning Commission
and presented by the Applicant on May 16, 2007, potential impacts to avian species were
found to be less than significant, and to have been have been fully addressed and satisfied
in the FEIR according the appropriate protocols, including post-construction monitoring.
In addition, the USFWS letter mistakenly conflates the national Interim USFWS
guidelines with research specific to the Altamont Pass study conducted by Shaun
Smallwood, which does not pertain to the USFWS guidelines. The applicant has
addressed the Interim guidelines in Section 2 of the FEIR (p.2-36—2-40) in response to
the USFWS letter dated January 16, 2007. For example, the Interim guidelines
recommend avoiding the placement of turbines in documented location of any species of
wildlife, fish or plant protected under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and there are
no turbines in this project in such documented locations. It should be noted that these
Snnrnn-225252 1 0099999.00001
%Ns. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
]tine 18, 2007
Page 10
USFWS guidelines are voluntary, that the USFWS has issued correspondence
emphasizing that the guidelines are voluntary and interim, and that the USFWS is
initiating a process to revise the guidelines, and the applicant has been an active
participant in this review and revision process. The Smallwood study that recommends
three years of avian survey efforts was conducted for the Altamont Pass Wind Resource
Area, and is not applicable to the Dillon project area The USFWS letter also stated in
error that the applicant only conducted a few days of pre-construction avian studies,
another indication that the letter had not been written with specific knowledge of the
proposed project EIR.
To verify the County's conclusion regarding avian impacts, the Applicant was asked by
the Planning Commission to provide additional evidence to support the position that
avian displacement was minimal. A supplemental memorandum was provided to the
Planning Commission by the applicant as requested, and the Commission found the
evidence to be credible and substantial.
4. The letter of May 15`h erroneously asserts that the FEIR did not address the need
for project applicant to secure take permit or potential impacts to endangered golden eagle. (p.
4).
RESPONSE: The golden eagle is not a federally or state listed threatened or endangered
species, While golden eagles are a California state-listed as species of special concern
and fully protected in California tinder the Bald and Golden Eagle Act, a California
Incidental Take Permit is not required for golden eagle fatalities. As dcscribed in
Section 2 of the FEIR(2-14—2-16),the project is not expected to have a significant
biological impact on birds, or golden eagles in particular. Both the DETR and the FEIR
describe why there would be no significant effect to golden eagles. The analysis for
golden eagle is cited at DEIR, p. 6.3-3, and at 6.3-21, which notes that the probability of
golden eagle occurring at the project area is low, has not been observed during any site
surveys, and while there is some presence of suitable foraging habitat,the absence of any
nesting habitat is consistent with a probability evaluation as low. Unlike some other
projects located on ridgelines, rather in than in the flat central area of the pass, this
species is not at issue, and no take permit is required.
San Fmn-225252 1 0099999.00001
ems. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page I I
IV. Claims Made on Behalf of Seven Fortune Partners in their Letter of January 20,
2007 have been fully addressed and refuted in Letter AA in Section 2.0 of the FEJR, and in
subsequent information provided in the record of the project.
As discussed herein in Section 1,the FEIR issued by the County in April2007, Section 2.0
sets forth Responses to Comments in a matrix format. The letter of January 30, 2007 submitted
by Mr. Steven Quintanilla, on behalf of Seven Fortune Partners III, appears in this matrix as
Letter AA. In addition to specific responses to specific letters, a Master Response (MR) matrix
was also provided, with information on common issues or question raised in more than one
comment letter.
The responses to issues raised in Letter AA are found at pages 2-111 through page 2-110
of the FEIR. These 61 responses isolate each query raised in the letter, and provide a specific
detailed response to each question or claim. Each and every assertion made in better AA has
been addressed by the County and the Applicant in a comprehensive manner with supporting
documentation or references. In most instances, information requested was already located in
the DEIR, and in some instances, clarifying information was provided in the form of maps,
supplemental detail regarding studies performed,photos, and citations to additional supporting
references. Responses also clarified the rationale for the leasible alternatives selected,the
rationale for the scenic and wind access setbacks, and question directed at potential diminution
of property values.
This letter does not reiterate all the County's response to each of these issues in both the
Response to Comments,the Conditions of Approval, and in the findings and conclusions in
support of the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The approval of the FEIR and the project
by the Planning Commission reflected a thorough examination of these 61 queries and responses.
V. Claims made in the Fetter of April 16, 2007 From Seven Fortune Partners III are
unsupported and are inconsistent with the facts and evidence in the record before the
County.
I. The letter of April 16th questions the rationale for the Scenic Setback variance based on
questionable reduction of scenic character of the area. It also indicates that the variance trust
satisfy the variance criteria by demonstrating special circumstances including supporting
documentation that the planning highway interchange no longer has a functional relationship
with the land.
SanFran-225252.1 0099999.00001
. Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 12
RESPONSE: Further evidence of the special circumstances for evaluating the scenic
resource is provided in the FEIR in Section 3.0 at p 3-15, and at Section 2.0,MR-11 at p.
2-7, and visual exhibits presented, as well as in the variance application correspondence.
With respect to the measurement of the setback distance, additional information was also
requested by the Planting Commissioners. The applicant provided such supplemental
information to the Commission on May 16, 2007 in the form of a letter from CalTrans
that verifies the abandoned status of the interchange and provided evidence that the
setback should be measured from the existing alignment of Highway 62, and therefore
would be consistent with goals of the scenic highway designation. This information is
quantitative as well as supported by the reviewing agencies, and supplements the
information provided in the FEIR at MR-11.
2. The letter of April 16th questions the rationale in support of the Wind Access Variance.
RESPONSE: the County and the applicant have provided evidence in the record
maintaining the wind access setback for all the adjacent properties is not feasible due to
the narrow shape of the properties and their small acreage and/or the property is already
developed for the Devers substation or is outside the WEPA. Waivers have been provided
for several of the properties; for others, the down-wind properties are outside the WEPA,
and are thus inappropriate for future wind energy development. The data in support of the
infeasibility of wind development on those adjacent parcels is provided in numerous
locations in the record,including but not limited to the Variance letter provided to the
County on May 17, 2006, and in the FEIR at MR-19, MR-6 and MR-1 I, and at Section
3.0 at pp. 3-13 through 3-16., as well as in the materials provided by PPM Energy's Andy
Linehan in his presentation to the Planning Commission on April 18, 2007_
3. The letter raises concerns regarding the proposed Safety Setback Variance
RESPONSE: This variance request was withdrawn and the project meets all safety
setback criteria.
4. The letter of April 16`h claiins that the Dillon Wind project would destroy neighboring
land values and other potential development; and will result in loss of tax revenues and
employment, and place the County in jeopardy of litigation on grounds of inverse condemnation
RESPONSE: Empirical evidence has been provided in the Record in Master Responses
21 and 22 and Appendix G of the FEIR, which demonstrates that wind energy does not
Saarma-225252 1 1)099999.00001
S 1lls.Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 13
have a significant negative effect on adjacent property values, tax revenues, or
employment.
5. The Letter of April 16`h questions the value of wind energy in Riverside County, and
asserts that the project will not result in clean up of degraded sites.
RESPONSE: Two of the three areas that make up the pro)ecl(Areas 1 and 5) formerly
contained wind turbines. As Andy Linehan of PPM Energy testiiled at the April 18
Planning Commission hearing, PPM Energy has removed several tons of abandoned
equipment and illegally dumped domestic trash from the project site. As noted at that
hearing, the adjacent Mountain View III wind project, owned by PPM Energy, is well
maintained in working order and the grounds are cleaned regularly. The value of wind
energy is adopted public policy in Riverside County and in the State of California, and
has been verified in RCIP and the WEPA and the related documentation for this Project,
all of which provide quantifiable data of the amount of renewable energy generated and
economic benefits from the project.
