The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081381.tiff BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of Denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AMENDED COMPLAINT TO WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Applicant A. Dale Slater Trust B through United Power, Inc. ( Applicant") tiles this Amended Complaint pursuant to Section 2-4-10 to appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission which recommended denial of the application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review. 1. During September, 2007. Applicant submitted an application for a Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review to construct an electric substation for a public utility on a portion of Applicant's property in Weld County. 2. Thereafter, the Department of Planning Services of Weld County gathered information including input from numerous referral agencies. Alter reviewing the case under all of the standards set forth in § 23-2-4000 of the Weld County Code, the Department of Planning recommended approval. The Planning Department's Special Review Permit Administrative Review is attached at Exhibit A. 3. Following review of the case on January 15, 2008, the Planning Commission "recommended" that this application be denied by a vote of 3 to 2 with 4 members absent. The Resolution evidencing the "recommendation" of denial is attached at Exhibit B to this Objection. 4. Applicant has appealed the recommendation of the Planning Commission and filed a Summary. This Complaint amends that Summary. 5. Attached to this Complaint at Exhibit C is a Map which shows the location of the proposed substation and the location of various other points including roads, the existing electric transmission lines, and homes in Liberty Ranch. The Map is intended to assist the Board and is not necessarily to scale. EXHIBIT LAc/Z 1Ie ZI 100555i 9 2008-1381 6. As required by Section 23-4-420, the record and facts in this case demonstrate that there is a need for this electric substation in the area of service. References to "Sections" in this Amended Complaint are to the Weld County Code unless otherwise stated. Both the Department of Planning Services and the Planning Commission agreed there is a distinct need for this substation. Attached at Exhibit D is an affidavit and engineering analysis from Donald W. McDaniel, P.E., the Engineering Supervisor at United Power, demonstrating a need for the substation at Highway 66 and Weld County Road 5.5 between the years 2006 and 2010. The actual growth north of Highway 119 to Weld County Road 40 has been huge, and the planned growth in this service area includes a new high school and new developments such as the Waterfront, Life Bridge, Kiteley Farms, Mead Town Center and Centex. United Power had planned to build the substation in 2009, but the low voltage power quality issues that occurred in this service area during 2007 have forced United Power to build the substation in 2008. 7. The electric substation proposed by Applicant steps down voltage power from the Transmission Line to distribute voltage to serve residents and businesses in the service area. The electrical equipment will be enclosed, secured by locks, protected by a ten foot wall, sunk into the ground, and screened by both a berm and landscaping. The substation will not be continually manned so there is no need for waste disposal or a water source. Noise levels will be less than those permitted by Colorado Revised Statutes 25-12-103. There will be no air pollution and the substation will be constructed and operated in accord with the National Electrical Safety Code and Rules of the Environmental Protection Agency. Lands disturbed during construction will be reseeded with natural grasses. 8. The Planning Commission was confused about the process they should use to consider the Application. (See portions of the Transcript of the January 15, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting at pages 92 to 110 (with specific examples at 92:5-14, 99:3-10, and 20-25, 100:7-13, and 101:16-20). Part of this confusion arose because the attorney for Centex Homes told them that the Planning Commission was the "final decision maker. Any decision that you make has to be appealed directly to the Court." (See portions of Transcript, at 46:12-14.) Of course, that was an inaccurate statement which ignored the Appeals Process provided in Section 2-4-10 by which the Board of County Commissioners "shall hear all the available facts". Section 2-4-10(D). 9. The Planning Commission also appeared to be confused about the meaning of one or more of the standards enumerated in Section 23-2-400. (See portions of Transcript at 107:8- 11 and 107:22 - 108:2.) They were advised they could vote on the Motion even if they didn't agree with the basis on which the Motion was made. (See portions of Transcript at 108:17-19.) United Power submits such procedure is not accurate. 10. Section 2-4-10 requires that this Complaint describe the basic facts. Applicant will do so by addressing each of the standards for a public utility facility set forth in Section 23- 2-400. It is important to note that the Planning Department, based on its own investigation and signoffs from eleven referral agencies, found that each of these standards were satisfied in this Application. See Exhibit A. (00555119/3} - 2 - Section 23-2-400(A). Reasonable efforts have been made to avoid irrigated cropland or to minimize the impacts on such lands in those cases where avoidance is impractical. As found by the Planning Department, the subject site is designated "other" by the USDA Soil Conservation Services and the small size of the lot severely limits its agricultural value and use. See Exhibit A, ¶2.A. Thus, standard A has been satisfied. Section 23-2-400(B). The facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future development of the surrounding area as set forth in applicable Master Plans. Because the attorney for Centex Homes, the builder/developer of Liberty Ranch, argued this Standard before the Planning Commission, Applicant provides more facts concerning it. However the Planning Commission did not recommend denial on the basis of this Standard. The key here is the phrase "undue adverse effect." Any public utility site may effect existing and future development but that is not the standard. Since public utility facilities including electric substations are necessary for residential and commercial growth and therefore benefit the community, the standard is "undue adverse effect." Because the plans and concessions made by United Power at the proposed site will mitigate the effects on the surrounding community (see discussion concerning Standard C in next paragraph) the facility will not have an "undue adverse effect." Attached at Exhibit E are affidavits from Weld County residents supporting this Application including affidavits from the owners of the land on which the substation will be built, as follows: 1. Affidavit of Nancy I. Slater, owner of quarter section of land of which the Northwest corner will be sold to Applicant for operation of a substation; 2. Affidavit of Ernest M. Kiteley, general partner of Kiteley Farms LLLP, owner of property northeast of the Slater property; 3. Affidavit of Midwest Heritage Inn of Visalia, Inc. and Midwest Heritage Inn of Deptford, Inc., owner of property adjacent to the east of the Slater property; 4. Affidavit of Myra Jane Silengo, owner of property to the northwest of the Slater property; and 5. Affidavit of Jerry Hergenreder, owner of property adjacent to the west of the Slater property. Certain homeowners suggest that their property values will be affected by the substation. However this Standard does not mention property values. Nevertheless, Stan Sessions, former Weld County Assessor and real estate broker in Weld County, has studied plans for the substation, visited the site, and analyzed the market value of the homes in Liberty Ranch. As set forth in his Affidavit at Exhibit F, there will be little or no economic impact on the homes from {00555119/3) - 3 - the construction of the substation. There may be negative economic affect from the power lines, as distinguished from the substation, but that power line has been there for three decades. Centex Homes built homes in Liberty Ranch, and people bought the homes, knowing the power lines were there. The Planning Department found that there was no undue adverse affect and the Planning Commission did not recommend denial based on this standard. Standard B has been satisfied. Section 23-2-400(C). The design of the proposed facility mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible. Because one or two members of the Planning Commission believe that the design has not been explored to the fullest possibility to mitigate negative impacts, and because some of the residents of Liberty Ranch oppose the Application on this basis, the Applicant provides more facts relating to this Standard. The homes in Liberty Ranch were built immediately to the north of an electric Transmission Line that has been in place for over 32 years. See Map at Exhibit C. When the residents bought their homes and moved in, they knew of and could see the Transmission Line. See Exhibit G, showing (among other views) the current view from the closest home that is inhabited within Liberty Ranch to the proposed substation, which view is looking due south and shows the Transmission Line as clearly visible from such residence. It should not be a surprise to those residents that upgrades to that electrical system are necessary, including the substation. Nevertheless, United Power has mitigated against negative impacts on Liberty Ranch and the surrounding area to the "greatest extent feasible" as required by the standard. • During the notification process, United Power provided notice to homeowners in Liberty Ranch that was not required by the Weld County Code. There are no existing homes within five hundred (500) feet of the substation to whom notice was required. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached at Exhibit H. • United Power hosted an open house to describe the substation and got input from neighbors including Liberty Ranch homeowners. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H. • In response to that input, United Power increased the height of the screening wall from the eight (8) feet recommended by the Planning Department to ten (10) feet. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H. • United Power added brick corner columns to the wall to make it more aesthetically pleasing. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H. • United Power agreed to bury all circuit exits out of the substation (see Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H.) {00555119/3} -4- • United Power agreed to move the substation further south by approximately one hundred (100) feet. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H. • United Power added additional berms on the northwest corner to further protect the view from Weld County Road 5.5. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H. • Although Weld County does not require landscaping for the substation, United Power adhered to higher landscaping requirements of the City of Mead to be consistent with the surrounding area. See Affidavit of Jason S. Maxey, attached as Exhibit H. Due to these plans and concessions, the post-construction computer simulations from four views of the substation (attached as Exhibit I) show that Applicant has mitigated negative impacts on the surrounding area to the "greatest extent feasible." Equally important, the proposed Conditions of Approval and Development Standards authored by the Planning Department will also mitigate negative impacts. They are included in Exhibit A. The Planning Department so found (Exhibit A, ¶2(C)) and the Applicant has satisfied Standard C. 23-2-400(D). The site shall be maintained in such a manner so as to control soil erosion, dust and the growth of noxious weeds. