The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About01893 - RIVERSIDE COUNTY EDISON SCE WIND ENERGY SETTLEMENT # - nd Energy Settlement Agr w/ County of Riverside 2-2-83 (appry in Closed sess AGREEMENT 1893 AN AGREEMENT by and between the City of Palm Springs, a municipal corporation, (the "CITY" ) ; the County of Riverside, a public agency, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors , Walter Abraham, Kay S. Ceniceros, Alfred McCandless, Donald C. Schroeder and A. Norton Younglove (the "COUNTY" ) ; Southern California Edison Company ( "EDISON" ) ; Aztec Energy Corporation, David G. Buck, R & R Development Company, La Rocco Wind Farms and San Gorgonio Farms, Inc. (the "OWNERS" ) ; and William Adams ( "ADAMS" ) . RECITALS A. On or about October 12, 1982, the COUNTY enacted Ordinance Amendment 348.2104 (the "Ordinance Amendment" ) and adopted General Plan Amendment No. 253-L-87 (the "General Plan Amendment") regulating the development of wind energy resources in the County of Riverside. B. As part of the said enactment and adoption, the COUNTY caused the preparation, together with the United States Bureau of Land Management, of Environmental Impact Report No. 158 entitled "San Gorgonio Wind Resource Study" (the "EIR") and certified the same as having been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEgA" ) . C. On or about November 29, 1982, the CITY filed a Petition and Complaint in the Superior Court in and for the County of Riverside ("Case No. Indio 36804") challenging the Ordinance Amendment, the General Plan Amendment and the adequacy of the EIR. Case No . Indio 36304 named the COUNTY as defendant and respondent. 1 f D. On or about December 9, 1982, ADAMS filed a Complaint in the Superior Court in and for the County of Riverside against the CITY ( "Case No. Indio 36869" ) . E. On or about January 10, 1983, EDISON and the OWNERS intervened in Case No. Indio 36804. F. The parties to this Agreement desire to see wind energy development go forward in Riverside County. G. CITY desires assurances that wind energy development will not adversely affect it. The CITY further desires assurances from EDISON and the OWNERS that they will support changes to existing law as set forth more fully below. The CITY desires the COUNTY to consider these changes. H. EDISON and the OWNERS desire an immediate end to Case No. Indio 36804 which case they believe causes uncertainty and will seriously and adversely impact wind energy development. I. The COUNTY desires an end to Case No. 36804 and desires to consider improvements to existing law and therefore, without making any assurance or commitment to future legislative action, intends to consider those changes to existing law set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES, BY WAY OF COMPROMISE AND WITHOUT ADMISSION OF LAW OR FACT, AGREE THAT: 1. The COUNTY shall forthwith refer to its Planning Commission for study and public hearing and shall direct its staff to prepare appropriate amendments- to effect the following: a) Expand the scenic setback for commercial 2 WECS development to 2/3 mile on each side of Highway ill from its intersection with I-10 easterly to Tramway Road. b) Establish a setback of 1/3 mile from the city limits of CITY for high-density commercial WECS arrays (where high density array is defined as 3 by 6 rotor diameters or closer average internal spacing) . Such setback may be reduced upon a finding by the Planning Director that existing and planned development within the city limits is not incompatible with commercial WECS development. c) Maintain the safety setback for commercial WECS development of 3 times total WEDS height on either side of those portions of Palm Drive and Indian Avenue south of I-10, regardless of zoning on adjacent property. d) Require that an application siting the location of a commercial WECS within the 100-year flood plain areas (as those areas are depicted on Figure III-17 of the EIR) include a detailed report which shall address the potential for wind and water erosion, sedimentation and flooding, and which shall identify proposed mitigation measures. e) Require that prior to the issuance of building permits for commercial WECS development, all areas where significant site disruption is proposed shall be posted to minimize site disturbance. f) Require that a proposed reduction of any 3 setback requirement (other than wind access setbacks) be included in. all public notices pertaining to a commercial WECS application and that, if granted, the WECS permit specifically state the allowed setback. g) Require that a commercial WECS have a matte or galvanized finish unless its performance is adversely affected or other good cause is shown to permit any other finish. 2. Thereafter, the Planning Commission shall refer its recommendations regarding the amendments listed in Paragraph 1 to the Board of Supervisors. 3. The CITY, EDISON, OWNERS and ADAMS agree to support the amendments listed in Paragraph 1, and such support shall include, without limitation, support at those Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors hearings conducted to consider these proposals. 4 . The CITY shall dismiss, with prejudice, its Petition and Complaint in Case No. 36804 within three days ofthe date the COUNTY refers the amendments listed in Paragraph No. I to its Planning Commission. 5 . The COUNTY shall activate the monitoring program described in the General Plan Amendment no later than April 15, 1983, which monitoring program shall provide for an advisory committee. The advisory committee shall allow for the participation of the CITY and other concerned public entities . 6. ADAPTS shall dismiss, with prejudice, his Complaint in Case No. Indio 36869 concurrently with the dismissal 4 by the CITY of its Petition and Complaint, as described in Paragraph 4, above. 7. All proceedings and actions in Case Nos . Indio 36804 and 36869, with the exception of requests for dismissal with prejudice, shall be stayed until February 4, 1983 . 8. The parties recognize that damages in the event of a breach of this Agreement would be difficult or impossible to ascertain but that immediate and irreparable injury would occur. Therefore, the parties agree that that Agreements may be enforced by specific or equitable relief and that the prevailing party may recover reasonable costs and attorney s fees from the breaching party. 9 . This Agreement may be signed in one or more counterparts . IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto execute this Agreement as of the dates set forth opposite their respective ; signatures. Dated: February 1, 1983 City of Palm Spring's- By Frank ogertlaryor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ff ATTEST: �. William J dams City Attu r Z SUA11ICH CITY CLERK 5 Dated:_ County of Riverside By APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kay S. Ceniceros, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors Robert Klotz, --- Deputy County Counsel-Q Dated: Southern California Edison. Company By r p�q Mark C. Allen, III, Attorney Dated: ,,.�4��.�„�,,�;-,.,�z u-�, h ��--a Aztec Energy Corporation David C. Buck R & R Development Company La Rocco Wind Farms San Gorgonio Farms, Inc. William Adams 0wf� , Redwine & Sherrill By t7oseph S. Akluti A�torney 6 Dated: County of Riverside By APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kay S. Ceniceros, Chairman of the Board of Supervisors BY Robert Klotz , Deputy County Couns Dated:2— ��4 i /b� Southern California Edison Company Mark C. Allen, III, Attorney Dated: r ti� <<�' �7 �`/ Aztec Energy Corporation David G. Buck C �C l= i R & R Development Company La Rocco 11ind Farms San Gorgonio Farms, Inc . William Adams Redwine & Sherrill By l Joseph S. Aklu i, ttorney L� 6 Dated: County of Riverside By / APPROVED AS TO FORM: K s ay Cenic ro , a�an o the oard of Supervisors By o Robert Klotz, Deputy County Counsel Dated: //�� Southern California Edison Company `' G (D FORM By �C Mark C. Allen, III, Attorney AAA Dated: 7�7 (� 0� Aztec Energy Corporation David G. Buck R & R Development Company f La Rocco Wind Farms Q San Gorgonio Farms, Inc. 04" William Adams aosh e & Sherrill B S. Alclu£i, Attorney 6