VI. Letter of April 17th challenges the use of the County's FastTrack Status in
relationship to the Dillon Wind Project.
RESSONSE: In fact the project has followed the ordinary County project review
timelines and no prejudice has resulted, and no reduced time has been provided for its
review by the County agencies and the public.
Vll. CONCLUSION
The environmental and technical information developed for the Board's consideration on
this Project, contained in the permit applications, corresponding environmental analyses, public
testimony, and the record as a whole is comprehensive and technically sound. This information
far exceeds any legal test for adequacy for any of the proposed action by the Board of
Supervisors.
The analysis of an issue under CEQA is determined by the substantial evidence in the
record to support it. In this context, substantial evidence is defined as "enough relevant
information and reasonable inferences from that information that a fair argument can be made to
support a conclusion, even if other conclusion might also be reached(Laurel Heights
Improvement Association_v_._Re elf the University of California(1988) 47 Cal 3d 376 at
393.). While the appellants have raised numerous claims regarding the accuracy or credibility of
sunrrmn-225252.1 0099999.00001
Nancy Romero
Clerk of the Board
June 18, 2007
Page 14
the County's process on this project,their claims are without evidentiary support, and contrary to
verifiable technical information in the record.
We respectfully request that the Board of Supervisors uphold the unanimous approval of
this project by the Planning Commission, and certify the FEIR, the application for WE,CS 116
and Variance 1747, including their the Conditions of Approval, and Statement of Overriding
Considerations, as well as the accompanying preliminary approvals by the Planning Commission
associated with WECS 117.
Very truly yours,
��� �- , ®�
Renee L. Robin
Cc: Members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors
Mr. Jay Olivas and Mr. Paul Clark,Riverside County Planning Department
Mr. Andrew Linehan, PPM Energy, Inc
RLR:jIh
Sunrrand25252.1 0099999.00001
RESOLUTION NO. 7004
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA CERTIFYING
THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND
THEREBY APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.
5.1115 AND VARIANCE REQUEST 6.493 FOR THE
INSTALLATION AND OPERATIONS OF FIVE, 1-
MEGAWATT WIND ENERGY CONVERSION SYSTEMS
LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 6,000 FEET WEST OF
INDIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF I-10, SOUTH OF DILLON
ROAD AND EAST OF HWY 62, ZONE E-I, SECTION 19.
WHEREAS, Dillon Wind, LLC (Applicant') has filed an application with the City
Pursuant to Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Conditional Use Permit and
a variance request to allow the installation and operation of five 1-megawatt
commercial wind energy conversion systems; and
WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Case Nos. 5,1115 — CUP and 6.493-VAR was given in accordance
with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and a Draft Environmental Impact
Report (DEIR) has been prepared for this project and has been distributed for public
review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the
evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not
limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
The Conditional Use Permit process outlined in Section 94.02.00(B)(6) of the Zoning
Code requires the Planning Commission to make a number of findings for approval of
the permit. Those findings are analyzed by staff in order below:
a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one
which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance_
The project site is located within the Energy Industrial (E-1) zone. Section
92.17.00 of the ,Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial WECS project with the
approval of a conditional use permit application. The site of the proposed �""a
Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115--CUP &6.493-VAR Page 2 of 4
project is appropriate and will be subject to the conditional use permit review
within the E-I zone.
b. That the said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General
Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located.
The proposed use is desirable in that it will generate additional power supply for
the State of California. The proposed Wind Energy Conversion Systems facility
will be placed in an area currently occupied by wind turbines approved by the
City of Palm Springs. The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance allow for such
use in this area of the City, therefore, the proposed WECS facility will not be
detrimental to existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which
the proposed use is to be located.
c. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use, including yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other
features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future
uses of land in the neighborhood.
The project site is adequate in size to accommodate the new commercial wind
energy conversion systems; also the site is consistent with the requirements of
the E-1 zone for turbines and similar uses. As proposed, the facility complies
with all the setback requirements for wind energy conversion systems.
d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly
designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated
by the proposed use.
The project site is accessed by public streets that are adequate to serve the
industrial area within which the site is located_ The proposed WECS facility will
generate minimal traffic and will not intensify uses on the site or in the area.
e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and
may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards.
All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance requirements and to ensure public health and safe��
Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115—CUP &6.493-VAR Page 3 of 4
Adequate measures will be taken to make sure that the applicant complies with
all the conditions of approval that addresses matters concerning public health,
safety and general welfare. Furthermore, any future modifications to the site will
be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission.
SECTION 2.
State law requires four (4) findings be made for the granting of a variance. Staff has
analyzed the findings in order below:
1 Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
of the Zoning Code would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The Dillon Wind project will install new larger, and more energy efficient turbines
that exceed the 300 feet height allowed by the E-1 zone. Staff cannot identify any
special circumstances related to the size, shape or topography of the property;
however, the site's location and surroundings make it suitable for maximizing
wind energy production. The increased height is needed to take advantage of
the wind conditions at the site and produce greater electrical energy with fewer
machines.
2 Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shalt not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
The increased height will not constitute a grant of special privilege since existing
turbines in the adjacent properties are similar in design and size. The proposed
turbines are more energy efficient than older models, and require additional
height for optimal energy output. The taller turbines also eliminate the need for
more turbines to generate the same amount of energy-
3 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
The increased height is 27 feet; this would not be materially detrimental to the
public health, safety, convenience, or welfare. The proposed turbines are
proposed in an area that is primarily used for similar facilities; furthermore all the
necessary precautions such as safety and fire protection setbacks have been
taken into consideration with the site layout.
4 The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of th�
City. -" 7
Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007
Case 5,1115—CUP&6,493-VAR Page 4 of 4
The General Plan designation of the subject property is E-I (Energy Industrial),
the proposed use is not only consistent with the general plan, but the use is
encouraged and promoted for this area with dominant prevailing winds that could
generate alternative energy for the City.
SECTION 3:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning
Commission certifies the Final EIR (FEIR) thereby approving Case Numbers 5.1115-
Conditional Use Permit and 6.493-Variance, subject to the conditions contained in
Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution.
ADOPTED this 23`' day of May, 2007.
AYES: 4, Caffery, Scott, Marantz, Ringlein
NOES: 1, Hochanadel
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: 2, Cohen, Hutcheson
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
AwinglP
Services
. .76
Case No. 5.1115 —CUP & 6.493-VARIANCE
WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF 1-10, SOUTH OF DILLON ROAD & EAST OF
HWY 62
May 23, 2007
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the
Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the
condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS,-
PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable
regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other
City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district
regulations.
1a. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs,
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against
the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside,
void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body,
advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.1115 -- CUP and
6.493-VAR. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the
applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's
associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by
the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant
of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense,
the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City
retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent
but should it do so, the City shall waive further indemnification hereunder, except,
the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment
or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115-CUP &6.493-VAR Page 2 of 6
2. Non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval, or with City codes
and ordinances, State laws; any valid citizen complaints or policing and safety
problems (not limited to excessive alcohol consumption, noise, disturbances,
signs, etc) regarding the operation of the establishment; as determined by the
Chief of Police or the Director of Planning Services, may result in
commencement of proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Code. In addition, violations of City Codes and
Ordinances will result in enforcement actions which may include citations, arrest,
temporary business closure, or revocation of this permit in accordance with law.