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that there is no fugitive dust or erosion and will ensure the control of noxious weeds (see Exhibit A, items 8 and 13). The Planning Department so found (Exhibit A,¶ D), and the Applicant has satisfied Standard D. 23-2-400(E). Applicant has agreed to implement any reasonable measures deemed necessary to ensure that the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the County would be protected, and to mitigate or minimize any potential adverse impacts from the proposed facility. Because one or two members of the Planning Commission believe that measures have not been taken to mitigate or minimize potential adverse impacts regarding health, safety and welfare of inhabitants in the surrounding area, and because some of the residents of Liberty Ranch oppose the Application on this basis, the Applicant provides more facts relating to this Standard. As stated above, when the residents of Liberty Ranch bought their homes, an electric Transmission Line had been on the south side of their lots for many years. All residents in Liberty Ranch bought and moved into their homes with knowledge of the existence of the Transmission Line, because it was readily visible. Of the current homes in Liberty Ranch, the closest is approximately 350 feet north of the Transmission Line. The substation will be located farther south than the Transmission Line. In other words, the Transmission Line is between the {00555119/3) - 5 - residents of Liberty Ranch and the substation. See Map at Exhibit C. See also Exhibit G, showing (among other views)the current view from the closest home that is inhabited within Liberty Ranch to the proposed substation, which view is looking due south and shows the Transmission Line as clearly visible from such residence. The closest residence in Liberty Ranch currently occupied is more than six hundred (600) feet from the substation. See Map at Exhibit C. As previously indicated, the Affidavit from Stan Sessions, former Assessor of the County of Weld and longtime real estate broker in Weld County, indicates that there will be little or no economic impact on the residents in Liberty Ranch from the construction of the substation. Any adverse economic impact arises from the Transmission Line which was already present when the property owners purchased their lots or moved into their homes. Such Transmission Line is not owned or operated by United Power. Some of the residents of Liberty Ranch have asserted that the substation will create an electronic magnetic field that is a health risk. Contrary to that assertion, the Affidavit of Dr. Robert Pearson, Vice President, Industrial Systems Group at CH2M Hill, a well recognized national expert on electronic magnetic fields and related health issues, clearly states that there is a low risk of health effects from this substation and that "no EMF from the proposed Slater Substation itself will be detectable in any of the homes in the Liberty Ranch Subdivision". The substation itself will not change the EMF environment of the Transmission Line. See Transcript at 32:21-33:5. The magnetic fields produced by the substation at the wall surrounding it, are comparable to those found in your home or office to which we are exposed on a daily basis. See Affidavit attached as Exhibit J. See also related testimony from Dr. Pearson in Transcript at 30:9-33: 7. It should be noted that the assertions from Liberty Ranch owners at the Planning Commission hearing are all to an alleged health risk caused by transmission lines, not a substation. The Transmission Line has been in place for three decades, and therefore all of such testimony is irrelevant. Such residents offered no evidence that there were health risks from the addition of a substation, let alone a substation located on the opposite side of the existing Transmission Line. It should be noted that during the Planning Commission hearing (see Transcript at 89:23- 91:14) Pam Smith, a staff member of the Weld County Health Department, reported that she did not find any documentation showing there were any significant health risks from electromagnetic fields (EMF). She reported that EMF from household appliances at 6 inches were stronger than EMF from a power station even if you are standing near it. (See Transcript at 90:7-13.) The Department of Planning found that this Standard has been satisfied, and certainly the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will further protect the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County. Standard E has been satisfied. {00555119/3) - 6- 23-2-400(F). The proposed facility will be supplied by an adequate water supply which has been evaluated with reference to the impacts of the use of such supply or agricultural uses. All reasonable steps have been taken by the Applicant to minimize negative impacts on agricultural uses and land. As found by the Planning Department, the substation will not require water demands or a water source at the site. See Exhibit A, ¶ 2(F). This Standard has been satisfied by Applicant. 23-2-400(G). All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed, and the proposed action has been consistent with the best interests of the people of the County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area. Because the attorney for Centex Homes argued that reasonable alternatives may not have been adequately assessed, the Applicant provides more facts relating to this Standard. The substation will be constructed in accord with modern requirements which provide reliability and safety. Based on the technical issues recommended by several engineers, it has been determined that the best engineering model and the least amount of impact will be to build the substation along the existing Transmission Line. This would eliminate the need to have two poles with three circuits (two in and one out) if the Transmission Line is extended north or south from the existing Transmission Line. In locating a substation, several criteria must be reviewed, all as set forth in the Summary previously filed. Attached at Exhibit K is a Map which reflects the properties reviewed and considered by United Power. United Power has spent much time and money investigating all the alternatives and these efforts are outlined in the affidavit of Donald McDaniel attached at Exhibit D. The analysis has been ongoing since 2004. The properties examined are those near the load center shown on the Map at Exhibit K (the utility of the substation declines as the distance from the load center increases), and those near the existing Transmission Line (as lines must run from the Transmission Lines to and from the substation). See Maps at Exhibits C and K. Site One: Olander The owner was not willing to sell their property to United Power. Distribution lines in the immediate area are all single phase lines. Since there is no main three phase feeders in the immediate area, the distance to tie into the existing infrastructure would be higher on this property. In addition, this property lies within an area subject to an IGA with Longmont, where Longmont has the right to annex this property. As Longmont is outside of the United Power's service area, it is highly uncommon for substation to be located in a city or town that United Power does not service. Site Two: Dorr {0055511913} - 7 - The owner and real estate representative both told United Power that they were not interested in subdividing the property; they were only interested in selling the entire parcel, 55 acres. United is a not-for-profit cooperative and is not in the real estate investment business of owning large parcels of land that cannot be used for its business purposes. Distribution lines in the immediate area are all single phase lines. Since there is no main three phase feeders in the immediate area, the distance to tie into the existing infrastructure would be higher on this property. This parcel is also low lying and therefore a substation would not be easily hidden from visibility. In addition, this property lies within an area subject to an IGA with Longmont, and if Longmont elects to annex this property, the substation would be located in an area that United Power does not service. Site Three: Silengo The owner told United Power they were not interested in selling off a small parcel. They would sell the entire parcel, 58 acres. United is a not-for-profit cooperative and is not in the real estate investment business of owning large parcels of land that cannot be used for its business purposes. For distribution, additional easements to get to Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 28 would need to be acquired. This parcel has a ditch running through it and is low lying, which together with the natural land contours makes it impossible to screen the substation from visibility by surrounding properties. Moreover, the southern portion of this parcel (which is close to the Transmission Line) is where the Longmont Reservoir is planned to be created in the future, making the distance to tie into the existing infrastructure higher. Site Four: Centex-Liberty Ranch This property is already platted and under development and therefore was not available to United Power. Site Five: Kiteley The owner told United Power that they have been working with a developer for the past four years, that they have developed a preliminary plat and could not at this point sell a portion of their property to United Power. In addition, depending on the location of the substation, the lake /flood plain comes into the evaluations and limits the ability to exit to the east for distribution. Site Six: Mead Crossing This is a commercial subdivision, platted as a business park. United Power had lengthy discussions with the owner but technically it was not a good location and the economics did not work. The substation would have had to have been located in close proximity to potential flooding and the feasibility of getting eight circuits out of the substation into the {00555119/31 - 8 - area was challenging at the very best. This site had to be rejected based on economics, technical issues and a non-agreeable seller. Site Seven: Waterfront Although United Power had lengthy discussions about acquiring a specific area of this site, C-DOT acquired that portion of the property for highway drainage which eliminated this location from consideration. That site was also questionable due to being a low lying area and had flood plain and technical restraints similar to the Mead Crossing property. The remainder of the Waterfront property is already in the planning stages of development. Site Eight: Slater This is the property which is the subject of the Application. The seller has been cooperative in terms of selling a small portion of her property as long as it was in the northwest corner. The natural land contours are conducive to hiding the substation and the site works from an engineering prospective. The southwest corner of the property is planned to be a new reservoir for the City of Longmont so the substation must be located north of the area designated for the reservoir. This property is also outside of the Longmont future growth area. Site Nine: Hergenreder The landowner was only agreeable to subdivide and sell to United Power the east part of their property (east of the train rail lines) which is completely contained within the Weld County/Longmont/Mead sub-area analysis of June, 2007. This is the proposed location of the new Longmont Reservoir and thus made the property technically infeasible for the substation. Site Ten: Longmont Open Space Since this is defined open space, the first approval is needed from the Open Space Director for the City of Longmont who did not give approval. The site is not available. Of the ten sites studied and considered by United Power, the only one that will work with an agreeable seller is the Slater property on the northwest corner. If the Board of County Commissioners does not approve this site, United Power has no other alternative that would be feasible from an engineering and technical perspective, have an agreeable seller, and create the lowest impact on the surrounding area. The attorney for Centex Homes suggested that United Power consider using its condemnation power to find another alternative (see Transcript, 57:8 — 12). United Power always tries to work with an agreeable landowner, especially where as here, a good site can be (00555119/3) - 9- purchased. Condemnation upsets the community and is time consuming which will not permit United Power to solve the power shortages in the service area. All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed and the proposed substation is consistent with the best interests of the people of Weld County and represents a balanced use of resources in the service area. Standard G has been satisfied. 23-2-400(H). The nature and location or expansion of a proposed power plant facility will not create an expansion of the demand for government services beyond the reasonable capacity of an impacted community or the County to provide such services. As found by the Planning Department, the substation will create limited, if any, demand for additional government services. See Exhibit A, ¶2(H). In addition, the substation at issue here is not a power plant, but rather a substation. This Standard has been satisfied by Applicant. 23-2-400(I). The nature and location or expansion of the facility will meet Colorado Department of Health and County Air Quality Standards. As set forth by the Planning Department, the Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the nature and location of the facility will meet Colorado Department of Health and Weld County Air Quality Standards. See Exhibit A, ¶ 2(I), and the Conditions attached in Exhibit A. This Standard has been satisfied. 23-2-400(J). Adequate electric, gas, telephone, water, sewage and other utilities exist or can be developed to service the site. As found by the Planning Department, adequate electric, gas, telephone, water, sewage and other utilities exist or can be developed to service the site. Exhibit A,¶ 2(J). The Planning Commission did not recommend denial based on this Standard. 