HomeMy WebLinkAbout20081014.tiff WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
Tuesday, January 15 , 2008
RE : USR- 1629us
TRANSCRIPT OF DIGITALLY RECORDED MEETING
Regular meeting of the Weld County Planning Commission held
in the Southwest Weld County Conference Room, 4209 CR 24 . 5 ,
Longmont , Colorado .
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
DOUG OCHSNER, Chairman, Planning Commission
TOM HOLTON, Vice-Chairman, Planning Commission
NICK BERRYMAN, Planning Commissioner
ROBERT GRAND, Planning Commissioner
MARK LAWLEY, Planning Commissioner
WELD COUNTY STAFF
MICHELLE MARTIN, Dept . of Planning
BRUCE BARKER, Esq. , County Attorney
PAM SMITH, Department of Public Health
DAVID SNYDER, Public Works
SPEAKING TO CASE USR- 1629
DEAN HUBBUCK, Applicant - United Power
Mgr . of Consumer Relations and Electric Design
ROBERT PEARSON, Ph . D
LIZ ALEXANDER,
President of Liberty Ranch Homeowners Association
DAVID FOSTER, Esq.
Land Use Specialist
KEITH SERIS
Liberty Ranch Resident
CASEY MEDLOCK EXHIBIT
Liberty Ranch Resident iv
L-Mac R&T 303 . 798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
2008-1014
2
SPEAKING TO CASE USR-1629 , (continued)
JOHN KNUTSON
Liberty Ranch Resident
PATE NELLINGTON
Liberty Ranch Resident
JERRY PALASZEWSKI
Liberty Ranch Resident
BEVERLY TRIPON
Liberty Ranch Resident
DON DELAUDER
Liberty Ranch Resident
BARBARA PAGE
Prospective Purchaser in Liberty Ranch
JOSEPH ROBERTS
Liberty Ranch Resident
JEN OKKERS
Liberty Ranch Resident
MEG LEWIS
Liberty Ranch Resident
EDDIE BALDISPINO
Liberty Ranch Resident
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
3
1 [The selected portion of the Weld County Planning
2 Commission meeting has been transcribed as follows : ]
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Weld County Planning Commission
4 Meeting, January 15 . Please call the roll .
5 THE CLERK: Berryman - here; Branum - [no
6 response] Erhlich [no response] Grand - here; Hall - [no
7 response] Lawley - here; Spitzer - [no response] Holton -
8 here . Ochsner - here .
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Did everybody get a copy of
10 the minutes? They were emailed actually for the January 8th
11 meeting and if anybody has any questions, comments ,
12 changes , additions , deletions speak now.
13 MR. GRAND: I move we accept the minutes as
14 submitted.
15 MR. HOLTON: Second.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It' s been moved by Bob,
17 seconded by Tom to accept the January 8th, 2008 minutes .
18 All those in favor say "Aye" .
19 VOICES : Aye .
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Minutes accepted.
21 Okay. The way the meeting is going to work. We' re
22 going to read the case into the record. We' ll have the
23 planner give a presentation. We' ll then hear from the
24 applicant .
25 We' ll have a question and answer time for the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
4
1 commission, then we' ll open it up to the public, give
2 the public a chance to make any comments for or against
3 the case .
4 Once we close the public portion nobody will be
5 allowed to speak on that case at this meeting again . We
6 will have a short discussion then we will take a vote, and
7 then move on to the next case .
8 Our first item of business is the consent agenda.
9 These are items that we have reviewed and do not see
10 questions on there and so we will forward them to the Board
it of County Commissioners with our recommendation for
12 approval without hearing the entire case, unless two of the
13 commissioners want to have the case pulled, and hear the
14 entire case .
15 We will give the public an opportunity to
16 comment , if they want to have the case heard in full , and
17 then we' ll go ahead and vote on that .
18
19 CASE NUMBER USR-1629
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: The next case is USR 1629 . The
21 applicant is A. Dale Slater Trust B . The request is Site
22 Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a
23 Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency. It ' s
24 an electrical substation subject to the provisions of
25 section 23-4-420 , in the A (Agricultural) Zone District .
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
5
1 The location is north of and adjacent to County
2 Road 28 , and west of and adjacent to County Road 7 . The
3 planner is Michelle Martin. Michelle .
4 MS . MARTIN: One minute . (Pause) Good
5 afternoon, commissioners . Michelle Martin, Department of
6 Planning Services .
7 The applicants have applied for a site specific
8 development plan and special review permit for a Major
9 Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency, more
10 specifically an electrical substation, subject to the
11 provisions of Section 23 -4-420 in the A (Agricultural) Zoned
12 District .
13 Originally this case was heard on November 20th,
14 2007 . Planning Commission recommended that the case be
15 continued until today' s date .
16 Signs were posted on November 1st , 2007 , at three
17 locations on site . Additional signs were posted January 4 ,
18 indicating today' s hearing as well .
19 The site is located west of and adjacent to
20 County Road 7 , and north of and adjacent to County Road 28 .
21 The property in question is roughly 160 acres, with the USR
22 site only being approximately six acres .
23 The subject property lies within the three-mile
24 referral area for Boulder County, City of Longmont , Town of
25 Firestone and the Town of Mead. The Town of Mead, in the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
6
1 referral dated October 10th, 2007 , states that United Power
2 and the Town of Mead have entered into discussions
3 regarding annexation, and that they' re on the proposed lot
4 A of RE 4712 . No responses have been received from the
5 Town of Firestone, City of Longmont, and Boulder County.
6 The map behind me indicates the property in
7 question here . And the shaded area, the hatched area,
8 indicates the intergovernmental agreement area for the City
9 of Longmont .