3. Commencement of the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for a period
of two (2) years. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission
upon demonstration of good cause.
4. The appeal period for a Conditional Use Permit application is 15 calendar days
from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period
has concluded.
5. No storage facilities of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part
of the proposed plan.
6, This use shall comply with the provisions of Section 11.74 Noise Ordinance of
the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Violations may result in revocation of this
Conditional Use Permit.
7. The following restrictions shall apply to the occupancy and use of the property
included under this permit:
a. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property and public rights-of-way.
b. No building or structure shall be closer than fifty (50) from any road right-
of-way or lot line and no building or structure shall exceed thirty (30) feet
in total height unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission,
C. No advertising sign or logo shall be placed or painted on any equipment.
No more than one (1) unlighted advertising sign relating to the
development shall be located on the project site_ Prior to installation of any
advertising signs, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Department of
Planning and Zoning.
d. Construction, operation, and maintenance traffic shall be restricted to the
hours between 6:00 AM to 10.-00 PM, except for emergency maintenance
of the co-generation equipment, and shall not present a dust, noise, and
light nuisance.
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115—CUP&6.493-VAR Page 3 of 6
e. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2002 Coachella Valley
PM-10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations shall be implemented
with regard to the use of unpaved public and private roads within the
Properties used by Dillon Energy. The developer shall be responsible for
monitoring average daily traffic counts, and if the average daily traffic
using unpaved public and private roads within the properties used by
Dillon Energy exceeds the SIP thresholds, the facility operator shall be
responsible for bringing the use of those roads within compliance of the
SIP regulations, including posting speed limit signage or installing other
speed control measures, installing permanent dust stabilizers, or paving.
f. The permittee may be required to submit periodic monitoring reports
containing data on the operations and environmental impacts of this
WECS facility permit including, but not limited to noise, hydrogen
production, safety maintenance, and sightings of threatened or
endangered species. Upon written notice from the City of Palm Springs
requiring such a report, the permittee shall prepare and submit the
required report within forty-five (45) calendar days.
8. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL, the color of the turbine
shall be white as shown on the approved plans on file with the Department of
Planning Services and as approved by the City of Palm Springs Planning
Commission.
9. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILIDING INSPECTION APPROVAL, all transmission lines
connecting Area 5 to Areas 1 and 3 shall be undergrounded by an underground
cable system.
10. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL of the wind energy
conversion systems, and the storage facility, legible signs warning of electrical
and other hazards shall be posted gated entry points to the project site at a
height of three to five feet above the ground.
11. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL a secure six (6) foot
high fence, shall be erected along the perimeter of the project site and shall be
maintained at all times during the life of this permit. The fence shall be subject to
the approval of the Department of Planning Services. Final design and locations
for fencing may be modified with approval by the Planning Department.
12. All the mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) shall be applicable to this project.
FIRE
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115—CUP &6.493-VAR Page 4 of 6
1. Private streets shall have a minimum width of at least 20 feet, pursuant to California
Fire Code 902.1 however, a greater width for private streets may be required by the
City engineer to address traffic engineering, parking, and other issues.
2. The applicant will comply with all requirements of the Palm Springs Fire Department.
BUILDING
17, The applicant will obtain permits for all construction involved with the site.
ENGINEERING -
STREETS
1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit.
GRADING
3. Submit a Rough Grading Plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer to
the Engineering Division for review and approval. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall
be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the
Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading
contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs
Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best
Available Control Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust
Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable
performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class.
The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division
with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have
completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust
Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control
Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909)
396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov- A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with
the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan. The
Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading
permit.
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
i Case 5.1115--CUP &6.493-VAR Page 5 of 6
a. The first submittal of the Rough Grading Plan shall include the following
information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of
Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy
of current Title Report
3. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit,
issued from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Phone No. 760-
346-7491) is required for the proposed development. A copy of the executed
permit shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading
permit. (Include for projects in excess of 1 acre).
4. The area in which this project is situated is indicative of desert soil conditions
found in many areas of Palm Springs. The Engineering Division does not require
a soils report. This does not mean that subterranean conditions unknown at this
time may not affect construction done on this site. A soils report shall be
required only if necessary as part of the Building Department's review and
approval of associated building plans.
5. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of
soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food
and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent
To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los
Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if
required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208).
ON SITE
6. The proposed on-site maintenance road for the project must comply with the City
of Palm Springs Municipal Code 8.50.024. Permanent dust control material
alternatives must be submitted for approval to the City Engineer prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
GENERAL
7. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.
8. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement
plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG
(AutoCAD 2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and
PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of
the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior
approval of the City Engineer.
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115—CUP &6.493-VAR Page 6 of 6
9. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and
approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record
drawing "as-built' information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to
approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to construction.
TRAFFIC
10. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects
as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum,
all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State
of California, Department of Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls for
Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" dated 1996, or subsequent
additions in force at the time of construction.
11. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall
be paid prior to issuance of building permit.
I
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes of
May 23, 2007
A recess was taken at 3:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 3:30 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
& Case 5.1115 CUP / 6.493 VAR - An application by Dillon Wind LLC, for a
Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of five 1-megawatt
wind energy conversion systems (WECS) in Area 5. The application also
includes a Variance application to exceed the 300 foot commercial
WECS height limit. 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. (Project Planner: Edward Robertson, Principal Planner)
Commissioner Hutcheson previously noted an abstention on Items 6 and 7; he will not
be participating in the discussing. He left the Council Chamber at 2:45 p.m.
Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, provided background information as outlined in
the staff report dated May 23, 2007. He stated that Riverside County is the C.E.Q.A.
lead agency for this project's Environmental Impact Report.
Commissioner Cohen noted a business related conflict of interest and will be abstaining
from the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 3:35 p.m.
Commissioner Scott requested staff address the land use for the adjacent
properties. Staff responded that the surrounding uses are zoned industrial or
manufacturing industrial.
Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing.
-Andy Liehan, Portland Qregan, Director of Wind Energy Permitting for PPM Energy,
provided additional information using a Power Point presentation outlining benefits
against climate change, project vicinity, energy industrial zone, existing wind turbines,
decommissioning and removal of turbines not in operation and community involvement.
-Ed Torres, president of the Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation, stated
the PSEDC reviewed the project and recommends approval.
-Fredrick Noble, on behalf of Desert Wind Association and Wind Tech Energy, provide
additional information regarding the replacement of older windmills with new ones
and a bird study conducted in 1999 and 2000.
There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed.
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes of
May 23, 2007
The Commission discussed the size of the new turbines and energy production in
comparison to the existing turbines, long-term utility rates using renewable energy and a
neighborhood meeting.
M/S/C (Caffery/Scott), 4 - 1 (opposed, Vice Chair Hochanadel; abstained, Cohen &
Hutcheson) To adopt the Final Environmental Report, and approve Case 5.1115
Conditional Use Permit and Case 6.493 Variance.