23-2-400(K). The nature and location of expansion of the facility will not unreasonably interfere with any significant wild life habitat and will not unreasonably affect any endangered wildlife species, unique natural resource, historic landmark or archeological site within the affected area. As found by the Planning Department, the nature and location of this substation will not unreasonably interfere with any significant wildlife habitat nor affect any endangered wildlife species. Exhibit A, ¶2(K). Standard K has been satisfied. 23-2-400(L). The Applicant's engineer has certified that the drainage plans developed for and to be implemented on the site will prevent surface drainage from leaving the site which would exceed historic runoffflows. As found by the Planning Department, the proposed substation will not significantly impact drainage of residential property, cropland or other land. Exhibit A,¶ 2(L). Moreover, {00555119/3) - 10- attached at Exhibit D as part of the Affidavit from Donald W. McDaniel, P.E., is the certification from United Power's engineer and the background information and documentation he obtained from an independent party to confirm that the drainage plans developed for and to be implemented on the site will prevent surface drainage from leaving the site in a manner which would exceed historic runoff flows. This Standard has been satisfied. 23-2-400(M). Where a proposed power plant is to be located in an area where a sufficient housing supply is unavailable for the anticipated immigrant construction force, the Applicant for the location of such a facility shall present plans showing how housing will be provided. As found by the Planning Department, the proposed use as a substation has no associated housing requirements. Exhibit A, ¶2(M). This Standard has been satisfied. 23-2-400(N). The Applicant shall submit a signed copy of the notice of inquiry form demonstrating that the IGA municipality does not wish to annex, if required by the IGA. As found by the Planning Department, the proposed site does not lie within a municipality IGA boundary. Exhibit A, ¶2(N). This Standard has been satisfied. 11. Since United Power has demonstrated that there is a need for this electric substation in the area of service as required by Section 23-4-420, and all of the Standards set forth in Section 23-2-400 have been satisfied, the Applicant respectfully requests that the recommendation of the Planning Department be accepted, the recommendation of the Planning Commission be denied, and the Application approved. Respectfully submitted this 7'-" day of May, 2008. ROTHGERBER JOHNSON & LYONS LLP Richard K. Clark, #2753 Mark A. Meyer, #26176 1200 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Telephone: 303-623-9000 Facsimile: 303-262-9222 Attorneys for Applicant United Power, Inc. (00555119/3) - 11 - CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this 7th day of May, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing AMENDED COMPLAINT TO WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS was served via hand delivery, addressed as follows: Weld County Board of Commissioners The Clerk to the Board's Office Attn: Esther E. Gesick 915 10th Street, 3rd Floor Centennial Center Greeley, CO 80631 And also served by placing the same in the U.S. Mail, first class postage prepaid, addressed as follows: Bruce T. Barker, Esq. Weld County Attorney's Office 915 Tenth Street P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 David W. Foster, Esq. Foster Graham Milstein & Calisher LLP 621 17th Street, 19th Floor Denver, CO 80293 /[/ (1/ {00555119/3) - 12- • Resolution USR-1629 A.Dale Slater Trust B do United Power Page 3 ////��,� SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT fiADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW 'live COLORADO Planner: Michelle Martin Case Number: USR-1629 Hearing Date: November 20,2007 Applicant: A.Dale Slater Trust B do Jason Maxey with United Power Address: 13433 County Road 7, Longmont,CO 80504 Request: A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Perrnit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(Electrical Substation),subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the A(Agricultural)Zone District Legal Description: SE4 Section 28,Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6'"P.M.Weld County,Colorado Location: West of and adjacent to County Road 7 and north of and adjacent to County Road 28 Parcel ID#: 1207 28 000010 Size of Parcel:160+/-acres Size of USR:6+/-acres THE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES'STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS REQUEST BE APPROVED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. The submitted materials are in compliance with the application requirements of Section 23-2-260 of the Weld County Code. 2. It is the opinion of the Department of Planning Services'staff that the applicant has shown compliance with Section 23-2-400 of the Weld County Code as follows: A. Section 23-2-400.A.—Reasonable efforts have been made to avoid irrigated crop land or to minimize the impacts on such lands in those cases where avoidance is impractical. The subject site is designated'Other"by the USDA Soil Conservation Services dated 1979.The small size of the lot(6 acres)severely limits its agricultural value and use. B. Section 23-2-400.8. — The facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future development of the surrounding area as set forth in applicable Master Plans. The subject property lies within the three-mile referral area of the Boulder County, City of Longmont,Town of Firestone and Town of Mead. The Town of Mead in their referral dated • 10/10/07 states that United Power and the Town of Mead have entered into discussion for annexation and development of a power station on the proposed lot(Lot A of RE-4712). No • Resolution USR-1629 A.Dale Slater Trust B c/o United Power Page 4 response has been received by the Town of Firestone,City of Longmont and Boulder County. C. Section 23-2-400.C.—The design of the proposed facility mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible. The proposed fadlitywill be compatible with surrounding land uses. While there are predominantly agricultural uses in the area, the property to the north is located within the town limits of Mead. The property to the south is zoned PUD with Estate uses(Adler Estates). The property to the east is proposed as a residential subdivision(Waterfront at Foster Creek).The proposed Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will minimize negative impacts on the surrounding area. D. Section 23-2-400.O. — The site shall be maintained in such a manner so as to control soil erosion, dust, and the growth of noxious weeds. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that there is no fugitive dust or erosion and will ensure the control of noxious weeds. E. Section 23-2-400.E. —The applicant has agreed to implement any reasonable measures deemed necessary by the Planning Commission to ensure that the health, safety, and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County will be protected and to mitigate or minimize any potential adverse impacts from the proposed facility. F. Section 23-2-400.F. --All reasonable steps have been taken by the applicant to minimize • negative impacts on agricultural uses and lands. The proposal will not require additional water demands on the site. The proposed facility will be unmanned and will not require water or sewage disposal. The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards minimize negative impacts on the existing agricultural uses and lands of the area. G. Section 23-2-400.G. --All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed and the proposed action is consistent with the best interests of the people of Weld County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area. The proposed structure will service the residents of the area. H. Section 23-2-400.H. — This application will create limited, if any, demand for additional government services. Section 23-2-400.1. --The Conditions of Approval and Development Standards will ensure that the nature and location of the facility will meet Colorado Department of Health and Weld County air quality standards. J. Section 23-2-400.J.—Adequate electric,gas, telephone,water, sewage, and other utilities exist or can be developed to service the site. K. Section 23-2-400.K. -- The nature and location or expansion of the facility will not unreasonably interfere with any significant wildlife habitat and will not unreasonably affect any endangered wildlife species,unique natural resource, historic landmark or archaeological sites within the affected area.There will be no significant impact on wildlife habitat. The Division of Wildlife indicated that they had no conflicts with the project,as stated in their referral dated 10/7/07. • L. Section 23-2-400.L.--The proposed use will not significantly impact drainage of residential property,crop land or other land. • Resolution USR-1629 A.Dale Slater Trust B do United Power Page 5 M. Section 23-2-400.M—The proposed use has no associated housing requirements. N. Section 23-2-400.N—The proposed site does not lie within a Municipality IGA boundary. This recommendation is based,in part,upon a review of the application materials submitted by the applicant, other relevant information regarding the request,and responses from referral entities. The Department of Planning Services'staff recommendation for approval is conditional upon the following: 1. Prior to recording the plat: A. The applicant shall either submit a copy of an agreement with the property's mineral owner/operators stipulating that the oil and gas activities have been adequately incorporated into the design of the site or show evidence that an adequate attempt has been made to mitigate the concerns of the mineral owner/operators. Drill envelopes can be delineated on the plat in accordance with the State requirements as an attempt to mitigate concerns. The plat shall be amended to include any possible future drilling sites. (Department of Planning Services) B. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of Town of Mead, as stated in the referral response dated 10/10/07. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing 111 to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Town of Mead) C. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns)of the Longmont Soil Conservation District,as stated in the referral response dated 10/9/07. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Longmont Soil Conservation District) D. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County Paramedics, as stated in the referral response dated 9/28/07. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Weld County Paramedics) E. The applicant shall attempt to address the requirements (concerns) of Weld County Landscape referral,as stated in the referral response dated 9/26/07. Evidence of such shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) F. The applicant shall submit a dust abatement plan for review and approval, to the Environmental Health Services,Weld County Department of Public Health&Environment. Evidence of their approval shall be submitted in writing to the Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Public Health and Environment) G. County Road 5.5 is maintained by the Town of Mead therefore the applicant shall obtain an access permit from the Town for the facility.(Department of Public Works) H. The applicant shall meet the conditions of approval and record the plat for Recorded Exemption RE-4712 with Weld County Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) • Resolution USR-1629 A.Dale Slater Trust B do United Power Page 6 The applicant shall enter into an Improvements Agreement according to policy regarding collateral for improvements and post adequate collateral for all required improvements. The agreement and form of collateral shall be reviewed by County Staff and accepted by the Board of County Commissioners prior to recording the USR plat. The improvements agreement will not be needed if the necessary improvements are done to the satisfaction of the Department of Public Works and the Department of Planning Services. (Department of Planning Services) J. The applicant shall submit two (2) paper copies of the plat for preliminary approval to the Weld County Department of Planning Services.(Department of Planning Services) K. The plat shall be amended to delineate the following: 1. The plat shall be labeled USR-1629. (Department of Planning Services) 2. The attached Development Standards.