10 Once again, here' s the property in question, and
11 the red boundaries show the mixed use development area.
12 The proposed facility will be compatible with the
13 surrounding land uses . There are predominantly agricultural
14 uses in the area. The property to the north is located
15 within the Town of Mead, as a residential subdivision,
16 better known as Liberty Ranch.
17 The property to the south is zoned PUD with
18 estate uses , also known as Adler Estates . The property to
19 the east is proposed as a residential subdivision,
20 Waterfront at Foster Creek.
21 The applicants have proposed a ten-foot cedar
22 fence around the entire property of six acres to screen the
23 use from the surrounding residents .
24 Sixteen letters have been received over the last
25 couple of months, regarding objections to the proposed
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
7
1 substation. The majority of their concerns stem from
2 compatibility, diminished property values, and health
3 related concerns .
4 Seventeen referral agencies did review this case .
5 Eleven responded favorably or included conditions that have
6 been addressed to the development standards and conditions
7 of approval . The Department of Planning Services is
8 recommending approval of this application, along with those
9 conditions of approval and development standards .
10 I ' ll run through some photos of the site, and you
11 can ask me any questions . I do know that the applicants
12 are present today as well .
13 Once again, here' s the approximate six acres that
14 the substation would be located. Here' s State Highway 66 .
15 Here' s the residential subdivision that' s in the town
16 limits of Mead. Currently on site, on the entire 160
17 acres , there is a residence, which is off of County Road 7 .
18 At the intersection of 7 and 28 , this is looking
19 northwest, basically, and this location would be the
20 substation. This is looking west from, once again, that
21 intersection of County Road 7 and 28 . This is looking
22 northeast from 7 and 28 . Looking southwest . This is
23 basically from County Road 28 looking back up the hill .
24 Here' s that residential subdivision within the
25 town limits of Mead, and the substation would be roughly
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
8
1 right over there . This is looking south from 5 1/2 , and
2 the site would be in this approximate location.
3 Here' s from the approximate six acres where the
4 substation would be located, looking north toward the
5 residential subdivision. Once again, here' s the
6 approximate six acres where the substation would be
7 located, and the proposed developments and the existing
8 developments in the area .
9 I can answer any questions you have, and I know
10 that the applicants are here as well .
11 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Any questions .
12 MR. BERRYMAN: I have a clarification. Did you
13 say earlier that the applicant owns adjacent land next to
14 the proposed site here?
15 MS . MARTIN: The entire site is 160 acres that
16 they own . The substation would only be located on six
17 acres . They' re in the process of doing a recorded
18 exemption in which that six acres would be subdivided off,
19 and owned by the utility company.
20 MR. BERRYMAN: Thank you.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Michelle, you had a picture there
22 earlier that I think maybe showed the 160 acres? Could you
23 show that, again, and point out what - - point out like
24 where you think the property lines would be?
25 MS . MARTIN: Here' s County Road 28 . Here' s 7 .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
9
1 Here' s 5 1/2 that basically dead ends, and here' s the
2 six acres .
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: So the 160 acres would - -
4 MS . MARTIN: Is this right here .
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
6 MS . MARTIN: Mm-hmm.
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions? Okay. Thank
8 you much. The applicant would like to come forward and
9 give a presentation?
10 MR. HUBBUCK: Technology. You gotta love it .
11 Let me see what I can - - Thank you. While that seems to be
12 warming up, my name is - - thank you, first of all , for
13 seeing us today.
14 My name is Dean Hubbuck with United Power . I' m
15 the Manager of Consumer Relations and Electric Design.
16 It' s at 500 Cooperative Way in Brighton, Colorado.
17 With me today, we have Ruth Marx, who is our
18 Chief Operating Officer, Jason Maxey, who is our Joint Use
19 and Right-of-Way Administrator, Don McDaniel , who' s our
20 Engineering Supervisor, and Dr . Robert Pearson from CH2M
21 Hill , will also do a presentation, when I 'm about to
22 wrap up .
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
24 MR. HUBBUCK: Also we have handouts that, I
25 believe everybody has been given, ` cause I know this - -
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
10
1 these are hard to see, especially when we start to get in
2 some of the photographs .
3 You have the presentation, the two presentations ,
4 plus you also have a little bit larger picture of some of
5 the photographs . You' ll be able to see it .
6 I know as I get older, it becomes harder and
7 harder to even see and read, and this is it , right now, at
8 about the wrong distance . So please forgive me .
9 United Power is an electric cooperative founded
10 in 1938 . We serve 17 cities in six counties and serve over
11 800 square miles . We have a service territory in both what
12 we call the Plains Division, and a territory in the
13 mountains .
14 Our headquarters is in Brighton, Colorado, and we
15 have offices in Fort Lupton and also in Coal Creek Canyon.
16 We serve a little over 64 , 000 meters . We have
17 been, over the last six, seven years , one of the fastest
18 growing co-ops in the United States . We' ve been growing at
19 up through at least 2006 , eight to ten percent a year . In
20 this past year, we grew at still about four percent . So
21 we' re still in a growing and serving area .
22 One of the questions that' s often asked is , what
23 is a substation? Simply, it' s a transition point from a
24 transmission line to a distribution line . A distribution
25 is what we use to serve power to residents, commercial ,
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
11
1 industrial . It makes it much more usable .
2 It' s going to take 115 , 000 volts from the
3 existing transmission line, and we' re going to step it down
4 for distribution to 12 , 470 volts on a three-phase - - three
5 phase system. It' s a non-polluting site, low noise, and
6 it' s a very much controlled environment .