Commissioner Hutcheson and Commissioner Cohen re-entered the Council Chamber at
3:57 p.m.
vALJM
�O 4�
s, ti
G1
4 m
c�`'FOO Planning Commission Staff Report
Date: May 23, 2007
Case No.: 5,1115 — CUP & 6.493-VAR
Application Type: Conditional Use Permit application to develop five 1-megawatt
Wind Energy Conversion Systems (WECS), along with a
Variance application to install 327 feet high commercial WECS
Location: West of Indian Avenue, North of Interstate 10, South of Dillon
& East of Highway 62
Applicant: Dillon Wind, LLC
Zone: E-1 (Energy Industrial)
General Plan: E-I (Energy Industrial)
APN: 668-400-007, 668-280-005 & 666-320-021
From: Craig Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Project Planner: Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application by Dillon Wind, LLC,
for the construction and operation of five 1-megawatt Wind Energy Conversion Systems
(WECS), to be located along the west side of North Indian Canyon Drive. In conjunction
with the CUP, a Variance application has been filed to allow a 327-foot height limit for
the wind turbines; the maximum height allowed within the City is 300 feet. Specifically,
the proposed project will be located approximately 6,000 feet west of Indian Avenue,
north of Interstatel0 Freeway, south of Dillon Road and east of Highway 62. The
request is part of a proposed 45 machine installation. The forty additional machines
5
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23,2007
Case.51115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 2 of 8
would be located outside the City in unincorporated land immediately to the northwest
and northeast of the subject site.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission approve the Variance request for the 327 feet height
limit and approve the proposed Conditional Use Permit application by Dillon Wind, LLC
to develop and operate the proposed Wind Energy Conversion Systems by:
• Considering and certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for
Case Nos. 5.1115 - CUP and 6.493-VAR;
• Approving Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the findings of Section
94.02.00.13; and
• Approving Variance request for the 327 feet height limit for the turbines.
PRIOR ACTIONS
On May 16, 2007, the County of Riverside Planning Commission certified the EIR and
approved the proposals for Areas 1 and 3 of the project.
BACKGROUND AND SETTING
The applicant, Dillon Wind LLC, is proposing to construct and operate an approximately
45 megawatt wind energy conversion systems (WECS) project within some parcels of
land located within the unincorporated areas under the jurisdiction of the County of
Riverside and within the limits of the City of Palm Springs. The project areas will consist
of three separate sites made of multiple parcels identified as Areas 1, 3 and 5. Areas 1
and 3 are located within the County of Riverside. Area 5 is located approximately 6,000
feet west of Indian Avenue, north of the Interstate10 Freeway, south of Dillon Road and
east of Highway 62, and within the limits of the City of Palm Springs.
Area 5 is approximately 200 acres in size; the property is leased by the applicants from
the Southern California Edison. The three Areas will be connected by an underground
electrical cable system which will then link each turbine to the next and finally to a new
substation located south of Area 1, at the intersection of Diablo Road and Tiffany Way.
The substation will tie into an existing transmission line, and no new transmission lines
would be required for the project. Also, the applicant plans to lease an existing building
to provide space for operations and maintenance within the business park area located
northwest of the intersection of Interstate 10 and Indian Avenue.
As proposed, the Dillon Wind project is designed to make available 45 megawatts of
installed capacity using 1 megawatt horizontal axis upwind three-blade machines to be
mounted on monopole towers anchored in reinforced concrete foundations. The project
2 ( �r
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23,2007
Case:5.1115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 3 of 8
would consist of up to 45 wind turbines, five of which will be located within the City
limits. Each of the turbines would be 327 feet high, when measured from the ground to
the turbine blade tip, and would be spaced approximately 300 to 500 feet apart.
Table 1: Surrounding land uses, General Plan, Zoning
Land Use General Plan Zoning
East
Wind Farm E-I (EnergyIndustrial E-I (EnergyIndustrial
Wind Farm E-I (EnergyIndustrial E-I (EnergyIndustrial
Wind Farm E-I (Energy Industrial E-I (EnergyIndustrial
Wind Farm E-I Ener Industrial E-I (Energy Industrial
ANALYSIS
The General Plan designation of the subject site is E-I (Energy Industrial). The zoning
designation is also E-I (Energy Industrial), which allows the development of alternative
energy resources such as commercial wind energy conversion systems with the
approval of a conditional use permit.
Pursuant to Section 92.17.2.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, "The "E-P energy
industrial zone is intended to provide areas for alternative energy development and
limited industrial uses in those areas which by virtue of strong prevailing winds are
ideally suited for large-scale development of wind energy. Alternative energy
development is intended as the principal land use, with the permitted industrial uses
serviced directly, and primarily, by alternative energy for electrical needs- The retention
of open space is encouraged. No industrial use shall be permitted which, by the nature
of its development or operation, will in any way adversely affect the resort environment
of the city)" The proposed project site and its surroundings are primarily used for
commercial WECS; therefore the proposed project is an appropriate use at the location.
Setback requirements:
Per Section 94.02.00(8)(e), Standard and Development Criteria, of the Zoning Code, all
commercial WECS are required to meet certain setback requirements; these setback
requirements are intended to address the issues concerning safety, security, scenic
vistas, aesthetics and fire protection for citizens and adjacent properties. In part, the
Code states... "no building or structure shall be located closer than fifty (50) feet from
any lot line, and furthermore, no WECS shall be located closer than one thousand two
hundred (1,200) feet from any residence, hotel, hospital, school, library, or convalescent
home unless the owner of such structure waives, in writing, the setback requirement".
Staff has determined that there are no habitable structures, hotels, schools, libraries or
hospitals within two miles of the site; therefore the setback requirements have been
met. The proposed turbines will be visible from public roads and highways; however,
3 17-j
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23.2007
Case.5.1115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 4 of 8
they will blend in with the existing turbines within the area. Furthermore, as indicated on
the site plans, adequate measures have been taken by the applicant to make certain
that the leased area (Area 5) containing the turbines will have fencing and roads leading
to the proposed site.
Table 2. Required and Proposed Development Standards
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS REQUIRED STANDARDS PROPOSED
Permitted Zone E-I (Energy Industrial E-I (Energy Industrial)
Height Limits 300 feet 327 feet
Setbacks No structures within 50 feet No buildings within 50'
Structures Not within 1,200 feet None
Safety Setback 1.25 x WECS Height = Approximately 560 feet
(1.25 x 327 ft. = 408.75 ft) from the easement at
from transmission. lines its nearest point
Scenic Setbacks 1,315 feet from Hwy 62 Approximate 1.7 miles
Security Fencing Fencing provided
Request for a Variance.
The applicant is requesting relief from the maximum height limit of 300 feet required by
the Zoning Code for turbines. Pursuant to Section 94.02.00(H)(8)(xiii) of the Zoning
Code, "a variance application shall be filed concurrently if the approval of a height limit
greater than 300 feet is proposed". The applicant is proposing a maximum height of 327
feet, an additional 27 feet (9%) above the maximum allowed by the Code for
commercial WECS.
According to the applicant, in order to maximize the efficiency of modern turbines which
are larger and more energy efficient than the older ones, this region requires taller
turbines that range between 300 to 400 feet in height. Furthermore, the proposed height
of 327 feet is comparable to existing turbines of similar design and sizes in the
immediate surrounding area.
REQUIRED FINDINGS
The Conditional Use Permit process outlined in Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Code
requires the Planning Commission to make a number of findings for approval of the
permit. Those findings are analyzed by staff in order below:
a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one
which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the Zoning Ordinance.
The project site is located within the Energy Industrial (E-1) zone. Section
92.17.00 of the Zoning Ordinance allows for commercial WECS project with the
approval of a conditional use permit application. The site of the proposed project
4
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23,2007
Case•51115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 5 of 8
is appropriate and will be subject to the conditional use permit review within the
E-I zone.
b. That the said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General
Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses specifically permitted in the zone in
which the proposed use is to be located.
The proposed use is desirable in that it will generate additional power supply for
the State of California. The proposed Wind Energy Conversion Systems facility
will be placed in an area currently occupied by wind turbines approved by the
City of Palm Springs. The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance allow for such
use in this area of the City, therefore, the proposed WECS facility will not be
detrimental to existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which
the proposed use is to be located.
c. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate
said use, including yards, setbacks, walls, fences, landscaping and other
features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future
uses of land in the neighborhood.