(Department of Planning Services) 3. The applicant has not delineated any on-site sign(s). If any on-site sign(s)are desired,the signs shall adhere to Division IV Division 2 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 4. A 40' radius is required on all access to public roads. (Department of Planning Services) 5. The plat shall meet all the requirements of Section 23-2-380 of the Weld County Code. (Department of Planning Services) 6. All easements shall be referenced on the plat by a reception number or a book and page number or removed from the plat. (Department of Planning Services) 7. County Road 5.5 is classified by the County as a Strategic Roadway road,which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full build out The applicant shall verify the existing right-of-way and the documents creating the right-of-way. The plat shall delineate the existing right-of-way and the documents which created it along with any additional future right-of-way required.(Department of Public Works) 8. The applicant shall delineate all onsite lighting. Section 23-3-360.F of the Weld County Code, addresses the issue of on-site lighting, including security lighting if applicable,states"any lighting...shall be designed,located and operated in such a manner as to meet the following standards:sources of light shall be shielded so that beams or rays of light will not shine directly onto adjacent properties...." (Department of Planning Services) 2. Prior to Construction: A. The applicant shall contact the Department of Building Inspection to determine appropriate Building permits that may be required for all future construction • associated with this facility. (Department of Planning Services) Resolution USR-1629 A.Dale Slater Trust B do United Power Page 7 B. A stormwater discharge permit may be required for a development/redevelopment/construction sitewhere a contiguous or non-contiguous land disturbance is greater than or equal to one acre in area.The applicant shall inquire with the Water Quality Control Division(WQCD)of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment atwww.cdphe.state.co.us/wg1PermitsUnit if they are required to obtain a stormwater discharge permit. Alternately,the applicant can provide evidence from WQCD that they are not subject to these requirements. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 3. Upon completion of 1. above the applicant shall submit a Mylar plat along with all other documentation required as Conditions of Approval.The Mylar plat shall be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder by Department of Planning Services'Staff. The plat shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 23-2-260.D of the Weld County Code. The Mylar plat and additional requirements shall be submitted within thirty(30)days from the date of the Board of County Commissioners resolution. The applicant shall be responsible for paying the recording fee.(Department of Planning Services) 4. The Department of Planning Services respectively requests the surveyor provide a digital copy of this Use by Special Review. Acceptable CAD formats are.dwg,.dxf,and.dgn(Microstation); acceptable G1S formats are ArcView shapefiles,Arclnfo Coverages and Arclnfo Export files format type is.e00. The preferred format for Images is.tif(Group 4).(Group 6 is not acceptable). This digital file may be • sent to marisaco.weld.co.us.(Department of Planning Services) 5. The Special Review activity shall not occur nor shall any building or electrical permits be issued on the property until the Special Review plat is ready to be recorded in the office of the Weld County Clerk and Recorder.(Department of Planning Services) 6. In accordance with Weld County Code Ordinance 2005-7 approved June 1,2005,should the plat not be recorded within the required sixty(30)days from the date the Board of County Commissioners resolution was signed a$50.00 recording continuance charge may be added for each additional 3 month period.(Department of Planning Services) • • Resolution USR-1629 A.Dale Slater Trust B do United Power Page 8 SITE SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN SPECIAL REVIEW PERMIT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A.Dale Slater Trust B USR-1629 1. A Site Specific Development Plan and a Special Review Permit for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation), subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the A (Agricultural)Zone District and subject to the Development Standards stated hereon.(Department of Planning Services) 2. Approval of this plan may create a vested property right pursuant to Section 23-8-10 of the Weld County Code.(Department of Planning Services) 4. Prior to the release of building permit, the applicant shall submit evidence of approval from the Mountain View Fire Protection District to the Weld County Bu dng Department. (Mountain View Fire Protection District) 5. All liquid and solid wastes(as defined in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,30-20- 100.5,C.R.S.,as amended)shall be stored and removed for final disposal in a manner that protects • against surface and groundwater contamination. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 6. No permanent disposal of wastes shall be permitted at this site. This is not meant to include those wastes specifically excluded from the definition of a solid waste in the Solid Wastes Disposal Sites and Facilities Act,30-20-100.5,C.R.S,as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 7. Waste materials shall be handled, stored, and disposed in a manner that controls fugitive dust, blowing debris, and other potential nuisance conditions. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 8. Fugitive dust and fugitive particulate emissions shall be controlled on this site.The facility shall be operated in accordance with the approved dust abatement plan at all times. (Department of Public Health and Environment) g. This facility shall adhere to the maximum permissible noise levels allowed in the Commercial Zone as delineated in 25-12-103 C.R.S.,as amended. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 10. Bottled water shall be utilized for drinking and hand washing during construction of the facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 11. Adequate toilet facilities (port-a-potty) shall be provided during the construction of the facility. (Department of Public Health and Environment) 12. The operation shall comply with all applicable rules and regulation of the State and Federal agencies and the Weld County Code.(Department of Public Health and Environment) 13. Should noxious weeds exist on the property or become established as a result of the proposed development the applicant/landowner shall be responsible for controlling the noxious weeds,pursuant Resolution USR-I629 • A.Dale Slater Trust B c/o United Power Page 9 to Chapter 15,Articles I and II of the Weld County Code. (Department of Public Works) 14. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Design Standards of Section 23-2-240,Weld County Code. 15. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with the Operation Standards of Section 23-2-250,Weld County Code. 16. Weld County Government Personnel shall be granted access onto the property at any reasonable time in order to ensure the activities carried out on the property comply with the Development Standards stated herein and all applicable Weld County regulations. 17. The Special Review area shall be limited to the plans shown hereon and governed by the foregoing standards and all applicable Weld County regulations. Substantial changes from the plans or Development Standards as shown or stated shall require the approval of an amendment of the Permit by the Weld County Board of County Commissioners before such changes from the plans or Development Standards are permitted. Any other changes shall be filed in the office of the Department of Planning Services. 18. The property owner or operator shall be responsible for complying with all of the foregoing Development Standards. Noncompliance with any of the foregoing Development Standards may be reason for revocation of the Permit by the Board of County Commissioners. I RESOLUTION OF THE WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION Moved by Robert Grand that the following resolution be introduced for denial by the Weld County Planning Commission. Be it resolved by the Weld County Planning Commission that the application for: CASE NUMBER: USR-1629 APPLICANT: A. Dale Slater Trust B PLANNER: Michelle Martin LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SE4 of Section 28,T3N,R68W of the 6th P.M.,Weld County,Colorado. REQUEST: Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(Electrical Substation), subject to the provisions of Section 23-4-420 in the A(Agricultural)Zone District. LOCATION: North of and adjacent to CR 28 and west of and adjacent to CR 7. be recommended unfavorably for the following reasons: The Planning Commission recommends that this request be denied for the following reasons: 1. Section 23-2-400.C. — The design of the proposed facility does not mitigate negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible. Mr.Grand did not believe that had been explored to the fullest possibility. 2. Section 23-2.400.E.--The applicant did not prove,by a preponderance of the evidence,that the measures it proposed to mitigate or minimize any potential adverse impacts from the proposed facility would ensure that the health, safety,and welfare of the inhabitants of Weld County would be protected. Mr.Grand did not think that had been adequately addressed. 3. Section 23-2-400.G.--All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have not been adequately assessed and the proposed action is not consistent with the best interests of the people of Weld County and represents a balanced use of resources in the affected area. Mr. Grand was not convinced that was true either. He added that he felt there was a need for the power. That was not the issue. He just didn't think these people should not be singled out as opposed to the three points of the Code he mentioned. To him that was a penalty,and as citizens of the County,they should look to the Planning Commission for consideration for their welfare. Additional Commissioner's comments: Doug Ochsner said he disagreed with Mr.Grand and cited Section 23.2-400.8.,"The facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing and future development of the surroundings areas as set forth in applicable MASTER PLANS." This proposal may have a small effect, but he did not see an undue adverse effect on future development. He believed most of the concerns can be mitigated. Doug continued that the applicant must show need for the facility and he thought they had. Growth in the area has been outlined and the need is obvious with the various subdivisions,residences and businesses planned for the area.Section 23-2-400/., paraphrasing that the applicant has greed to implement and reasonable measures deemed necessary to ensure health, safety and welfare has shown health and safety of the residents are not an issue on this substation. Section 23-2-400.G„ he believed reasoning must be used and that a point on the map can't be picked arbitrarily. Other locations had not worked out,United Power had a willing seller and no other alternatives had arisen. Nick Berryman cited Section 23-2-400.B. regarding"undo adverse effect"and wanted the Commissioners to reach more of a consensus on how they define that language and its interpretation.We have an impact on the Liberty Ranch subdivision. However, do those concerns of the residents meet the criteria for what we would term an undue adverse effect on their property? Tom Holton was uncomfortable with how they were doing the motion and said he did not necessarily agree with the first two sections,but did agree with the third and asked how they reconciled that. EXHIBIT use*gal 2008-0999 4 Motion seconded by Tom Holton. VOTE: For Denial Against Denial Absent Doug Ochsner—Chair Tom Holton—Vice Chair Paul Branham Erich Ehrlich Robert Grand Bill Hall Mark Lawley Nick Berryman Roy Spitzer The Chair declares the resolution passed and orders that a certified copy be placed in the file of this case to serve as a permanent record of these proceedings. CERTIFICATION OF COPY I,Donita May,Recording Secretary for the Weld County Planning Commission,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the resolution of the Planning Commission of Weld County,Colorado,adopted on January 15,2008. Dated the 15th of January, 2008. PDonita Secretary • c . „. a J #.? , a) r - d E � • i.. ilk 1. - _.. �,� . :, - ,, 03 _ _ * . dal - Iii ff,, i L P�o�l . _ - - _.. M..•>. • ' . •- - o-top' -= - _..-+ - 3 kt At. ' . i . . i ,' - 1 - 401 ii. iii v ail • IIr I ?g , • _„ ,,. , , , I . . , • . ...• 4 , , , , I • , , s__ • .• a • i . c , . I ,I •.PryU . , , a- - - _..„..., . .r..�+- M. i ----t "_ • I , . t . . CC 1 I— III 00 r . • O 1 ):4 " , v) _ a . _. ._... , -• —' r - ? N >r. "No __ Jliw' _ J '\ � ^L C • vi rri r O N - yam,' - et'. oiretr VI .0 - b' •it-r.i. - _iiii.4 i .--.. . . r- r _ 1a AT ,, } Z -F. ' a O .� .a) WO 0 Q o V I 1 OZ D • f Z !.*al (, r4 i BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WET.D COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF Donald W.McDaniel,P.E. STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF Atz4 n$ ) 1. My name is Donald W. McDaniel. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. I am the Engineering Supervisor at United Power,Inc (UP). I supervise all engineering functions as well as the activities of the right-of-way and permitting staff. I am also a registered electrical engineer in the State of Colorado and have worked in the engineering group at United Power for over seven years. 3. UP's substations emit no hazardous emissions as recognized by the Colorado Department of Health or Weld County including smoke,radon or ozone. Nor is this substation expected to have any impact on local ground water. 4. UP's transformer specifications require that the transformers meet or exceed the sound levels prescribed by National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) standard TR 1 — 1993 (R2000). For the transformers at this location that means that the maximum noise level (generated by the transformer)will not exceed 77 dBA. By comparison OSHA's Permissible Noise exposure allows personnel to be exposed 90 dBA for up to eight hours per day according to 1910.95(b)(1). We expect that there will be no appreciable sound from the substation outside the fenced area. 5. The new substation will serve loads on the west side of I25. The construction of the substation will not only provide for those loads in the area, but also free up capacity on the (00558235/1) Del Camino substation (South of Highway 66 on WCR 13). Exhibit 1 shows the anticipated loads (kilowatts)for large projects currently planned in the area. Exhibit 2 shows the growth in terms of kilowatt-hour sales of electricity over the past few years. 6. To manage the affects of this growth UP spent a significant amount of time during the end of July and the first of August of 2007 installing voltage regulators, switches and several spans of conductor in order to provide able voltage support to the area. To provide for even more growth in 2008,we are constructing a new feeder from WCR 13 to Hwy 66 that will relieve feeders currently serving the Mead area. 7. UP's engineers have conducted load flow analysis to determine if customers will have adequate voltage support for a specific load condition. Exhibit 1 shows sizable increases in specific large loads that we are aware based on discussions with customers and developers. Exhibit 2 shows the historical percentage increase in kilowatt-hour sales in the area,most of which are not attributable to specific large loads. Based on the projected load increases from the large loads (Exhibit 1) and using an overall growth rate of 5% (which is conservative based on Exhibit 2)we performed load flow studies based on resulting projected loads. Exhibit 3 shows the base load flow study for 2007.The red line sections are the area where we did not meet the desired voltage levels. Exhibit 4 shows 2008 with very little affect thanks to the work we have completed to date. However,Exhibit 5 (2009)and Exhibit 6(2010)show that we will have a difficult time providing adequate voltage support(116 volts on a 120 volt service which is considered our minimum requirement). 8. UP has been diligently pursuing the acquisition of property for a substation in this area, and constructing a substation in this area in the upcoming months is important to meeting the upcoming demands for electricity. 9, UP has been aware for some time that we would eventually need additional capacity in this area and has been analyzing and looking for a substation site since 2004. Exhibit 7 includes a map showing the areas that UP evaluated for the substation sites and Exhibit 8 provides details from the engineering and right-of-way staff on the suitability of each site.It is clear from the results of each site that the Slater site is the best and only available site for construction of the substation. 10. Upon reviewing the drainage analysis obtained by UP,I hereby certify that UP's drainage plans developed for and to be implemented on the site will prevent surface drainage from leaving the site which would exceed historic runoff flows.The drainage analysis obtained by UP to support this conclusion is attached as Exhibit 9. 11. Affiant further sayeth not. &_,O__a 71// Donald W. McDaniel (0055823511) -2- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 74k day of Way , 2008,by T)ov, &L' !•U. ✓✓'` Uaotc-J on behalf of Wet° Pou.er, 1-.r . . Mycommissionexpires: '_ (CS- 2C ! ri '' .A e N . ' 4:‘,0 O` Notary Public 1,P 0 f is ter, (0055823511( -3 Exhibit 1 : Large Loads kW 2008 2009 2010 Aurora Dairy 450 450 450 Carma Bayshore 180 189 198.9 Firestone 180 450 900 High Rise 0 450 450 Hotels 225 450 675 Life Bridge 0 225 450 Mead H.S. 450 675 675 Waste Water 270 450 450 Treatment Plant Waterfront 0 180 360 TOTAL 1755 3519 4608.9 Exhibit 2: Load Growth North of Highway 119 & West of 1-25 Total kWh Annual kWh Growth 2005 3469680 N/A 2006 3751518 8% 2007 5041479 26% ;.. ' a 5 F 0 Exhibit 3 : 2007 Load Flow V 7, YR S i pL u • 1� -IV/ lit r it 11i 4 1' U, i / N -1 '-I S LSaker re ‘.. r red_a, air......1 t I tt�. 1 , f I ... r yl.�r. . ..,,,_ I� � wlut .e- w r r� rm , l( M a 1 _ t Jam I/ l Otis ' 1 . 1 . r. n , ) / y e 13 � � � 8 Y y 0 0 g o ^ ii § 8F. g 'Oft g -•■ ❑ 2 8 H (3 (3 ,65- D . Q - ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ 3 Exhibit 4 : 2008 Load Flow a n i c sr:. O G -F I ;_a... 'TO( 1 , 1 , Ji In - ' i v L r Ar,""%%%.„ air , til ,. %_,, , , , \_... ........, _ ria � i_A it amosir''' I I Eil4411 i I 1 i ID . . cr.--- J-.9r 4, - . • I •••••••r eit- 's i / Cille ( 1 4 I . f ft . ____:. �- - .�16—.. i :11 7 ,..7 4—__I1 Is a 110 1 i7 ,--4... .... , ,.. ...*� P - r 0 J ' 12 , i OI • ` If1r t.) U iI 1 Cf.— . i % , i / N_ 8 � J 8 8 > in N o oc e o 0 8 0 o7 U R o o r to n n n LL iii 0 888 ->5. igiriu! illnb a) T3 Z V > > ab a a a D J D Q i - ■ ❑ ❑ ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ a x J Q Exhibit 5 : 2009 Load Flow ti C yO t7 r LI 1 _L 1 I Iii f is, 1 i fin -- / ...' Mil i_th.`" it 1- I ga '. ,; ' L L%. Cel 1... . Wr ...rat i a ___. ...k•--- err), . ..; r *� � L I- . r---- e L 1 / Ctesti 1 r ( • . 74 1 r - f ir- .., .. �ccreit I _ t _lel ---.F.1: ‘ 42'6 zIL:,),-,,k : U 1 tilsi ‘.4) 1 . 1 ilLsgr.---r— I � � ?,: e8° 8 s O) (Q o \ \ O O 7 U .X Y a o o g n n n Q k n n n �_ � � [d g Ea $2A L " � i- 22 o ❑ -a cu 1 v nLti i -8 -§ 0 E z > > Laaa > > 5 Qv) ■ ■ o ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ r. I v a 0 Exhibit 6 : 2010 Load Flow if 0 O u• -.4 rte.. -T-Iti I 1 ,� 1 - -� - I / r Is I �,e fy a .i.s � 4 " y L v-- .'; 1.._- '-S aiiiii 01 ''r ure _yam a . - — A , / . . I = -, - . -� , 1( ( f isi I l '—m't _,...- is,.... 11?51 , 1 1 . es ir 1 .O 1 - � , r r' i j 1 1I r 11 %.4%) r : . I II: / tr 8 O ig J o 0 0 8 - Y c 0 8 0 0 ^ Y o a > v o o n • o dd vAa & � L2 En Z > > kaaaDOD C - - - -_ - ■ ■ * ■ ■ ■ ■ ❑ ■ ■ ❑ ❑ ❑ 4 a. .4 . ...... . , ,. . . .....„ . ., , I _ . t ‘,. ( -� ,� . O Nitqi I I 1 N. r. . , NuilleiH.Is, 4 _ _ ‘I..Cir. . C F qtr ' if ?�-.L� — . _ r 1 � • , - , - m• • - - tisafiairk . . i _:_ai blki 1 , .. raj !s• g �N I: CO * Ji . © . • WI lin - . �' ' i L pEo}� klUf1G�} - d • 1 d- 1 C N -I.v �` LL .C100 .. ti L I �Q 1 . IC I.- 1-1 w� M t` `-tom boat. t , �1d �� 1S �� 'yuna� �I►aA�1 0 + �� to+.� LEI ili, • >r.t j c r it .._._ _ _ . _ . Oki s :r Lc •rQ - . 1.11 . • - o� i in CI :r ril ;- j r.-* e It ig C 1 1 . - illbr %V fil Plin _ .... 41: -,--- 0P 1 2 f diWfl&D Fri" S ),.. J t -° i o "11.51 1:1 • i 4 f ,° DNI t::8!:�.Rr Eli • . S Q a C X s_ i • pm•I * r al o Jr f .., f.r -i V C • L 11. 040 t2. E ot • i4 f -4, r n O ,' : Ol Q It! cet Pool CD VS.0.3: . . ,.. 1" 4.: — U tot; t SU0Ij09 O3 I03a8d •. L p!q ! gxR p,t • o - U Z Vii . : I I I 1 I I I I ! O is K- et_ r .-+ N en 'e 1n t� 00 O1 r-! U Exhibit 8: Site Evaluation Results Page 1 of 3 Site 1: Olander The owner told United that they were not interested in having a substation on their property. The transmission line is on the south side of the property. Weld County Road 5 has been slated for a wider corridor as a main arterial. The distribution lines in the immediate area are all single phase lines. To exit the substation with the eventual build out of 8 three phase feeders they would need to go into the eventual right of way or in a private easement. There are potential issues with existing structures and since there is no main three phase feeders in the immediate area,the distances to tie into the existing infrastructure would be higher. In addition, with the property lying in an area subject to an IGA with Longmont,to the extent Longmont were to annex this property, our substation would be located in a city that United does not service. Site 2: Don The owner and real estate representative both told United that they were not interested in subdividing. They would sell the entire parcel though, 55 acres. United Power, being a not for profit Cooperative, needs to be fiscally responsible to our membership and does not want to enter the real estate investment market. The transmission line is on the south side of the property. Weld County Road 5 has been slated for a wider corridor as a main arterial. The distribution lines in the immediate area are all single phase lines. To exit the substation with the eventual build out of 8 three phase feeders they would need to go into the eventual right of way or in a private easement. There are potential issues with existing structures and since there is no main three phase feeders in the immediate are the distances to tie into the existing infrastructure would be higher. This parcel is also low lying and therefore the substation would not easily be hidden from visibility. In addition, with the property lying in an area subject to an IGA with Longmont,to the extent Longmont were to annex this property, our substation would be located in a city that United does not service. Site 3: Silengo The owner told United that they were not interested in subdividing. They would sell the entire parcel though, 58 acres. United Power, being a not for profit Cooperative, needs to be fiscally responsible to our membership and does not want to enter the real estate investment market. The transmission line is on the south side of the property. The existing distribution lines in the immediate area are located in Weld County Road 5.5 and on Hwy 66. Additional easements to get to Weld County Road 7 and Weld County Road 28 would need to be acquired. To exit the substation with the eventual build out of 8 three phase feeders they would need to go into the eventual right of way or in a private easement. The natural land contours,the existing ditch and the fact that this property sits significantly lower makes it impossible to provide sufficient screening from the existing homes on the westerly side of Liberty Ranch. The southern portion of the property is where the Longmont Reservoir is planned to be created in the future, making the distance to tie into the existing infrastructure higher. {00558406/I{ Exhibit 8: Site Evaluation Results Page 2 of 3 Site 4: Centex-Liberty Ranch Already under development. The south east corner of this development was first site reviewed. It has easy access to Weld County Road 7 and Hwy 66, additionally Weld County 5.5 can be accessed. Since the development had started the site was eliminated based on the development. Site 5: Kiteley The owner told United that they have worked hard over the last several years in developing a preliminary plat development and a substation on their property would result in undoing their work. They told United they were not interested. It does have easy access to Weld County Road 7 and Hwy 66, additionally Weld County 5.5 can be accessed. Depending on location the lake/flood plan comes into the evaluations and limits the ability to exit to the east. Site 6: Mead Crossings This is a Commercial Subdivision. There were lengthy discussions and initial negotiations.Neither the owner nor his representative wanted a substation located there. The existing platted sites were on the small side associated with usable land. Technically it was not a good location and the economics did not work. Additionally,with the hard surface roadways it would be difficult and extremely expensive to get distribution lines out. The technical issues are based on available land size, proximity to potential flooding (electricity and water do not mix) and the feasibility of getting 8 circuits out of the substation into the area. The cost of the lot was equivalent in cost to Sites 2 and 3 but size being significantly smaller. This site was rejected based on economics, technical issues and non-agreeable seller. Site 7: Waterfront Offered United a potential site between the reservoir and 1-25. Technically this was going to be difficult and has similar constraints as Site 6. C-DOT acquired the property for highway drainage. This eliminated the location. Site 8: Slater The land owner was agreeable to subdivide and sell United the required acreage (6.5 acres plus one(1) additional acre for drainage purposes) as long as it was in the northwest corner of her property. The natural land contours is conducive to aesthetically "hiding" the substation and technically this is feasible. The southwest corner of the property is planned to be a new reservoir for the City of Longmont as defined in the Weld County/Longmont/Mead Subarea Analysis, June 2007, for transportation corridors. Site 9: Hergenreder The land owner was only agreeable to subdivide the east part of their property. The west side of the railroad track is more productive as farm land than the east side. The east side is completely contained within the Weld County/Longmont/Mead Subarea Analysis, June 2007. This is the proposed location of the new Longmont Reservoir. This made the property technically infeasible. {00558406/1} 2 Exhibit 8: Site Evaluation Results Page 3 of 3 Site 10: Longmont Open Space Since this is defined Open Space the requirements to even build in this area are stringent. The first approval needed is by the Open Space Director for the City, which was not given. Even if it was approved it would then need to go to City Council for a vote and then to the public for a vote. At any time it could be denied. Additionally, City of Longmont has a Municipal Electric Utility and is not served by United Power. This site is not available. {00558406/1) 3 Exhibit 9 : Substation Drainage Package Page 1 of 12 COLORADO CIVIL GROUP, INC. Engineering Consultants May 6, 2008 Mr. Jason Maxey, District Area Representative United Power, Inc. 500 Cooperative Way Brighton , CO 80603 Re: Drainage Analysis for the Proposed Slater Sub-Station Project No. 0004. 