7 We have national electric safety codes that we
8 have to attend - - maintain and go with, along, also with
9 reporting to the Environmental Protection Agency, along
10 with other requirements that are put onto us by states and
11 local institutes .
12 Next question becomes , well , how do you site a
13 substation? You know, this is just - - it' s not a random
14 process . The first thing we do is, we try to locate it
15 near what we call a load center .
16 A load center is a geographic area that is set up
17 where we take a look at all the existing loads, we take a
18 look at forecast loads, projected loads from a variety of
19 sources, pulling in from either other cities, counties, or
20 conversations that we've had with developers .
21 We try to locate it near existing transmission
22 lines . Transmission lines, when you start running them,
23 obviously, have a greater effect on more people than
24 trying to get the distribution to exactly where it ' s
25 located. So we work hard at trying to get that near
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
12
1 existing transmission lines .
2 We also try to find agreeable sellers . That
3 doesn' t always work, but in this case, at least in one of
4 the instances , we do have an agreeable seller .
5 We take a look at technical feasibility. Where
6 is it located? Are we able to get to the rest of the
7 distribution so that we don' t have to build a whole bunch
8 of infrastructure into place . We try to look at not only
9 our cost effectiveness but also what other impacts that
10 may exist .
11 We look at environmental feasibility. Is it in a
12 hundred year flood plain? Is it in a - - some sort of a
13 flood plain? Is it in wetlands? Is it near some sort of
14 a wildlife, as in eagles, type of situation .
15 We look at evaluated land use . It doesn' t mean
16 that we' re always able to get it in the most ideal spot
17 where other people think, but at least we have to take a
18 look at that and try to - - try to do that . At least
19 attempt to do that .
20 And we also take a look at aesthetic
21 considerations; how much is - - how much is going to need
22 to go into it . What is the whole look needs - - need to be
23 and how it needs to be presented.
24 We' ve been involved in this, and I'm not going to
25 read all these things word for word, but we've got a
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
13
1 basically a build timeline . People have said, "Well, how
2 long does this take?"
3 In 2001, we had a long-range plan that was
4 completed by ESC, which is out of Fort Collins . Electric - -
5 they' re an engineering services company. Also in part of
6 that was another study on demographics done by BBC to feed
7 into this . Long range plans are used to help us, obviously,
8 plan for the future .
9 The plan - - this particular long-range plan was
10 extended out for twenty years, but we know that they' re
11 generally only good, usually three to five, if we' re lucky.
12 This has brought this transition out to three to five
13 years, which we' re pretty certain where we need to go .
14 But at this point, it was identified that we need
15 it in transition two, which is somewhere between 2006 and
16 2010 , a substation in this general area .
17 In 2004 , we had the long-range plan updated.
18 Because of our growth, we wanted to take a look at that as
19 often as we can, and at least reasonable .
20 And in 2004 , it confirmed everything that we
21 still saw from that original plan, is that this still
22 needed a substation, somewhere between 2006 and 2010 . At
23 this particular point, we weren' t 100 percent certain when.
24 But in December, 2004 , we started going ahead and
25 reviewing and taking a look at sites , to determine what is
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
14
1 going - - what' s available .
2 In 2005 , we met with the previous town manager in
3 Mead to mention - - just to bring it to his attention that
4 we are looking for a substation in this area .
5 In November of 2005 , we started working with Mead
6 Crossing, which is the industrial park area . It seemed to
7 us that this would be a very - - a very good fit . And we've
8 also, at this particular point, decided that we needed the
9 substation by 2009 by taking a look at all the growth
10 projections , what was happening in the area, and working
11 with the - - county planners, working with the cities and
12 just hearing what was going on.
13 In June of ' 07 , we were still - - this is 18
14 months later - - we' re still trying to work with Mead - -
15 Mead Crossings, trying to get them to give us pricing,
16 trying to even allow us to get on the property to do all
17 the proper testing of the soils, make sure what' s there,
18 reviewing all the sites . We were having difficulties .
19 And then also in June of 2007 , we started having
20 low-voltage problems . Substations are generally good for
21 around about four miles out as a radius . You take a look
22 at more rural situations , like we had been in for a long
23 time, we could go farther, ` cause there was not as much
24 load on the line . As more load comes on that line, it
25 takes up that capacity. It' s a lot like a water line .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
15
1 You can have a line that goes out far enough and
2 you can get enough pressure on it , as long as there' s not
3 a lot of taps on it . But as soon as you start putting
4 those taps in there, what' s coming out the end starts
5 diminishing, and that ' s what we started seeing.
6 At that particular point is when we made the
7 decision that we needed to move this from our capital
8 budget, 2009 and alternate another substation with that to
9 get this built in 2008 , to take care of - - start taking
10 care of the quality of power that was going to be served in
11 this area .
12 In this area, and I ' ll talk about what the load
13 area is here when I get to a map here at the end, but
14 basically it' s north of Highway 119 to our territorial line
15 at the - - just south of Johnstown, using I-25 on the east
16 boundary, and basically about the County Road - - the
17 Boulder County, Weld County Road, on the west side .
18 So in July, we started evaluating all sites,
19 since we' re having difficulties with the Mead Crossing
20 people . And we - - then additionally met with the new - -
21 at least the interim town manager, Dan Dean, to express
22 obviously our concerns .
23 In July, also, after that , we also had a
24 discussion with Weld County to say, you know, we' re going
25 to be looking for a substation in this area. We know it
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
16
1 would either be in Mead or in Weld County.