The project site is adequate in size to accommodate the new commercial wind
energy conversion systems; also the site is consistent with the requirements of
the E-1 zone for turbines and similar uses. As proposed, the facility complies with
all the setback requirements for wind energy conversion systems.
d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly
designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated
by the proposed use.
The project site is accessed by public streets that are adequate to serve the
industrial area within which the site is located. The proposed WECS facility will
generate minimal traffic and will not intensify uses on the site or in the area.
e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are
deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and
may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards.
All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure compliance with the
Zoning Ordinance requirements and to ensure public health and safety.
5 n� �n
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23.2007
Case:5.1115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 6 of 8
Adequate measures will be taken to make sure that the applicant complies with
all the conditions of approval that addresses matters concerning public health,
safety and general welfare. Furthermore, any future modifications to the site will
be subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission.
State law requires four (4) findings be made for the granting of a variance. Staff has
analyzed the findings in order below:
1 Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property,
including size, shape, topography, location or surroundings, the strict application
of the Zoning Code would deprive subject property of privileges enjoyed by other
properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification.
The Dillon Wind project will install new larger, and more energy efficient turbines
that exceed the 300 feet height allowed by the E-1 zone. Staff cannot identify any
special circumstances related to the size, shape or topography of the property;
however, the site's location and surroundings make it suitable for maximizing
wind energy production. The increased height is needed to take advantage of the
wind conditions at the site and produce greater electrical energy with fewer
machines.
2 Any variance granted shall be subject to such conditions as will assure that the
adjustment thereby authorized shall not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and zone in
which subject property is situated.
The increased height will not constitute a grant of special privilege since existing
turbines in the adjacent properties are similar in design and size. The proposed
turbines are more energy efficient than older models, and require additional
height for optimal energy output. The taller turbines also eliminate the need for
more turbines to generate the same amount of energy.
3 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the pubic health,
safety, convenience, or welfare or injurious to property and improvements in the
same vicinity and zone in which subject property is situated.
The increased height is 27 feet (9%); this would not be materially detrimental to
the public health, safety, convenience, or welfare. The turbines are proposed in
an area that is primarily used for similar facilities. Furthermore all the necessary
precautions such as safety and fire protection setbacks have been taken into
consideration with the site layout.
4 The granting of such variance will not adversely affect the general plan of the
city.
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23,2007
Case:5.1115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 7 of 8
The General Plan designation of the subject property is E-I (Energy Industrial),
the proposed use is not only consistent with the general plan, but the use is
encouraged and promoted for this area with dominant prevailing winds that could
generate alternative energy for the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines, a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report was
prepared and circulated for this project. The Draft Environmental Impact Report was
released in November 2006. Copies of the Draft EIR and Final Environmental Impact
Report (FEIR) were previously distributed to the Commission as well. Furthermore,
Notices of the Reports were sent to all applicable agencies and published in accordance
with CEQA. The review period ended on January 31, 2007; no comments were received
by the City as of that date.
Staff has determined that the Final EIR covered most of the issues the City would want
to see addressed as far as land use policies, safety, aesthetics biological resources and
noise effects are concerned. However, the mitigation measures outlined are broad and
staff has included conditions of approval in support of the FEIR. It should be mentioned
that the applicant took steps to modify the project in order to minimize its impacts to
surrounding properties within the unincorporated areas of the site. Below are brief
summaries of proposed mitigation measures, and modification already made by the
project proponent.
The original project proposed a total of fifty two (52) turbines; Area 5 had five machines
in the initial proposal. Following comments from reviewing agencies and concerned
citizens, the applicants agreed to modify the project by eliminating turbines from Areas 1
and 3 in the County. The applicants also agreed to relocate additional turbines further
away from residential areas along Indian Avenue in order to meet safety setback
requirements of the County. With the new layout, the total number of turbines within the
City limits remains no more than five.
The applicant is proposing to fence the project area with three-strand barbed wire to
allow the passage of animals through the wind energy conversion systems area. Also,
the mitigation measure requires the applicant to mitigate any direct removal of
vegetation (regardless of protection status) from the project site by replanting any
vegetation removed.
NOTIFICATION
A public hearing notice was advertised and was mailed to all property owners within 400
feet of the subject property/adjacent property owners. As of the writing of this report,
staff has not received any comment.
Planning Commission Staff Report May 23,2007
Case:5.1115-CUP&6.493-VAR Page 8 of 8
Edward O. Robertson Craig A. Ewing, AICP
Principal Planner Director of Planning Services
ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Conditions of Approval
4. Site Plans
RESOLUTION NO.
Case No. 5.1115 —CUP & 6.493-VARIANCE
WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE, NORTH OF 1-10, SOUTH OF DILLON ROAD & EAST OF
HWY 62
May 23, 2007
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the
Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the
condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable
regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other
City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district
regulations.
la. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs,
its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against
the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside,
void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body,
advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.1115 — CUP and
6.493-VAR. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any
such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the
applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's
associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by
the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant
of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense,
the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold
harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City
retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent
but should it do so, the City shall waive further indemnification hereunder; except,
the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment
or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
0r)r7):3
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115—CUP &6.493-VAR Page 2 of 6
2. Non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval, or with City codes
and ordinances, State laws; any valid citizen complaints or policing and safety
problems (not limited to excessive alcohol consumption, noise, disturbances,
signs, etc) regarding the operation of the establishment; as determined by the
Chief of Police or the Director of Planning Services, may result in
commencement of proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to
Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Code. In addition, violations of City Codes and
Ordinances will result in enforcement actions which may include citations, arrest,
temporary business closure, or revocation of this permit in accordance with law.
3. Commencement of the Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for a period
of two (2) years. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission
upon demonstration of good cause.
4. The appeal period for a Conditional Use Permit application is 15 calendar days
from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period
has concluded.
5. No storage facilities of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part
of the proposed plan.
6. This use shall comply with the provisions of Section 11.74 Noise Ordinance of
the Palm Springs Municipal Code. Violations may result in revocation of this
Conditional Use Permit.
7. The following restrictions shall apply to the occupancy and use of the property
included under this permit:
a. Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to shine
directly upon adjoining property and public rights-of-way-
b. No building or structure shall be closer than fifty (50) from any road right-
of-way or lot line and no building or structure shall exceed thirty (30) feet
in total height unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission.
c. No advertising sign or logo shall be placed or painted on any equipment.
No more than one (1) unlighted advertising sign relating to the
development shall be located on the project site. Prior to installation of any
advertising signs, a sign permit shall be obtained from the Department of
Planning and Zoning.
d. Construction, operation, and maintenance traffic shall be restricted to the
hours between 6:00 AM to 10:00 PM, except for emergency maintenance
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115-CUP &6.493-VAR Page 3 of 6
of the co-generation equipment, and shall not present a dust, noise, and
light nuisance.
e. The South Coast Air Quality Management District, 2002 Coachella Valley
PM-10 State Implementation Plan (SIP) regulations shall be implemented
with regard to the use of unpaved public and private roads within the
properties used by Dillon Energy. The developer shall be responsible for
monitoring average daily traffic counts, and if the average daily traffic
using unpaved public and private roads within the properties used by
Dillon Energy exceeds the SIP thresholds, the facility operator shall be
responsible for bringing the use of those roads within compliance of the
SIP regulations, including posting speed limit signage or installing other
speed control measures, installing permanent dust stabilizers, or paving.
f. The permittee may be required to submit periodic monitoring reports
containing data on the operations and environmental impacts of this
WECS facility permit including, but not limited to noise, hydrogen
production, safety maintenance, and sightings of threatened or
endangered species. Upon written notice from the City of Palm Springs
requiring such a report, the permittee shall prepare and submit the
required report within forty-five (45) calendar days.
8. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL, the color of the turbine
shall be white as shown on the approved plans on file with the Department of
Planning Services and as approved by the City of Palm Springs Planning
Commission.
9. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILIDING INSPECTION APPROVAL, all transmission lines
connecting Area 5 to Areas 1 and 3 shall be undergrounded by an underground
cable system.
10. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL of the wind energy
conversion systems, and the storage facility, legible signs warning of electrical
and other hazards shall be posted gated entry points to the project site at a
height of three to five feet above the ground.
11. PRIOR TO FINAL BUILDING INSPECTION APPROVAL a secure six (6) foot
high fence, shall be erected along the perimeter of the project site and shall be
maintained at all times during the life of this permit. The fence shall be subject to
the approval of the Department of Planning Services. Final design and locations
for fencing may be modified with approval by the Planning Department.
12. All the mitigation measures contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report
(FEIR) shall be applicable to this project.
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5,1115-CUP &6.493-VAR Page 4 of 6
FIRE
1. Private streets shall have a minimum width of at least 20 feet, pursuant to California
Fire Code 902.1 however, a greater width for private streets may be required by the
City engineer to address traffic engineering, parking, and other issues.
2. The applicant will comply with all requirements of the Palm Springs Fire Department.
BUILDING
17. The applicant will obtain permits for all construction involved with the site.
ENGINEERING
STREETS
1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs
Encroachment Permit.
GRADING
3. Submit a Rough Grading Plan prepared by a California registered civil engineer to
the Engineering Division for review and approval. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall
be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the
Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading
contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs
Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best
Available Control Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust
Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable
performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust
Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air
Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class.
The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division
with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have
completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust
Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control
Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909)
396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with
the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and
approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan. The
Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading
permit.
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115-CUP &6.493-VAR Page 5 of 6
a. The first submittal of the Rough Grading Plan shall include the following
information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of
Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a copy
of current Title Report
3. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit,
issued from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Phone No. 760-
346-7491) is required for the proposed development. A copy of the executed
permit shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading
permit. (Include for projects in excess of 1 acre).
4. The area in which this project is situated is indicative of desert soil conditions
found in many areas of Palm Springs. The Engineering Division does not require
a soils report. This does not mean that subterranean conditions unknown at this
time may not affect construction done on this site. A soils report shall be
required only if necessary as part of the Building Department's review and
approval of associated building plans.
5. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of
soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food
and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent
To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los
Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if
required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at
73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208).
ON-SITE
6. The proposed on-site maintenance road for the project must comply with the City
of Palm Springs Municipal Code 8.50.024. Permanent dust control material
alternatives must be submitted for approval to the City Engineer prior to issuance
of a grading permit.
GENERAL
7. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.
8. Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement
plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG
(AutoCAD 2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and
PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of
Planning Commission COAs May 23, 2007
Case 5.1115—CUP &6.493-VAR Page 6 of 6
the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior
approval of the City Engineer.
9. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and
approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record
drawing "as-built' information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to
issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to
approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval
prior to construction.
TRAFFIC
10. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects
as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum,
all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State
of California, Department of Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls for
Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" dated 1996, or subsequent
additions in force at the time of construction.
11, This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall
be paid prior to issuance of building permit.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
APPEAL OF CASE NOS. 5.1115 CUP & 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 27, 2007. This meeting was previously scheduled for June 20,
2007, but had to be continued to allow sufficient time to notify all concerned parties to the hearing. 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) has 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 [lame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede- hablar con
Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
J s Thompson, City Clerk
Department of Planning Services +E
Vicinity Map 5
_ I
Jf_-._ - ...
7 m . j ------- .. 1BTAV[ '
iTT
IIIiuN I L_f i � III -
�III!r I��-III I I r
I p l
I
L Lw5 PAL I EIG
n TH
Legend
400'Radius
® Project Site - ------ —' --------
Surrounding Parcels
Freeways&Highways
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 5.1115 CUP DESCRIPTION: To consider an appeal of the Planning
6.493 VAR Commissions 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.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This .No 1909 -^ d_' p,lmn nano
(2015.5.C.C.P) NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM BPRINps
APPEAL OF CASE NOS.5.1115 CUp#6,483
VARIANCE APPLICATION
WEST OF INDIAN AVENUE,NORTH OF 1-10
SOUTH OF 13ILLON ROAD a EAST OF HWY gL
NOTICE IS HERESY GIVEN that the City Council
of no,City of Palm Springs,Calllornla,will hold a
public hearing at Its meeting of June 27, 2007.
rhls meeting Was provlously scheduled for Juno
STATE OF CALIFORNIA 20, 2007, but had to be continued to allow suffl-
cient time to notlN ail concerned partles to the
County of Riverside haaring.The City Mricll mealing hegln5.It 6:00
pp m n the Council Chambur at City Hall,3200 E.
Tshyult3 Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purppose of cols hearing Is to consider en app-
peel of the Planning Commission's May,23, 2007
apppm�ll of Type 1 Conciltlonel use Permit appll-
caticn for the Dillon Wind LLC, for the develop-
ment of live 1-mo❑❑.z.watt wind energy convention
system; (WEGS).'The approval also Includes a
am a citizen of the United States and a resident of variance appllcatlon requv�t to exceed the 300foot commerclal WECS helght IImit to 327 fool
the Court aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen 'hire project area consists of 3 separate project
Ty �' g sites;each Is made a of multiple parcels, Idegtl_
years,and not a party to or interested in the fled as Areas 1,3 and 5.Areas 1 and 3 are loot- -
Ed within qiv County'of-Riverside jurisdiction
above-enlilled matter.I am the principal clerk of a while Area 6 is locaied within the omds of the City
of Palm Springs approximately 6,000 feet west of
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING Inman Avenue and 2000 feet north of 1-10,
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation,
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs,
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,Slate of I ..-
California under the dale of March 24,1988.Case -•� f--I
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the III annexed is a printed copy(set in type not Smaller
than non pariel,has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
June 16 ',2007—
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: A Final
----..........-- .............. Enviromir l Impact Report (FEIR) has been
All in lire year 2L1O7 prepared for this proluct under the guldellnes of
Y file California Envuonmemel Quallty Act(CEQA)
and was ravlewetl antl adapted by the POning
Commission at tho hearing. Menrl of the pubes
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the lie may view this document at the Planning Ser-
vicesdepartment,City Ball between the hours of
foregoing 13 true and c0rrect. 8:00 a.m. and 3,00 p.m. Monday through Frlgay.
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION:The staft
California this---18"', —da report and olhor supporting documents regarding
Dated at Palm Springs, y Ills project are available for pubilc reviuw at Cityry
Hall between the hours of 8.00 a.m. and 9:00
p m. Monday lhroUgh Fnda :Please-contact-fire
of---- June --�- -,2007 UMlce o1 the Cdyy Clerk_ut �7GO)-323-82Ch If you
mould I'k.to scbetivla an sppolntment to review
��-- these documents.
A4 /` COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Re,-pone
to thls notice may he made verba"y at the Public
I i�l Hearing and/or m writing before the hearing.Wnl-
ten comments may be made to Will-
In, Plannin
^— r Commission by letter (for mail or hand dellvery
James Thompson, City Clork
3200 E.Tahquitz Canyyon Way
�. Palm Springs, CA 92262
Any challenge or the proposed project In court
..�T: 11 -- ❑ O'} mayy be limited to raising only-hose ssuee raisod
JU p• �- al thu public hearing descrlhed In this notice or
.in wrinen correspondence delivered to the 61ty
1 Clerk m, or ppolar,to the ppublic hearing (Govorn-
"' moot Cade Sectlon 65CO [h][2]).