0000. 00 Dear Mr. Maxey, The purpose of this letter is to present pre-development (historic) and post-development (developed) drainage analysis for the possible site of the Slater Sub-Station. The proposed site is located in part of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, Township 3 North, Range 68 West of the 6t" Principal Meridian, Weld County, Colorado. The site is surrounded by the Liberty Ranch subdivision to the north and undeveloped agricultural area to the west, east, and south. An irrigation ditch bounds the site to the east and a possible future alignment of Weld County Road (WCR) 5.5 bounds the site to the west. A vicinity map is provided below for reference. r, _ _ _ _ 1 - o - .of ti.eed!� .. r. DMZ b 1 P a • - ,_ _-_. K C p 1, s CCCt'4 rr ,.• `k /— in. : t ( t§ :, f 1 7 11 I 1 ' i -6 . t r Ntgb and i E, A Sanborn Reco14i 1 E3 C ' I l c . . -..�..�-r.`__-..w .......__-.. _._w---.-.........r.-e- _- COLORADO CIVIL GROUP, INC. • 1413 W. 29th Street • Loveland , Colorado 80538 • 970-278-0029 • Exhibit 9: Substation Drainage Package Page 2 of 12 The existing site consists of approximately 6.89 acres of undeveloped agricultural area. The historical use on-site is non-irrigated cropland and appears to cover the entire proposed site. The site historically slopes from east to west at an average slope of five percent with approximately 30 feet of relief. No regional drainage studies or master drainage plans have been prepared in the area that includes the Slater Sub-Station site. A preliminary analysis has been prepared on Liberty Gulch west of Slater Sub-Station as part of the Adler Estates subdivision in Weld County, but is roughly 500 feet west of the site and situated nearly 20 vertical feet lower. It is assumed that runoff within Liberty Gulch does not encroach on the site during any rainfall event. The Slater Sub-Station site is located within Zone 'C' of Community-Panel Number 080266 0850 C, dated September 28, 1982. Zone 'C' is defined as "areas of minimal flooding." A 'FIRMette', which is a portion of the above referenced flood map, is provided with this letter for reference. The rational method was used to perform the historic drainage analysis on the potential site to determine the historic runoff rates generated during several rainfall events (2-year, 5-year, 10- year, and 100-year). Weld County's drainage criteria restricts developed runoff generated during the 100-year event to the 5-year historic runoff rate. The historic analysis for the existing site shows a 5-year runoff rate of 3.2 cubic feet per second (cfs). Several tables presenting the historic drainage calculations are provided with this letter for reference. There is a small piece of land east of the potential site that could contribute to the runoff flowing through the site. This small piece of land is approximately 1.3 acres in size and is adjacent to the existing irrigation ditch at the east end of the site. Standard drainage practice dictates that during a 100-year rainfall event, any potential capacity in an irrigation ditch should be ignored and runoff should be assumed to pass over the ditch and continue to flow with the natural topography. It is anticipated that this small piece of land would generate no more than 1-2 cfs during a 100-year event and is therefore assumed to be negligible in this drainage analysis. An analysis of the developed condition was also performed using the rational method and tables presenting developed drainage calculations are also provided with this letter. The developed condition consists of re-grading the existing site and installing the electrical sub-station. The new configuration of the site includes drainage swales, culverts and a detention pond used to collect and convey runoff the desired release location where the developed runoff can be released at historic rates. The detention pond is adequately sized to detain the 100-year runoff generated under developed conditions, and release runoff at 2 cfs. Calculations identifying total detention volume required and the volume actually provided with the current grading plan are provided with this letter for reference. There is a small sliver of developed land that is physically unable to drain to the detention pond and so is released off-site in an 'un-detained' fashion. The rate of release for the un-detained sliver is 1.2 cfs, therefore the total off-site release rate is 1.2 cfs plus 2 cfs from the detention pond, totaling 3.2 cfs. The current layout of the sub-station and associated drainage plan meet Weld County criteria restricting runoff to the 5-year historic rate, Historic and developed drainage maps are also provided with this letter to better identify the existing site conditions and the proposed improvements and their affects on the drainage system. Li Sincerely, �Q o �'0 L •• • COLORADO CIVIL GROUP, INC. • 'y; : 40727 ' • 41 David A. Huwa, P.E. . Qt+3 Enclosure COLORADO CIVIL GROUP, INC. • 1413W. 29'"Street • Loveland, Colorado 80538 • 970.278-0029 LL IN a 111111 LLiO i r s ..i ot w ® � WICI i � G � NaC WihR W /� dF A s. a yI < < I ... s �det o � d� I :'VIII c �. § " _1f vil ea — _7. ______==.7.-.\\____..\ Ditch a hl I N E e o O Y D Hi: __ CC ---) / C I1 -1 . Oi M Q 0 N cc yg1Sd,H l y3HJ jY II LL ,ill §_ 1 III }IS 1 'Plain! 111 '{ i i' i Igo ItoIli { Iliii" Ill II ! , ti c lips 0 < II cif II ;j 1i —li d i j= 11 - 1 t s zj i y: : II 3# slit i < o W jf I II -t !El 3I ! I !# �l ! i 11 El Jr '- I i; $I ti 11 p. X I 1 ci _ ii_ii .,i , i , E # i;l � . 11111 ' sflip. z ii I = II dt h,IiiiiIill'lI val.! Will I I ill ldg i I Ei l 1 1 W `3t ■■ 1 iii {ji Y- E y• LL ry if •E I L JL ?1sd. ct� Q ate ❑ \ Q`r/ 1 —L---- ."--1 o ca______ c� . E o � G O • 4 ❑^ /� J 45 Cn Cn c' nLN i [ .. Fc — ... Wco yy of J )y_ � c �h Z 1-2 er 44? Is3Mlr'�bJ Y / ❑ 8 — 1/J {�F 1 Exhibit 9: Substation Drainage Package Page 5 of 12 4 0 s c a r o c 0 m ^ n F7 9 0 c 1 ., '0- ft, .; a r , m , , 1II: 1 n D 0 to a a ti O 0 U a F 3 ' ^ m o m a ^ m N 9 3 V IC ' 0 - 3 o g F 0 0 c' n d T O 0 ^ n a L 0 0 j F F 3 Exhibit 9: Substation Drainage Package Page 6 of 12 i _ cx, oS J ID o � r, a I0 0 5 n 0 3 1 5. ≥ 3 c r. el)It 0_ 0 '-- 0 S 9 N n y y<r-H< 0 0 CD 0 o m 0 n n { 0 it, CI In. c .• N 0 n o < Cil vN7 N0 2c y il to A 3 _ -G y N ill _S p- v_ 3 _ A \ „, N S V ^ A N 1 0 v rt CD A m XI - •- S o 0 P 0 w V Exhibit 9: Substation Drainage Package Page 7 of 12 o FII 3 O 74 W _ O O _ : - , O O N nJO O] O JOlIN O LD ain N� N iOB� n OE N f] O �� n < ni 2 w ^, O C P d sim-,- z v m, :02- v a o ry m F MOIL T J EA O I2- e v m O T m F O ilFi y N 3I O NI 3 r o p � n o n J L ry Q Y T O Ei Exhibit 9: Substation Drainage Package Page 8 of 12 01211 :::: O N CO n D v N V A _ N V N Df ] i n 0 3 3 .1 n M Lfl V 3 3 B O O 0 C rD N v O O 3 ES NJ ES imi n < 3 O n O M ols n � O _,.. 1. 01 F.1 N n O in in { N al c N CIJ !! L i IE 4..._ ,_ ,, , . .... , . lo , ,_ ,) ,, et 3 5 tri x, 1.0 V 5 — O r i.D o N N S tD MI A N '� v OE ___--..: P n),,t< cxt 0 o ' p < o rD » p 0 O N H o to y Exhibit 9 : Substation Drainage Package Page 9 of 12 MAJOR DETENTION VOLUME BY FAA & MODIFIED FAA METHOD (See USDCM Volume I Runoff Chapter for description of method) Project: Blue cells are for the user to enter data into Basin ID: Green cells are calculated values, sometimes they are filled from the VS macro code (For catchments less than 160 acres only. For larger catchments, use hydrograph routing method) (Note: for catchments larger than 90 acres, CUHP hydrograph and routing are recommended) The user must fill in all of the blue cells for these sheets to function. Design Information (Input): catchment Drainage Imperviousness la = 19.70 percent Catchment Drainage Area A= 6.7100 acres Group Retum Penod for Detention Control T = 100 years (2, 5, 10, 25. 50. or 100) Time of Concentration of Watershed Tc = 16 minutes Allovvable Unit Release Rate (See Table A) q = 0.30 cfs/acre One-hour Precipitation P, = 2.68 inches Design • Coefficient One C. = 28 50 Coefficient Two C: = 10.00 Coefficient Three C. = 0 79 Determination of Average Outflow from the Basin (Calculated): Runoff Coefficient C = 0.55 Inflow Peak Runoff Op-in = 21.56 cfs Allowable Peak Outflow Rate Op-out = 2.00 cfs Ratio of Op_out/op-in Ratio = 0 09 Determination of ! . Detention Volume Using FAA & Modified FAA Method 5 <- Enter Rainfall Duration Incremental Increase Value Here (e.g. 5 for 5-Minutes) Rainfall Rainfall Inflow Average Outflow Storage Adjustment Average Outflow Storage Duration Intensity Volume Outflow Volume Volume Factor Outflow Volume Volume minutes inches / hr cubic feet (FAA, cfs) (FAA CI) (FM cf) 5 8.99 9,956 1 09 326 9.630 1.00 2 00 600 9.356 10 7.16 15,864 1.09 651 15,212 1.00 200 1,200 14,664 15 6.01 19.950 1.09 977 18972 1.00 2.00 1,800 18,150 20 5.20 23,031 1.09 1,303 21,729 090 179 2,154 20,878 25 4.60 25.488 1 09 1,629 23.860 0 82 1 64 2,453 23.035 30 4.14 27,524 1.09 1.954 25,570 0 77 1.53 2.753 24,770 35 3 78 29,258 1.09 2,280 26,978 0 73 1.45 3.053 26,205 40 3.47 30,767 1.09 2,606 28.162 0 70 1 40 3,353 27,414 45 3.22 32,103 1.09 2,931 29,171 0.68 135 3.653 28.450 50 3.01 33,300 1.09 3,257 30,043 0 66 1.32 3,953 29,347 55 2.82 34,386 1.09 3,583 30.803 0.64 1.29 4,253 30,133 60 2.66 35,379 1.09 3,909 31.470 0.63 1.26 4,553 30.825 65 2 52 36.294 1.09 4,234 32,059 0.62 1.24 4,853 31.441 70 2.40 37.143 1.09 4,560 32.583 061 1.23 5,153 31,990 75 2.28 37,935 1.09 4,886 33,049 0 61 1.21 5,453 32.482 80 2.18 38,677 109 5.211 33,466 0.60 120 5,753 32.924 85 2.09 39.376 109 5,537 33.839 0.59 1.19 6.053 33.323 90 2.01 40.037 109 5,863 34,174 0.59 1.18 6,353 33,684 95 193 40.663 109 6,189 34,474 0.58 117 6,653 34,010 100 1.86 41.259 1 09 6,514 34,744 0 58 1.16 6,953 34,306 105 180 41,827 109 6,840 34,987 0.58 1.15 7,252 34,574 110 1.74 42.370 1.09 7,166 35204 0.57 114 7.552 34,817 115 1 68 42.890 1 .09 7 491 35,398 0 57 1 14 7,852 35.038 120 1 .63 43,389 1.09 7,817 35,572 0 57 1 13 8.152 35.237 125 158 43.869 1.09 8,143 35,727 0.55 113 8.452 35,417 130 154 44,332 109 8.469 35,864 0.56 112 8,752 35,580 135 1 50 44,778 1.09 8,794 35,984 0 56 1.12 9.052 35,726 140 1.46 45,210 1.09 9.120 36,090 0 56 1.11 9.352 35,858 145 1.42 45,627 1.09 9.446 36,181 0 55 1.11 9,652 35,975 150 1 39 46,031 1 09 9,771 36.260 0 55 1.11 9.952 36.079 155 1.35 46,423 1.09 10,097 36,326 055 1.10 10,252 36,171 160 1.32 46,804 1.09 10,423 36,381 0.55 1.10 10,552 36,252 165 1.29 47,174 1.09 10,749 36,425 0-55 1.10 10,852 36.322 170 1.26 47,533 1.09 11,074 36,459 0.55 1.09 11,152 36,382 175 1.24 47,884 1.09 11,400 36,484 0.55 1.09 11.452 36.432 180 1.21 48225 1.09 11.726 36.499 0.54 1.09 11,752 36.474 185 1 .19 48,558 1.09 12.051 36,506 0 54 1 09 12,051 36,506 FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = 36,506 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (cubic ft.) = 36,506 FAA Major Storage Volume (acre-ft.) = 0.8381 Mod. FAA Major Storage Volume (acre-ft.) = 0.6381 UDFCD DETENTION VOLUME ESTIMATING WORKBOOK Version 2.02. Released January 2007 4/22/2008, 6:03 PM UD-Detention v2,02.xls, Modified FAA Exhibit 9 : Substation Drainage Package Page 10 of 12 STAGE-STORAGE SIZING FOR POLYGONAL, ELLIPTICAL, OR IRREGULAR PONDS Project: Blue cells are for the user to enter data into Basin ID: Green cells are calculated values, sometimes they are filled from the VB macro code Dan Si Sip z Dan S&SWeZ Mb Sops Fin o.. n„/ w; w# w 4 W I l _......:. t SltSLpZ L > t L > SY eShpZ Skis Slain Design Information (Input): Width of Pond Bottom, W = ft Right Tnangular Pond OR... Length of Pond Bottom. L = ft Equilateral Tnangular Pond OR.. Dam Side-slope (H:V), Za = ft/ft Rectangular Pond OR.. Elliptical Pond OR.. Irregular Pond (Use Overide values in cells G32'G52) MINOR MAJOR Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Modified FAA': 0.1363 0.8381 acre-ft. Stage-Storage Relationship: Storage Requirement from Sheet 'Hydrograph': acre-ft. Water Quality Capture Design Volume from Sheet 'WQCV- acre-ft. Labels Stage Side Pond Pond Surface Surface Volume Surface Volume Target Volumes for WQCV, Minor, Slope Width at Length at Area at Area at Below Area at Below for WQCV, Minor. & Major Storage (H:V) Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage Stage & Major Storage Stages ft ft/ft ft ft ft2 ft2 User ft3 acres acre-ft Volumes Below El. (output) (output) (output; Overide (output) (output) (output) (tor goal seek) 4942-00 (input) 279 0.01 0.00 4944.00 0.00 0.00 6.023 6,302 0.14 0.14 4946.00 0.00 0.00 11,976 24,301 0.27 0.56 4947.00 0.00 0.00 15,343 37,961 0.35 0.87 4948 00 0.00 0.00 18,282 54,773 0.42 1,26 #N/A #N/A #NIA #WA #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #NIA #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #NIA #N/A #NIA #NIA #N/A #NIA #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #NIA #NIA #N/A _ #N/A #N/A #NIA #NIA #NIA #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A #N/A — UD-Detention v2.02.xIs, Pond 4/22/2008, 6:04 PM �.W a illa. 1t. dVN I IO°�QL�H ~ d , , , OOVM0 A1N(I 700 03 cam � IA ! 