2 In September, 2007 , we have then notified Mead
3 Crossing that we had another - - another property that is
4 being considered. And their response to us was, that' s not
5 a problem, because we didn' t really want a substation in
6 the business park anyways . So you know, we obviously had
7 some issues there .
8 In September then we submitted both an REA and
9 USR to the Weld County Planning Commission. And shortly
10 after that we met with the Town of Mead to let them
11 know what was happening and what site that we had put
12 application in for .
13 And then in October we met with Centex. Now
14 later in October we sent letters to all the affected
15 landowners . The regulation is 500 feet . We realize that
16 that was not going to encompass any of the residents within
17 Liberty Ranch, because the closest at that point is 600
18 feet , but we went ahead and did a mailing, also, to at
19 least the residents of the addresses that we had within
20 the Liberty Ranch area to notify everybody of any -- of
21 what we' re planning on - - at least what we propose to do
22 in the area .
23 And then in November, we had an open house . We
24 wanted, again, to be able to give everybody an opportunity
25 to make comments so that we can address - - take a look at
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
17
1 the consideration of any issues and impacts that this may
2 have on the residents . This was not a requirement, but
3 something that we' re - - again, we were wanting to do to get
4 the comments back.
5 November 20th, you already heard from Michelle,
6 that there was asked for a continuance so that we could
7 keep on working on - - working on differences .
8 In December, we re-evaluated, re-contacted some
9 of the landowners that we had contacted previously who were
10 still not interested in -- or pretty much happy of where it
11 was going. I imagine, primarily because it was not going
12 on their property.
13 And then in December of ' 07 , we also had a
14 meeting with the Town of Mead to let them see some new
15 photo renderings, and some other issues that we went ahead
16 and put in place, which is in our current proposal . And we
17 also met with Centex in December and went over the same
18 information.
19 With Centex and the Homeowners Association
20 representative, in that meeting, it was discussed about
21 taking a look at potential landscaping resolutions . We
22 entered verbally into an agreement for Centex to go ahead
23 and propose this to their landscape architects to see what
24 they could come up with, and it was not going to - -
25 basically, their findings was it was not something that was
L-Mac R&T 303 .798 .0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
18
1 going to make any type of significant impact at that
2 particular point . That' s just sort of a long, drawn-out
3 history, I guess , of how long we've been working on this .
4 What I want to do now is sort of get into some of
5 the areas that we are - - basically the whole crux of the
6 substation itself . The first part I want to show you here
7 is - - whoops . I didn' t - - here we go .
8 It is a general map . If you take a look at the - -
9 my pointer' s not - - here we go . Here' s a - - down here is
10 119 , this green area here is United Power Service area .
11 That service area is also what is our long-range plan area.
12 The load center is along Highway 66 , and around
13 about 5 1/2 . And that' s when we take all the information
14 that is gathered in that area.
15 We used a service called Metrostudy, which
16 reviews planning departments in both cities, counties ,
17 all closings, take a look at all proposed and planned
18 developments and we have approximately 22 subdivisions in
19 that defined area that are either preliminary or have
20 started. We have almost 55 hundred future lots that they
21 have defined in that area, and this is just residential .
22 This has not gone to any of the commercial developments,
23 high school, anything that' s going to be proposed along
24 that line .
25 So we have a very large area that' s going to be
L-Mac R&T 303.798 .0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
19
1 growing, and growing quickly that we' re going to be needing
2 some sort of infrastructure in place to be able to handle .
3 Sort of scrolling down into this , as we get
4 closer - - let me see if I can get stuff out of the way
5 here - - the black line right here in the center follows
6 this pretty much about the transmission line that is
7 existing. That transmission line has been there for a
8 little over 32 years . So we' re not asking to add any more
9 transmission line . Just tapping into that existing
10 structure .
11 Mead Crossing is here, and then the substation
12 location is over in this particular corner .
13 We looked at a variety of different properties
14 and we talked to landowners and developers to find
15 ultimately what that interest is going to be . And again,
16 we only had one landowner that responded positively.
17 Now, as we move in closer, actually the spot is
18 around about six and a half acres . We follow the - - we' re
19 actually following the irrigation ditch just to try to make
20 things as simple as we possibly can.
21 The yellow lines is the existing transmission
22 easement . It' s 100 foot . The red lines are the
23 distribution easements where we' re also on the plan, and
24 part of the things that - - items we' re doing is , we are
25 putting in underground distribution from the substation out
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
20
1 to the major infrastructures that are already in 28 and 7 .
2 So we' re not - - none of that is going to be overhead. That
3 is all going to be underground distribution at that
4 particular point .
5 MR. HOLTON: Before we go on, can we go back a
6 couple of maps?
7 MR. HUBBUCK: Sure .
8 MR. HOLTON: You' ve got some little white squares
9 on the very first one . I was wondering what those were?
10 MR. HUBBUCK: Those - - those white squares - -
11 these are existing substations . I-25 , we only have one
12 other substation on the west side of I-25 in our Plains
13 Division, and that just came on line this past summer, and
14 that is down in Broomfield, along the northwest parkway.
15 I-25 acts as a natural boundary. It makes it
16 very difficult to get enough resources underneath I-25 . We
17 have a lot of restrictions that the state puts on us . And
18 the fact that from basically our Slader to our Delcamino,
19 which is how we' re serving this area now, is approximately
20 four miles .