- U \ An opperyunity will be given at said hearing for all
-- I'nlorastod persons m be heard,Queotions regard-
ngJthis case may oe directed to Edward O. Igo7-
ertrt^on, Princippal Planner, Planning Services De-
�� ' partment, at(760) 323,5245.
Si nocesta ayuda con esla Carta,porfavor Items a
Is Cluded do Palm Springs yy puede nablar con
Nadir Forger telefono (760)323,8245
James T so hompn, City Clerk
City of P pIn Springs
Published:6/10/2007
PALM
City of Palm Springs
Office of the City Clerk
CO41 oxa*c''p� 3?00 C Tahquirz Caiiynu MY • V:dm Springs, California 92262
-gtIF0pc�' Tel. (760)323-82021 • Pax: (760)D 22-S3D2 • Wc6: www.palmsprmgs-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 of the
Planning Commission decision for a conditional use permit for the development of
five 1-megawatt wind energy conversion systems (WECS) and a variance
application request to exceed the 300 foot commercial WECS height limit to 327
feet requested by Dillon Wind, LLC, for a project located west of Indian Avenue,
north of 1-10, south of Dillon Road and east of Hwy, 62, at 6:00 p.m., an
Wednesday, June 27, 2007. A copy of said notice was mailed to each and every
person set forth on the attached list on the 151h day of June, 2007, in a sealed
envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm
Springs, California. (35 notices)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 151h day of June, 2007.
AMESTHOMPSON
City Clerk
Yost Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
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 06.27.07 HISTORIC SITE REP I I I 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 I I 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 11 1 I I I 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 I I 1 _ 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
MR STEVEN B QUINTANILLA MR DAVID B. COSGROVE
GREEN,DE BORTNOWSKY&QUINTANILLA SEVEN FORTUNE PARTNERS III RUTAN&TUCKER, LLP
COUNSEL FOR SEVEN FORTUNE 11423 EAST 187T"STREET, SUITE 101 COUNSEL FOR CHARLES B. WOLF
PARTNERS III ARTESIA, CA 90701 611 ANTON BOULEVARD, STE. 1400
35-325 DATE PALM DRIVE,STE.202
CATHEDRAL CITY.CA 92234 COSTA MESA, CA 92626
MR DAVID B. COSGROVE ESTATE OF REBA JO WOLF
RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP ATTN: CHARLES B. WOLF
COUNSEL FOR CHARLES B.WOLF 477 E, 15T STREET
PO BOX 1950 TUSTIN, CA 92780
COSTA MESA, CA 92628
Rec# 1 APN: 666-120-012 Rec# 2 APN:666-1$0-006
WIND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP WIND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP
21515 HAWTHORNE BLVO 1059 21515 HAWTHORNS BLVD 10%
TORRANCE,CA 90503.6557 TORRANCE,CA 90503.6557
Rec1F: 3 APN:666-130-007 Rec#: 4 APN: 666-320-020
WIND ENERGY PARTNERSHIP RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT
21515 HAWTHORNE BLVD 1059 1995 MARKET ST
TORRANCE,CA 90503-6557 RIVERSIDE,CA 92501.1719
Rec#: 5 APN:666.320-021 Rec$: 6 APN: 666-320-026
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO PALM ENERGY PROP
PO BOX 800 PO BOX 580457
ROSEMEAD,CA 91770-0800 NORTH PALM SPRINGS,CA 9225"457
Rec#: 7 APN:666-330-001 Rcc#: 8 APN: 668-280-005
INDIAN AVENUE CO SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO
3550 77TH ST PO BOX 800
JACKSON HEIGHTS,NY 11372.4531 ROSEMEAD,CA 91770.0800
Rec#: 9 APN: 668-280-007 ReC#: 10 APN: 668-280-012
DAVID G BUCK KLEE ROSE K MORITA
7834 MORGAN POINTE CIR 28927 SAN SOLARIE
RENO,NV 89523-4801 MISSION VIEJO,CA 92692-4946
Rec#. 11 APN: 668-280-013 Rec#. 12 APN:668-280-014
GEORGE E IVANOV WELLESLEY ROLLAND KIME
4726 MOORPARK WAY 4604 LAUREL CANYON BLV 118
SACRAMENTO,CA 95842-3146 VALLEY VILLAGE,CA 91607
Rec#. 13 APN:668-280-015 Rec#: 14 APN: 668-280-017
TRI STATE ASSOC DAVID G BUCK
713 N CAMINO REAL 78$4 MORGAN POINTS CIR
PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-6011 RENO,NV 89523.4801
Rec#: 15 APN:668.400-004 Rec#: 16 APN: 668-400-005
CHEM QUEST CORP CHEM QUEST CORP
15723 KADOTA ST 15723 KADOTA ST
SYLMAR,CA 91342-3520 SYLMAR, CA 91342-3520
Rec#: 17 APN:668-400-007 Rec#: 18 APN:668.400.008
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO FREDERICK W NOBLE INC
PO BOX 800 41700 CORPORATE WAY D
ROSEMEAD,CA 91770-0800 PALM DESERT,CA 92260-1923
Rcc#: 19 APN:668-400-010 Rec#: 20 APN: 668-400-011
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT
1995 MARKET ST 1995 MARKET ST
RIVERSIDE,CA 92501-1719 RIVERSIDE,CA 92501-1710
Rec#, 21 APN: 668-411-008 Rec#: 22 APN: 668-411.010
RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT FREDERICK W NOBLE INC
1995 MARKET ST 4170E CORPORATE WAY❑
RIVERSIDE CA 92501-1719 PALM DESERT,CA 92260-1923
Recff: 1 APN: 6 0-012 ReC#: 2 AP : 68-280-017
RESIDENT p Rk51DENT oce
17550 -N AVE /�-ry 62126❑ ON RO
OA' DES T HOT SPRINGS,CA 92240
,�' • • • • n •qi '�'.L3cda'Oi: L��F�I,: �(g��d^I1fl'ty���,�...�.��__�,T —_.—._-- __._ _.. . . J
j€ Elle F_dit Yiew Insert Fermat Tools 8ctlons Help
-�Reply II_�y Replyto All II U FoWard J �j 1 _ ;; 't-�&JJ P, ..X. 11 y_. �1i
From Cindy Berard) 5wt Fri 611512007 9:57 AM
To, Lea A Husfaldt
Co.
Subject Upcoming Public Hearing on 6127101
Attachments tAppeal of Dillon Wind LLC CUP pdf(114 KB)
To be sent to the Neighborhood Coalition Representatives. Thank you -_
[��dy here rdi � i
D•pui,y City[I•rk
OfficeoFt6Ciey[Ierk
i
City of Palm 5,rin& LI
r.O 5-xr+s .
P•lm,jpring.CA 9216t
(76o)37s.eryff -
i
I i -
i
n
J
A----,------ - - ._-_: . --- N� s�f ,���� --------- -
• l.�f I I
F 4ALM S
� p�' City of Palm Springs
U v+
* Office of the City Clerk
ory
` °ga°Rarev` �200 L Tahquia C.myun Way • Palm Spnngs, C¢lifurnia 92262
cqL l FO RN\P Tel (760)323-820 i • Pax: (760) 322-8332 • Web. www.palmsprmgs-ca.gov
NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE
NOTICE. IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of June 20, 2007, Public Hearing
Item No. I.A.
APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
TO APPROVE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO
DEVELOP FIVE 1-MEGAWATT WIND ENERGY
CONVERSION SYSTEMS (WECS) AND ASSOCIATED
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,
CASE NO 5.1115:
By a unanimous vote of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs the public hearing
was continued to Wednesday, June 27, 2007, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz
Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible.
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
State of California )
County of Riverside ) ss.
City of Palm Springs )
I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of
Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., June 21, 2007, as required by established
policies and procedures.
James Thompson
City Clerk
NOTICE OF CONT- Dillon Rd doe
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Sprin,-s, California 92263-2743
ii arc€iv77 SUM og zaa7
Ron Oden,Mayor May 31, 2007 Z:
City of Palm Springs California
Council Chamber r , •,
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
Dear Mr. Oden,
I am very concerned about the Windmill Proposal by PPM to 14irilt 45 new wmdmrlls in
Desert Hot Springs near Indian Ave. In February of'071 moved to Palm Springs from
Los Angeles. My home in located in the K. Hovnanian Community of Four Seasons near
Sunrise Ave. and San Rafael. We have been blasted by wind and sand the last couple of
months. My relatives and£lends, who have lived in the desert area for twenty years, say
they have never seen the wind so bad. I am wondering about the relationship of the 30%
increase in energy output from the PPM Windmills in the last few months and the
constant wind propelling into our area. After all,the windmills are computerized and are
controlled by PPM.
Reminder:
City of Palm Springs Vision Statement. Palm Sonngs aspires to be a unique Ivor/d class
desert cornmunl(y, where residents and vrs tors eryoy nw hirrh ,quailly of life and a relaying
sypericnce lVe desire to balance our cu If,nat and hlStor,Cal r•esowces With responsible
sustainable aconomic cdroimth and to enhance our natural desert beauty. We are committed
to providing responsive, friendly and efficient customer service in an environment that
fosters unity among all our citizens.
The existing Wiudraills are ugly enough, no need to increase the ugly. All desert life of
floral and fauna, as it existed prior to the windmills, is gone. The Windmills have
eliminated the bushes that stop the sand from flying in all directions. It has made living
conditions in this area unbearable. To add more Windmills, especially in the backyards
of the Desert Hot Springs citizens is like a death sentence to this quaint town- I want to
remind you that Palm Springs depends on tourism and its beauty to remain healthy. To
vote in favor of more windmills, is to turn your back on humanity. The world became
aware of the beauty and waters of DIIS when famous movie stars starting coming to visit.
PPM from Oregon, is a subsidiary of Scottish Power, located in Scotland, and Iberdrola
from South America. Scottish Power and Iberdrola have created one of the largest
energy conglomerates in the world, a total enterprise value of more than E65 billion.
Investors in PPM wind-farms get government tax incentives. PPM, Scottish Power, and
Ibeidrola are in a win-win situation. They get cash upfront from investors, they get
money made from energy produced, and they get the tax right offs. Palm Springs Desert
is in a lose-lose situation. We get the bad environmental effects, the ugly visual
panorama, no energy benefits (most energy is out sourced) ,loss of tourism, and loss of
property taxes. When people and housing developers realize their property will be
devalued, everyone loses. PPM, Scottish Power, and Iberdrola don't care about Pahn
Springs, they just want to use us. Don't be snookered by slick presentations!
f .
�r
f Take the lead and make the responsible decision to st�_building those dangerously huge,
bad, and ugly windmills. The citizens of Palm Springs and Desert Hot Springs are
relying on your good judgment and conscience to vote `No' on the PPM proposal. I
moved to Palm Springs,for its climate and beauty. I plan to stay. Together we can save
the desert. Bring back the flora and fauna!
Very Concerned,
Nettie Pena
Teacher/Elementary Math Consultant
1227 Cassia Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92262
760-320-1665
C.C.
Steve Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tern
Ginny Poat, Councihnember
Mike McC4ullock Councilmember
Chris Mills, Councilmember
�dlaQo���uu�� laava lao�la�a �low6c�
/ 3798 jasper Trail. winckce®dc.rc.com
Patin Springs, CA 92262 6,Zoos
Nettie Pe&
1227 Cassia Trail
Palm Springs, CA 92262 • �,
Dear Ms. Pe"na,
Today I received a copy of your letter addressed to Ron Oden, Mayor of Palm
Springs, dated May 31, 2007, in which you protest the construction of additional
windmills in our vicinity. In reading your letter I was struck by several of your
statements and claims, which in my opinion, are lacking in substantiation and
forethought on your part.
The first of which is your implication that the windmills are somehow causingthe
increased wind this year. I'm an artist, certainly not an engineer or physicist, but I
hardly can imagine how a few slim blades resisting the mighty blasts coming their
way could in any way intensify the strength of the powerful forces. If they
influence the wind at all, my first guess would be that they act as a break of sorts.
Again, I would never assume I am qualified to publicly make that call.
At first glance as a visitor a few years ago, it appeared to me that it was quite
clever to take advantage of what must be a known and proven windy area to have
constructed the devices to harvest the strong power to begin with. I'm no
extreme tree-hugger, but I was delighted to see solar energy being put into actual
use and not just discussed. Furthermore, I believe there are many who think it
would be a shame not to seek alternative natural energy sources, as not to do so is,
as you say "turn[ing] your back on humanity", but not for the same reasons.
Stating the obvious, you must have noticed the spinning windmills on your several
visits to the desert on your way out from Los Angeles during the time you were
purchasing your home at Four Seasons. If they are so ugly to you, why didn't you
look further east of Hovnanian to have selected a home? There are certainly some
beautiful developments not as close by the windy areas. Speaking of which, your
claim that the windmills have desecrated all the flora and fauna prior to their
construction, yet you fail to mention what damage all the new housing construction
is doing.
r'
What you do claim is that we residents of Palm Springs receive no benefits and in
fact suffer the loss of tourism and loss of property taxes. I'd like to know what
evidence you used to support your claims of fact_ Upon what evidence are you
relying when you claim that property will be devalued because of additional
windmills? Upon what evidence are you relying when you claim that the windmills
are dangerous, bad and ugly?
I am honestly not attempting to start a little war of words with you but some of
these statements you've made appear to be subjective, somewhat inflammatory and
without sufficient substantiation. I think you would probably not be too thrilled to
know that I've been trying to investigate a way to have our Four Seasons
community eventually have its very own windmill to supply power to the entire
complex (which would include 100% benefits for each home) and would put us on
the map as o truly self-sufficient community (electricity-wise that is). Along with
that, I'm investigating the eventual feasibility of personal home windmills. I know
it's a long-shot, but nothing ventured, nothing gained.
As an aside, being from Kansas, I'm used to windmills to bring water up from the
ground. They were everywhere. I never thought they were ugly and certainly
never thought they kept the tourists away.
Yours truly,
Jacqueline Winch
Cc; Ron Oden, Mayor, City of Palm Springs
Steve Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tem
tinny Foot, Councilmember
Mike McLulloch, Councilmember
Chris Mills, Councilmember
June 8, 2007
James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way i; i
Palm Springs, CA 92282 rcf "` �tp
Dear Sir;
I have received Notice of Public Hearing regarding the Case No. 5.1115 CUP
by applicant DILLON WIND LLC.
It seems this company proposes an easement through my property which I
am against. I already have a contract with WPP 1993 LP who have built
wind turbines on the property. I do not want to go into a contract with this
party.
Yours very truly,
G
Mrs. Rose Morita-Klee
28927 San Solarie
Mission Viejo, CA 92692