1 R lid I 1 3.-..----...1 Q u ® O N 111 ;in,1 ,�� ct,01 11 III �� cl_l_ 11 11\I • I:4 a)m I I '1I ''I 0 1 _ I II a „II, - 1 N III1. e• m -- 'I 'III li ' .-1 Q11 II ----------- _...- -- __--- o " 1, 11 ----- ---------- c 1i r1 I` D I _--- 1 r, m t 1 ______--__ t - rs --1 a L I - -- X + / 1 *' _ _ r - i 1 1 mil'- i �,, 4 - , moorrw.alma isais OM Z..M4y� � 'l — NOttYllN�tBly* till ! ! • -vex- lit _ �` , Oav t inoD MA I I I i ! ! E " E DIII i i Pli D I ..! i a.. i t ® _____II • (V 4- • II II a) r ii co , 1,1 as 0 a il l i mmom I. l0 CL Iii at c II 1 m I I i -- j i o Iii d - - 1 _ r y 1 M tII � S2— _ _- ,. -- _/ -'�1 rpT I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF NANCY I.SLATER STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF WELD 1. My name is Nancy I. Slater. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. I am the sole resident of the real property located at 13433 CR 7,Longmont, Colorado 80504 in Weld County, Colorado ("Slater Property"). This property is known as Parcel Number 1207-28-0-00-010, and is located North of Weld County Road 28, and between Weld County Road 5.5 and Weld County Road 7. 3. In my individual capacity, I own a one-half interest in the Slater Property. In addition,I am a trustee (one of two trustees) of the A. Dale Slater Trust B, which owns the other one-half interest in the Slater Property. 4. I have engaged in productive discussions with United Power, Inc. to sell 6.5 acres, more or less, of the Slater Property("Substation Parcel") to United Power,Inc., for its use as an electrical substation. Electrical transmission lines run along the Northern edge of the Slater Property, and the substation would draw from those transmission lines. 5. I am supportive of and encourage the United Power substation to be located on the Substation Parcel. 6. I,both in my individual capacity and as a trustee of the A. Dale Slater Trust B, am willing to sell the Substation Parcel to United Power,Inc. and split that parcel off from the remainder of the Slater Property. (00553515/I) 8. Affiant further sayeth not. aft-vt— Nancy I. Slat SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 7 721 day of RAY , 2008,by Nancy I. Slater,in her individual d capacity and as a trustee of the A.Dale Slater Trust B./ My commission expires: —/ 0 — I 1 i SEAL JASON S. MAXEY Notary o Notary Public f/� State of Colorado II' III {00553515/11 -Z BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 24-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF ERNEST M. KITELEY STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF WELD ) yv, Amer I. My name is Eaposst M. Kiteley. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. I am the general partner of Kiteley Farms,LLLP, which is the limited liability limited partnership that owns certain real property in Weld County, Colorado known as Kiteley Farms (the "Kiteley Farms Property"). The Kiteley Farms Property is located East of Weld County Road 7 and South of State Highway 66, and is comprised of the Northwest quarter of Section 27, except for the Southeast portion thereof which is occupied by a lake and except for the private residence located in the far Southwest corner thereof. 3. I am aware that United Power,Inc. is attempting to construct an electrical substation West of Interstate 25 and in the general area of the Kiteley Farms Property.While we have had friendly discussion with United Power, Inc. about locating the substation on the Kiteley Farms Property, we have spent the past four(4)years working with a developer to develop our entire parcel. Kiteley Farms I J J P (along with the developer)is currently in the process of platting the Kiteley Farms Property for development. As such, the development and platting process is too far along to start over by separating out a portion of the Kiteley Farms Property for sale to and use by United Power,Inc. for its substation. 4. I am aware that United Power,Inc. is pursuing development of a substation site at the Northwest corner of the property on which Nancy Slater resides in Weld County at 13433 CR 7, Longmont, Colorado 80504 ("Slater Property").That property is located North of Weld County Road 28, and between Weld County Road 5.5 and Weld County Road 7. 00555790/I 5. I am supportive of and encourage use by United Power, Inc. of the Northwest corner of the Slater Property for the construction and operation of an electrical substation. I believe the substation is necessary to support the growing development in the surrounding area and the demand for electrical power that continues to increase in that area. 6. Affiant further sayeth not. .04,7 -Eanies-M. Kiteley Ti w^ d SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 2D day of /214`i 2008, by meet M. Kiteley, individually and as the general partner of Kiteley Farms I.i I.P. gin E2vcsr L My commission expires: 1._ /0 - / / SEAL JASON S. MAXEY Notary Public State of Colorado Notary Public 00555790/I) - 2- HOARD OF CO1 COMMISSIONERS WELL) COI UNITY, COLORADO Case Number: ['SR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 ot'denial of Site Specific Development Plan and l!se by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SEATER "I Rt!S t B (UNITED POWER) :MIDAN/IT OF: Midwest Heritage inn of Visalia, Inc.,a North Dakota corporation and L__ Midwest Heritage Inn of Deptford, Inc., a North Dakota corporation STATE OF COLORADO tt )ss: C'(}l'NT'l [)I }�;t't� t+()am- ) I. My name is(See signature page). I swear under penalty of perjure that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. ?. I am the owner of that real property in Weld County,Colorado, which is located West of Interstate 25 between Weld County Road 2(i and Weld County Road and is known as the Waterfront Property("Waterfront Property"). +. I am aware that United Power, Inc. is attempting to construct an electrical substation West of Interstate 25 and in the general area of the Waterfront Property. We engaged in initial discussions with I ailed Power. Inc. to locate the substation on the Waterfront Property and were supportive of the substation being located on the Waterfront Property. We identified a potential substation location in the only remaining portion of the Waterfront Property that is not in the process ot,being developed: however. the Colorado Department of Transportation then acquired that portion of the Waterfront Property by eminent domain. As such. there is no remaining site within the Waterfront Property lirr the substation to be located. 4. i ant aware that I'nited Power. Inc. is pursuing development of substation site on the property on which Nancy Slater resides in Weld County at 13433 CR 7. Longmont. Colorado 80504("Slater Property"). That property is located North of Weld County Road 28. and between Weld County Road 5.5 and Weld County. Road 7. 5. I am supportive of and encourage use by United Power. inc. of the Slater l'ropertt for the construction and operation of an electrical substation. I believe the substation is necessary to support the growing de\elopment in the surrounding area and the demand for electrical power that continues to increase in that area. • 6. A!I'iant further sayeth not. Signed: Midwest Heritage Inn of Visalia, Inc.,a North Dakota corporation and Midwest Heritage Inn of Deptford, Inc.,a North Dakota corporation By: 'n Horan By Darwin Horan in his individual capacity and as Manager of HF Holdings, I.LC,a Colorado limited liability company,Attorney-in-Fact to Gary Tharaldson,President of Midwest Heritage Inn of Visalia, Inc.,a North Dakota corporation and Midwest Heritage Inn of Deptford,Inc. a North Dakota corporation. • SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this / day of /4o 2008,by Darwin lataran ,as p1anaer of i4 1-kQId[ncl5 , LLC. • My commission expires: iv49erAer a$, aocq SEAL r I }' : Notary Pt�Iic i/ ''%'a �a,� WmAR/1 G 11V2RVY{R • ;(0553962/I) -2- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF MYRA JANE SILENGO STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF WF.i.D ) 1. My name is Myra Jane Silengo. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. I live at 2498 Highway 66,which is located diagonally to the northwest of the proposed United Power Substation. From my residence,I can see the proposed site. 3. I am aware that United Power,Inc. is pursuing development of a substation site at the Northwest corner of the property on which Nancy Slater resides in Weld County at 13433 CR 7,Longmont, Colorado 80504("Slater Property"). That property is located North of Weld County Road 28, and between Weld County Road 5.5 and Weld County Road 7. 4. I am supportive of and encourage use by United Power,Inc. of the Northwest corner of the Slater Property for the construction and operation of an electrical substation.I believe the substation is necessary to support the growing development in the surrounding area and the demand for electrical power that continues to increase in that area. (00555790/1) 5. Affiant further sayeth not. 9 e Myra Jkne Site gf� SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 7 nr day of /"MI/ , 2008,by Myra Jane Silengo. My commission expires: 1'1 0' // SEAL 1 JASON S. MAXEY --T� Notary Public State of Colorado Notary Public {00555790 1 1) - 2- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF JERRY HERGENREDER STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF WELD ) 1. My name is Jerry Hergenreder. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. I live at 13332 WCR 5,which is adjacent and west of the proposed United Power Substation. From my residence,I can see the proposed site. 3. I am aware that United Power,Inc. is pursuing development of a substation site at the Northwest corner of the property on which Nancy Slater resides in Weld County at 13433 CR 7,Longmont, Colorado 80504 ("Slater Property").That property is located North of Weld County Road 28, and between Weld County Road 5.5 and Weld County Road 7. 4. I am supportive of and encourage use by United Power,Inc. of the Northwest corner of the Slater Property for the construction and operation of an electrical substation. I believe the substation is necessary to support the growing development in the surrounding area and the demand for electrical power that continues to increase in that area. [00555790/1) 5. Affiant further sayeth not. J rq�Hergenr er SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this 7�!` day of Al 2008,by Jerry Hergenreder. My commission expires: I" /O - 11 SEAL JASON S. MAXEY S.- Notary Public State of Colorado Notary Public II {00555790/I{ -2- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number; USR-I629 Appeal Pursuant to §2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B(UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF STANLEY F.SESSIONS STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF WELD 1. My name is Stanley F. Sessions. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2 1 have broad experience with respect to real property issues and valuation of real property as evidenced by the following: a. Licensed Real Estate Broker in Colorado since 1977. b. Owner/Broker of Union Colony Brokers Inc. since 1981. c. Prepared 100's of market analysis and market valuations for clients. d. Real estate investment counselor and investor. e. Land developer and semi-custom home builder. f Elected and re-elected Assessor for Weld County 1999 thru 2006. g. Responsible for listing all real estate and commercial personal property in Weld County and placing a value on each parcel for property tax purposes. (Colorado statutes require all residential real estate to be valued using market appraisal principles.) h. Have served as President Greeley Area REALTORS Association,Director Colorado Association of REALTORS, Director National Association of REALTORS, and Vice President Governmental Affairs Colorado Association of REALTORS. Several State and National policy task forces and committees. Currently working as a real estate and small business consultant. 