21 So as get more and more load, as we just heard
22 Aurora Dairy, they' re sitting back over in this area .
23 That ' s the type of load that we' re seeing that are coming
24 on that are taking more and more of our resources that
25 gives us issues and problems in trying to reach all the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
21
1 growing load and economic development that' s occurring in
2 the area . So - -
3 MR. HOLTON: All of these substations are based
4 around some big lines that are already there?
5 MR. HUBBUCK: Yes, sir .
6 MR. HOLTON: Existing lines .
7 MR. HUBBUCK: The Delcamino line, this comes
8 across the interstate feeds - - that existing transmission
9 line feeds Delcamino . Actually it does come down and feeds
10 into our Rinn Valley Substation.
11 Our Rinn Valley Substation is actually very
12 similar to Slader that it sits sort of in the mid- of the
13 section, and we have development occurring around that, as
14 we speak. And we have not done as much detail into that
15 substation as we' re taking a look into doing this one .
16 And then the Platteville is a lower voltage
17 substation that we will be looking at rebuilding probably
18 within the next five to ten years . Just because, again
19 capacity issues and just to try to get extra support and
20 strength in that .
21 MR. BERRYMAN: And you did say your green shaded
22 areas was your service territory?
23 MR. HUBBUCK: Yes . This lightly shaded - - it
24 looks green to me, if you' re - - It may be a little of a
25 different color . But yes , that is our service territory.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
22
1 MR. BERRYMAN: So it' s fair to say that most of
2 the folks here are in fact members of your cooperative?
3 MR. HUBBUCK: Correct . We are city -- you know,
4 right here in this office, served by United Power .
5 MR. GRAND: I had a question on the next parcel
6 selections .
7 MR. HUBBUCK: Yes .
8 MR. GRAND : Back one .
9 MR. HUBBUCK: Yes, sir .
10 MR. GRAND : On parcel 7 - -
11 MR. HUBBUCK: Yes, sir .
12 MR. GRAND: - - that' s one entire piece that
13 you' re acquiring?
14 MR. HUBBUCK: No, sir. That -- we' re just
15 acquiring about six and a half acres in that northwest
16 corner .
17 MR. GRAND : Is there any particular reason you
18 didn' t look at going further south on that property to give
19 you greater distance between the housing community?
20 MR. HUBBUCK: Well , we - - one of the things that
21 we have done is , we have pushed the substation footprint
22 back within where we looked at . But the second part of
23 that was - - one of the things we look at is agreeable
24 landowners . And that' s - - that was basically the site that
25 she was - - you know, she stated it was acceptable to her
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
23
1 for that substation to be in.
2 If we start pushing it back further south, much
3 further than where we' re already at, we' re going to have to
4 add additional transmission structures - -
5 MR. GRAND : Mm-hmm.
6 MR. HUBBUCK: - - just because of the distance
7 that we' re able to go from pole to pole . So it was
8 reviewed.
9 MR. GRAND: And the decision criteria was cost or
10 availability?
11 MR. HUBBUCK: Well , it was availability,
12 primarily. And then the two, obviously taking a look at
13 exist- - - additional transmission structure . We' re not
14 necessarily worried about the costs associated with that,
15 but more or less worrying about the impacts overall .
16 And again, because a transmission line running to
17 a north/south arena, people move to Colorado because of
18 view. And these are going to be 100 foot - - generally
19 about 75 to 100 foot structures, and as I say, that would
20 have some impact to the view shed to the west .
21 MR. BERRYMAN: This ground is basically flat?
22 MR. HUBBUCK: No, sir . There is a - - there' s
23 some major contours . And when I get to the grading plain
24 here in the next couple of slides, you' ll hear about how
25 we' re going to do some of the cuts in there .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
24
1 MR. BERRYMAN: Okay. Thank you.
2 MR. HUBBUCK: Is there any other question before
3 I move forward?
4 This is the general layout . This is a three line
5 layout of the substation. Basically about the only people
6 that really appreciate this are the engineers , but I did
7 want to go ahead and put that in there, because one of the
8 things that we' ve done is, we' ve viewed the fenced line,
9 and we have compressed the area with some re-design, so it
10 will take up a little bit of a smaller footprint .
11 This is the - - that same basic three line sitting
12 on the proposed subdivision of the property, along with the
13 proposed - - or at least the layouts for the lots with
14 Centex. Right from our corner here to basically the
15 nearest lot , from our fence line to their nearest lot is
16 approximately 200 feet . What we've done is push this
17 substation back as far as we possibly can to the property
18 line, so that we can try to get as much clearances as we
19 can. That brings a - - from the transmission line structure
20 in and to the substation is still relatively about 200 ,
21 220 feet .
22 You heard Michelle say that we' re planning on a
23 ten-foot opaque fence . We' re also planning on masonry
24 corner columns . The recommendation from the planning group
25 was eight foot, so we' re already going - - going slightly
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
25
1 beyond what they had requested to ten feet .
2 This is the grading plan. Initially, this
3 substation was moved - - well, it was about 80 feet further
4 to the north. We were able to push that back. Your
5 drawings are going to be a lot clearer to read than what
6 this is up here, or what I' m looking at .
7 One of the comments that came back is, is there
8 any way we could set it down, since this is somewhat of a
9 hill that slopes down. And we took a long look at that,
10 and what we' re doing is , on that east side, we' re cutting
11 basically about 22 to 24 feet of soil , to get this
12 substation down into the ground, basically, to hide
13 that as much as we possibly can.
14 From the northeast corner, that ' s about 20 feet ,
15 and then across is that hill that sort of slopes down. It
16 goes down to about 14 feet . So we' ve already agreed that
17 this is something that we can do .