100}769$1:11 05/06/2008 10:55AM 3. Based upon my experience, I have the following thoughts and opinions concerning a proposed electrical sub-station to be built by United Power Inc. on CR 5 1/2 approximately 1/2 mile south of State Highway 66 in Weld County Colorado, and its effects on the property value of nearby developments: A new residential subdivision is under construction to the north of the proposed sub- station site. The topography of the area consists of a pronounced slope to the west with a stunning view of the Rocky Mountains with Longs Peak front and center. There is a large natural hill to the south of the housing subdivision that substantially blocks a view to the south. Located on the top of said hill is a large high voltage double pole power line running east and west and is a very prominent feature of the subject area. On April 23, 2008 1 personally visited the proposed site of the electrical sub-station and the adjacent housing subdivision. I met an official from United Power Inc. who gave me documents including simulated photos of the proposed facility. He reviewed the Company's site design, excavation and mitigation plans to address negative impacts with me and we walked and drove the entire area in question. It is factual that the value of residential property can be affected positively and negatively by the views surrounding the property. The residential subdivision in question has an unobstructed view of the mountains to the west, in part because the development sits on ground higher than that to the west. The assessment of the view to the south is much different. There is a natural hill on the south edge of the subdivision with a high voltage double pole power line running on top east and west which serves as a natural view barrier to the south from the subdivision. While the existing large high voltage power lines may have some negative economic affect on the surrounding area it is my opinion that by locating the electrical sub-station,with planned view mitigation, on the proposed site will have little to no additional economic impact on the housing subdivision located to the north. Respectfully submitted by 4. Affiant further sayeth not. Respectful) submitted by: St ey . Sess' n roker/Owner Union Colony Brokers Inc. 100556981 '11 -2- 05/06/2008 10:55AM SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this� day of + , 2008,by Stanley F. Sessions, individually llp My commission e`e $ti fisig,5..o7D/a I.SEAL CCS ) !r ' tutor ) ,may e, o ry Public • .• I W5369RI!1 j - 4- 05/06/2008 10:55AM 1 • • th let o a i w 2 u 3.1.-a ale 1 00 e i i7 ' rr y� + �- �l• T � * A. R` ` ji1 • �• . 1 1 � , 4 4 }. 1 �� 1 . iiipl � it ' _ ' �j f i A i '.ti 1 , ` `I► IL • 'it -1 Ili J J I.I it _ of 3/4 114 • I_ • iii2t ` - Y- •Illi lc iiil , .11. ' . it s4 /; ►. :z "71- 1lit k NI i I 1 R .� f • a.- . t 41 . A ,,, .A,•_- ,,.. . ,;,.. ________ . . „ , . ....,______ _ ., •. .. : , • %. . . ilfr • - 14 3' 4-1 s 1 �1j1�1 ,N IF: � ' 4 i. , '4 . ‘, l 4 i, to . • -. ! ,�. �./,. : � t - - k ,?4.:Atte . \ 4 AI ..-..' t. •, . . ... • • • 3/4. * r '4 l • : „ .. r. ;t. : ft + � '� ? 4 I j�.._� 1��111 I, 1 1 iti .l ' . t k . Is I y 1 I y� • 4 41, llih . 1 '1, . :-i • IT ll 1 \ + . S I.. :,.• S "f alt 4.1%. 11 `. - irii:, ; '1.,[44:14.est. '; %I i j. 1 `.:.:1 it'1/4(ti ,,,, a s' *, ► ci ii."..,.... .....:0_ ' . • '. , vit II C y • • • • 1 r t • y i • 1 •4 I • II k I f I I I I li ti i i I I I , I: If L i p S � f. yy It1 _.-, il ' a • y . i Y A {, 111 13 1 )" , Ill a -{ h ,j . r • al r . 1 i. } '. • j 14 .. • . . .. . lie - - t - ' . Ti. . — ` • • it n. +`r7 k 'ilS"• k 4 III ,- , .. Y 1. , .4 A �' i . i ii • , • l .! ' . Y - ..4 3 _ - Y . Y - W 4 • ► } 1J : t. .. , I \I .� S ` J o • 4 4.... • 4 . -. Y.. - _ it .1 .. • I 4 $ 11. Am' ,... rs. . t 1. i ' 1 4 it •. i " t" ..• i • 4441 I 1 i ,. �., . . 1 I. a '. •, 1/46 r • r� BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY,COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF JASON S.MAXEY STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF ADAMS ) 1. My name is Jason S. Maxey. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. I am an employee of United Power(United), currently serving as a District Area Representative. I have been an employee of United since October 9, 2006. I was hired to be the Joint Use and Right-of-Way Administrator,one of my duties being to find suitable land for siting substations. I was told the general area that needed a substation,and I made contact with landowners. Beginning in late June, 2007, I was assigned to work on the substation project located west of I-25, along the transmission line just south of Highway 66. United commenced this project in 2004 and prior to my involvement, it had been handled for United by Gary Mogensen, a contractor for United, and by Mike Coddington, the Planning Engineer for United. 3. United has done many things to help inform the surrounding property owners of the proposed electrical substation. a. First,Weld County's USR Permit only requires notification of surrounding property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. United went above and beyond by notifying property owners within one-half mile of the property. United did this specifically to be up front and honest with the property owners within the Liberty Ranch Subdivision. However, according to Weld County requirements, United did not have to do this. b. Second,United held an open house for information and discussion purposes on November 12, 2007,at the Liberty Hall Grange located at WCR 5 and Highway 66. United sent letters out to property owners within one-half mile of the proposed substation site, and invited them to this open house. United provided photographs showing simulations of the proposed substation, as well as comment cards for the property owners to fill out. Members of {00558380/1100558014/2 United were present, along with two representatives from Tri-State, to answer any questions the property owners had. 4. United has also done many things to mitigate the visual impact of the substation, including the following: a. Weld County's requirement is for an eight(8) foot opaque fence around the substation. United will install a ten(10) foot cedar fence with masonry corner columns. b. United has agreed to install all distribution feeder exits underground. c. Originally,the substation fence was planned to abut the southern edge of the Tri-State easement. However,United has worked with design and drainage engineers, and has moved the substation south another 100 feet. d. United will use the natural contours of the land, and effectively"sink"the substation approximately 22 to 24 feet into the ground on the east and part of the north side. This will create a natural berm between the substation and subdivision. e. United will extend the natural berm around the northwest corner of the substation, at a height of approximately 10 to 14 feet. f. Although Weld County does not require landscaping for the substation, United has committed to adhere to the higher level of landscaping requirement imposed if the property were in the City of Mead, Colorado. 5. Af iant further sayeth not. ---�—�� Jason S. Maxey SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this Z day of 7�a 2008,by Jason S. Maxey,individually and as a District Area Representative of United Power, Inc. • eointnission expires: SEAL iN � � Notary Public {00558380/1}00558014/2 ; � •• �r -•7 ♦ a `- _ 7 , 1 !! i tl . r m. Oil .:--f -- i ft F tan - `ti _ �. . r i.. r . • it u : ill til • 'i ..,- , fi : 1 1 il4:'` , ter m' - ',, ' S T. ti r -•rit 1 ,t • ‘11) �'4. 1 • '' ia• ! At C - 4'; ; J 1' • 4 ' 1 - _ 1 1 1 "dhy ' ` � I 1 1 - y tS , ,.it , .+ 1 4 V a i I } a • 4. t / :ir C • • • 1 _ _ .. ____ Ion • MBA f - • s i` .• '; t, 1 • , „,s , i ..: I. i t } 7 �� t ,R t• ij ,�; 1 iLa ! i z .ti • • „20 ty-' :t r 2 � I4. ; r. }Yi - 21 i i t;.-.. • :a v • ciall LP*ItIONOSOP 44" "4 ••• • 1 i f` , r. n `�• tom.. ' •,-- a•- �� ---I --IC- 4 . 5 -- Se • • •- - - • ,4 • E :, lir !... .{ It : - - _r _ _ . . i r • • • • • • • • • 'k ?? • • •kit f1/4 ` . • ! ; 1 it*11 L441. 11. c x S �t.t ; it Li , 4( tt. . If fIt • r 1 1 . i i t,II iii I , iff5-; • ii i .h.:14-' . . . ,4 .. ... IIP , 1 i 4 v.. i:r , i?; Li i (1 1 1 l'i " t ¶i1tx • '�% 1 1., • , . 1 ,,t4. 4. -. - '��' �� •;t i 1, • ,• i ` i� ,f r • }, •.t . I ,r � I:411•111 +. II . I + i -II:...1 " ., ifk . 0 •:if_ , r rr 4t • r t. 1 +, r fly, I k .1 + ' ., , , 1. 7 .. , r: ff i lI jar' + + '1• 0 • 4 I ; ' , E I; ¢ I. • ' . 1 I. ,' 1i'r . ,� ,. gi 4 1 it i� J( • 0 , 1' , li ;IN :, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Case Number: USR-1629 Appeal Pursuant to § 2-4-10 of denial of Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review Applicant: A. DALE SLATER TRUST B (UNITED POWER) AFFIDAVIT OF Robert L. Pearson, Ph.D., PE STATE OF COLORADO ) )ss: COUNTY OF DOUGLAS ) I. My name is Robert. L. Pearson. I swear under penalty of perjury that the following is true to the best of my knowledge. 2. 1 am a Vice President in the Industrial Systems Group of CH2M HILL, a consulting engineering company. My office is located at 9193 South Jamaica Street, Englewood, CO 80112. United Power has retained CH2M HILL to evaluate the electric and magnetic fields that would be produced by the Slater Substation proposed to be built in Weld County. 3. 1 am aware that United Power is planning to construct the Slater Substation just south of and adjoining an existing Tri State 115 kV transmission line in southwestern Weld County. The Slater Substation will be located north of Weld County Road (WCR) 28 and west of WCR 7 at the southern end of WCR 5 1/4. The substation will be located just southeast of the center of Section 28 which is bounded by WCR's 5,7, 28 and 30.The existing transmission line runs east-west between WCR's 5 and 7 halfway between WCR's 28 and 30 south of the Liberty Ranch Subdivision. 4. The existing Tri State transmission line will be tapped with the entrance conductors running south from the existing transmission line into the new substation. Therefore the new substation will be on the opposite (south)side of the existing transmission line from the Liberty Ranch Subdivision which lies north of the existing transmission line. 5. The electric and magnetic fields(EMF) produced within the substation will be confined within the security fence of the substation.The reason is the transformers,switch gear {00552908! 1 and buss work within the substation will act as point sources of EMF so that these fields will diminish to non-detectable at the substation fence. 6. Therefore,no EMF from the proposed Slater Substation itself will be detectable in any of the homes in the Liberty Ranch Subdivision. 7 Affiant further saycth not. )//// I 42 u ----- SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me on this day of MA V 2005, by Rohe.67- L. /ivzsevi on behalf of C/VZ/ AI/Z. • My commission expires: /°%/i/09 SEAL ._.,4 ,4 ' _'� • Notary • e7'.7)A.04w-. 1 ,(.--0 ,4e:e.Ar--f_i- ,:\ Public 0055?90$i I} - 2- � - - I I. YT '2: 4 • ." r d c,. Z ' ;, . •il '�1 `_ , 'a` - I , '!=`� • i 1.4 . r M I fr • IN 7;4 1 . 6 it •”4q 114". r.'- I cc a ' `�{� • _ f �� j� 1 / •Rra�• • - W I..... •_._ ..___- - rIlikla K = _ I-Wait Cli) ..., ille to e • Cie 1 Inik: ' - ter 'ct A .� O ) ,, illit• A. • livisir•piwd w CID t _ Amu IIIIIas."1116 CO) MI M . 11 I 1' is , .„; tit �' _ alC,f fii Citilt _ __ — Pi . , Li.(0.......0, r J '^ r r Ss aew CA 0 ' es 0 . fT ' • In a 41 ''- - N O J o Pil a • �.. [,,_mot PIZ: I 1100 N ,:ti) c� i11 :II , Lo ,rruje \j C) COI C C a ,_ I t i . . - K. e ime 11^ } C.1 ri • . ,F E a /�( ' 1114: 171 . I 4-1 ':1 Cr•. , .. l _ C s ,1 +•+ F ,1. F 7 S G� �rr L"/ SI 4.:1 .. 1 •. . •� a -4- S O 4. _. ?. ' 't ,04- �:' - r - .. —ter • - r:, O C V D v O I Is.bit SO tit CleC C + � cs -weO smf • Gr S Cij IS ,se C G� C ,,,. r� Lzr • OA •slV � coo x RTT ` -'� One Tabor Center,Suite 3000 1200 Seventeenth Street Mark A. Meyer ROTH G E R B E R Denver, Colorado 80202-5855 Attorney at Law Telephone 303.623.9000 303.628.9570 ]O H N S O N 8 Fax 303.623.9222 mmeyer@rothgerber.com LYONS LLP www.rothgerber.com Denver • Colorado Springs • Casper May 7, 2008 Via Hand Delivery - Weld County Board of Commissioners The Clerk to the Board's Office r Attn: Esther E. Gesick 915 10th Street, 3rd Floor T � i—d Centennial Center ua a Greeley, CO 80631 O,1 Re: Appeal of USR-1629 Dear Esther: Enclosed please find an original and one copy of the Amended Complaint To Weld County Commissioners in the above referenced matter. Please return a file/date-stamped copy in the enclosed self-addressed postage paid envelope. Please contact me at 303-628-9635 if you have any questions regarding the enclosed. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, ROTHGERBER JOHNSON & LYONS LLP tk jVi it- " '-ill Mandy Fulton, Assistant to Mark A. Meyer, Esq. /mf Enclosures {00558416/I} Hello