18 In the northwest corner, this land slopes down.
19 what we've talked about doing is leveling out this contour
20 so that we have a berm that not only comes around that
21 northwest corner, but then wraps down to the west to help
22 basically hide the substation a little bit more, as you' re
23 driving down 5 1/2 and making an entrance into the Liberty
24 Ranch area .
25 We' re also setting the substation back. There
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
26
1 was some discussion on the actual road width, but I believe
2 it was decided that it was ultimately 50 foot from center
3 line . We have a push back of 80 feet so that taking
4 consideration of the 50-foot road width, plus additional 30
5 foot to act as additional buffer and/or landscaping at some
6 particular point, as 5 1/2 looks to go through.
7 MR. GRAND : Excuse me . What' s the height of the
8 facility above grade? The difference between the - -
9 MR. HUBBUCK: There' s different parts . What we
10 call the landing structure that comes off the transmission
11 line into the substation, that ' s approximately 40 feet .
12 Most of the rest of the substation is all below 23 feet ,
13 and that' s what we call the bus work. That gets the - -
14 through the power through - - from the rest of the
15 transmission structure .
16 MR. GRAND : And your planned excavation, is that- -
17 MR. HUBBUCK: Is approximately 22 to 24 feet .
18 MR. GRAND : Is that -- the number you just gave
19 us, is that the net number or is that the actual number
20 that subtracts out the lowering portion that you' ve done?
21 MR. HUBBUCK: The 22 to 24 feet is the net - - is
22 the net number we' re bringing down. The substation - - most
23 of the substation is going to be 23 feet and less . So from
24 the - -
25 MR. GRAND : From the base up or is it the base
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
27
1 plus another 23?
2 MR. HUBBUCK: I' m not understanding - -
3 MR. GRAND : If it was flat - - and I 'm sorry I 'm
4 not being clear . If the ground was flat, how tall would
5 it be?
6 MR. HUBBUCK: Oh, how tall?
7 MR. GRAND : Yes .
8 MR. HUBBUCK: If it was flat, the 40 foot would
9 be the lane in structures, 23 foot would be - -
10 MR. GRAND : So you take 23 out , you' re looking at
11 a structure of about 23 foot?
12 MR. HUBBUCK: Correct .
13 MR. GRAND: About the size of a two-story house?
14 MR. HUBBUCK: Correct . And what we' re doing,
15 obviously, with that cut is the 20 - - basically 22 to 24
16 feet . There is a crown in the middle of - - right here in
17 the middle of the substation to provide drainage,
18 basically, both north and south. And then it drops - -
19 drops down.
20 So then in this area here is the 24 feet , and
21 this area up here is the 22 feet . Because this is a ridge
22 that comes across here, and then across here, at least on
23 the easterly part of that, is a -- it ' s the transmission
24 line is also raised on its natural contours .
25 MR. GRAND : Thank you.
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
28
1 MR. HUBBUCK: Now here' s some of the ones that
2 become a little bit harder to look at up here . It might be
3 easier to look at - - this is an easterly view. What we can
4 see out of this is , this is the raised portion of the
5 existing transmission line over here on the left . Let ' s
6 see . And if you take a look, you can actually - - the
7 substation you can see how it ' s set down. You can actually
8 see the hill behind - - behind that, to see basically the
9 cut that we' re doing in the - - on the substation trying to
10 sink this one down.
11 This picture is taken about 500 feet from Weld
12 County Road 7 , along the half section line, taking that - -
13 I was going to say that westerly view. The H structure - -
14 what we call H structures here, are the existing
15 transmission line . These are two of the poles that will
16 need to be inserted to have the lines come in .
17 These are that 40-foot basically what I call - -
18 we call landing structures with the substation. And these
19 poles back here are static masts that are used - - we put
20 them up top so if there happens to be lightning in the
21 area, we have a ground plain so that we don' t damage
22 equipment and have long-term outages associated with that .
23 MR. HOLTON: Excuse me . These are like computer
24 generated images , right? This is --
25 MR. HUBBUCK: Correct . Yes . No, this is not
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
29
1 already there .
2 MR. HOLTON: Okay. I was going to - -
3 MR. HUBBUCK: These are simulations .
4 MR. HOLTON: Yeah.
5 MR. HUBBUCK: We work with a company called
6 Stanley Consultants, who are able to basically take our - -
7 that three-line diagram that we talked about, reflect that
8 into basically a 3-D image and be able to embed that into
9 the - - into photographs that are taken. That is correct .
10 Sorry about that .
11 MR. CHAIRMAN: I thought I was crazy. Going out
12 there today and - -
13 MR. HUBBUCK: This is a view looking down 5 1/2 .
14 This is taken approximately at the - - sort of the northern
15 entrance of Liberty Ranch. When you take a look down
16 there, that issue reflecting the berm that has been put
17 into this drawing, so they' re - - they have actually
18 rendered what the berm would look like .
19 And as we take - - go ahead and take a look - - a
20 little bit of a closer look, this is the new southern
21 entrance that they' re actually working on right now. You
22 can see the berm how it extends out and then wraps around
23 the -- at least that northwest corner to help, again,
24 protect that view of - - as you' re driving into any of the
25 developments .
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
30
1 Was there any other question right now? Because
2 what I would like to do is introduce Dr. Robert Pearson.
3 He' s the vice-president of CH2M Hill , to talk about and
4 address any electric/magnetic field issues, which relates
5 around some of the health issues of people - - were some of
6 the concerns .
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
8 MR. HUBBUCK: Thank you.
9 MR. PEARSON: Thank you, Dean. For the record,
10 my name is Robert Pearson. My office address is 9193
11 South Jamaica Street in Englewood, Colorado 80112 , and
12 even though I do have a Ph.D, I 'm not a medical doctor;
13 I 'm an engineer. So let us be clear that my testimony
14 here is going to be more of an engineering nature rather
15 than a medical .
16 We know that some of the neighbors in the Liberty
17 Ranch subdivision, in particular, have expressed some
18 concerns about health effects from this facility. Let me
19 say that substations like the one that ' s being proposed
20 here typically have very, very low magnetic field levels at
21 the fence surrounding the substation .
22 The reason is that the magnetic fields that are
23 generated by the equipment within the substation would all
24 be pretty close to the equipment themselves . And if you
25 remember back to the drawing that Dean showed a few minutes
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
31
1 ago about how the equipment will be arranged on the
2 substation, that equipment tends to be more in the center
3 of the property, and there will be this ten-foot cedar
4 fence around the outside .
5 Well , if you were to take measurements of the
6 magnetic fields from the equipment , around that cedar
7 fence, except where you' re directly beneath those power
8 lines that come in from the transmission line, you
9 will really not see any magnetic fields at the fence,
10 because they' ll all be concentrated in the center of
11 the substation.
12 And of course, the substation itself will be
13 excluded from the public, because that is an industrial
14 facility. It needs to be fenced off and secured so that
15 people cannot get in there and get injured.
16 So the magnetic field issue really is not going
17 to be one that should be a concern around the fence, or
18 going even further away from the substation, particularly
19 to the north, where the Liberty Ranch Subdivision is .
20 Now, we should point out that the existing
21 transmission line will, and will continue, to produce
22 magnetic fields through its operation. So given that, I
23 will go ahead, and give you a little bit of a thumbnail
24 about the EMF health effects . I' m not going to go into a
25 lot of detail now. If you wish me to come back and get
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
32
1 into more depth, I ' d be more than happy to .
2 But let me just say that the National Academy of
3 Sciences has done a study. I have a copy of it here, and
4 we can talk about this as you wish, with regard to EMF
5 health effects, and their conclusion is that there is not a
6 likelihood that any facility that produces magnetic fields,
7 like transmission lines, like substations, like the lights
8 above your head, like the projectors over here that are
9 energized next to me, all of these devices put out magnetic
10 fields, but exposure to those magnetic fields is not a
11 health threat to humans and animals and livestock.
12 And I can get into as much depth and detail on
13 that as you wish, but rather than take your time now, let
14 me just stop there, ask if there are any questions now? If
15 you wish me to come back and talk about this in further
16 detail , I ' d be most happy to.
17 MR. HOLTON: So the existing line right now is - -
18 that' s going to be as much EMF as you can expect - -
19 MR. PEARSON: That is correct .
20 MR. HOLTON: - - from the substation, then?
21 MR, PEARSON: Actually the substation will not
22 change the EMF environment , because as I said, around the
23 outside fence of the substation, you really won' t get any
24 magnetic fields at all , except where those power lines go
25 into the substation from the existing transmission line .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
33
1 You will get some magnetic fields there, for
2 those lines going into and out of the sub, but from the
3 substation itself , you really won' t have any magnetic
4 fields at the fence . It ' ll all be concentrated more in the
5 center of the substation property.
6 Okay? Thank you, and like I said, I ' ll be most
7 happy to come back and answer any further questions .
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
9 MR. HUBBUCK: And I' d just like to say thank you,
10 and that does conclude what information that we have to
11 present .
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. Let' s
13 maybe go to Public Works . And do you have any comments or
14 presentations in this case?
15 MR. SNYDER: David Snyder, Weld County Public
16 works . No presentation but just basically go off the
17 high points .
18 The access is on the 5 1/2 , which is Mead' s
19 jurisdiction. And the right-of-way that we' re requesting
20 is actually 55 feet, because we basically just said match
21 Mead' s cross-section of their - - it ' s a collector . It' s
22 actually 110 feet of right-of-way, so they' d have to
23 dedicate or reserve his 55 .
24 We' re working on the drainage, and just basically
25 grading road control plan, whenever they go for the grading
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
34
1 permit, and tracking, so they don' t get mud on the 5 1/2 .
2 And that' s all that we have issues with.
3 And there is going to be - - probably need to
4 change the part of the resolution there, the right-of-way
5 requirement that was listed.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. So as far as the - - when
7 they talked about digging the 22 feet out to better hide
8 the substation, are those - - is that going to cause any
9 drainage issues or any environmental issues?
10 MR. SNYDER: It shouldn' t cause any drainage
11 issues , if they have the right stability, which probably
12 they' ll show how they' re going to do that , for like slopes
13 and the grading plan, before they get the grading permit .
14 And it looks like they have their drainage taken care of at
15 the south and west side of the property, so we shouldn' t
16 have any issues .
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any questions?
18 MALE VOICE : So we' re changing the road where - -
19 FEMALE VOICE : (Inaudible)
20 MR. SNYDER: Page six? K-7?
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: So 7 reads now, "County Road 5 1/2
22 is classified by the county as a strategic roadway road,
23 which requires 140 feet of right-of-way at full buildout,
24 and what part would you like to change?
25 MR. SNYDER: It should be a total of 110 feet of
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
35
1 right-of-way.
2 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
3 MR. SNYDER: That' s what Meads cross-section is .
4 I mean, that' s - - I think it' ll probably take out a
5 strategic roadway, because it' s not classified. There' s
6 enough previous study that it ' s no longer a - - the county
7 strategic roadway is no longer going to go along that
8 alignment , so it' s just a collector, in Mead' s
9 classification.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: So we just want to say that it' s
11 classified by the county as a - -
12 MR. SNYDER: Collector .
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: - - collector status?
14 MR. SNYDER: Yes .
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. What about Health
16 Department?
17 MS . SMITH : Good afternoon. Pam Smith, Weld
18 County Health Department . We don' t have a lot of comments .
19 There' ll be people at the site during
20 construction, and so they' ll provided bottled water and
21 portable toilets during that time period, and then after
22 that, people will just be there for routine maintenance and
23 those -- [Microphone malfunction - inaudible] - - kinds of
24 (inaudible) - - That' s really the only comments we have at
25 this time .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
36
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you . Okay. We' ll go
2 ahead and open this up to the public testimony. Please,
3 when you get to the microphone, state your name and
4 address , sign the sign-in sheet .
5 We do ask that if somebody has already stated
6 your comments that you try to just say - - try to keep it - -
7 you don' t go on and on about the same comments . And with
8 that, we' ll just open it up and encourage your
9 participation.
10 MS . ALEXANDER: Good afternoon, commissioners .
11 I' m Liz Alexander, 10333 East Dry Creek Road, Englewood. I
12 am the current president of the Liberty Ranch Homeowners
13 Association. And I 'm only going to take a couple of
14 minutes to discuss this .
15 There are a number of other people here who would
16 also like to speak. Most of the faces that you see out
17 here today are Liberty Ranch residents who are opposed to
18 this facility.
19 What I have with me is - - [moving away from
20 microphone] - - if you can' t hear me, just let me know.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, if you can just pull the
22 microphone out and take it with you.
23 MS . ALEXANDER: (Inaudible) What I have with me
24 is a map showing the location of the Liberty Ranch
25 property. Thank you.
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
37
1 Here' s Highway 66 , County Road 7 , County Road 5
2 1/2 . The red block is the proposed substation location,
3 and with all due respect to Ms . Martin' s slide, she did not
4 show you that the remainder of this property has been
5 platted at this time . As United Power indicated, it ' s
6 extremely close to the homes that are down there .
7 We also have contacted a number of the
8 surrounding property owners . I have personally spoken with
9 Mrs . Solengo, Mr . Hergenreider, and Mr . Anderson. They
10 have not been contacted recently regarding any changes to
11 the location of this property.
12 Mr . Anderson indicated that he had offered up
13 this southern property, at one time when United Power
14 was first looking at this, and United Power declined to
15 take it .
16 I think the other thing that is important is
17 United Power has mentioned in a couple of our meetings that
18 the willing seller, the property seller had indicated that
19 they would like to see this substation located quite far
20 from the home, and the dotted line that you see here is the
21 length of the proposed substation to the home on the Slader
22 property, and this dotted line shows that same distance all
23 the way across the Liberty Ranch property.
24 As you can see, it ' s approximately two-thirds of
25 the homes within Liberty Ranch that would be affected by
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
38
1 that, if we were to use that same logic . It also includes
2 most of the Town Park site, and the elementary school that
3 is proposed for that community.
4 I think you will hear from many of the residents
5 regarding this, and the inadvisability of placing this as
6 near to constructed residences as it is proposed to be,
7 and we respectfully ask that you decline this submittal .
8 Thank you.
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Are there any questions? Ms .
10 Alexander, I have one for you. On that map, is making
11 that - - some of Liberty Ranch is there now, and the rest of
12 it is being platted?
13 MS . ALEXANDER: Correct .
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Could you point out where the
15 current homes are and - - versus what is already going to
16 be platted?
17 MS . ALEXANDER: The last home that is currently
18 occupied, it starts right about there, and it works up
19 around this way. We are currently in the process of
20 selling these homes, and we are completing development in
21 this area right here . So those are up for sale as well .
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
23 MS . ALEXANDER: You' re welcome .
24 MR. BARKER: Mr . Chairman, I need to mark that .
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
39
1 MR. BARKER: And I ' d like to have that submitted
2 so that it be sent on to the Board of County Commissioners .
3 Actually, this is a major facility of a public utility, so
4 this is the last hearing. I think it' s good to put that in
5 the record.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Can we have that map that
7 you have there?
8 MS . ALEXANDER: Sure . May I take one more - -
9 MR. BARKER: I ' ll mark it and (inaudible -
10 overspeak) that up?
11 MS . ALEXANDER: - - moment of your time?
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes .
13 MS . ALEXANDER: United Power had indicated that
14 they had offered to move the facility as far to the south
15 as possible, within that six-acre site, and they have done
16 that, and they have offered some additional berming and
17 some additional landscaping . It' s about a 100-foot slide .
18 And I think this - - on what is my left-hand side,
19 your right-hand side, shows what the impact of that is .
20 The pink line that you see on both of those drawings is the
21 30-foot easement line that they have to stay south of, and
22 by sliding it that 100 feet, that is the impact that it
23 makes on that lower drawing.
24 Thank you for your time .
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
40
1 MR. FOSTER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and
2 members of the commission . My name is David Foster. I' m a
3 land-use attorney, 621 - 17th Street , Denver 80293 . So
4 much for being able to follow two engineers . Now, you get
5 a lawyer after two engineers , so I apologize to you in
6 advance .
7 I am an attorney representing Centex Homes , and
8 the homeowners association today, the developers of Liberty
9 Ranch. Some of you may have been on the Planning
10 Commission at the time that this project was last reviewed
11 in 2006 and ' 07 . Some of you may have been on the Planning
12 Commission earlier than that when it was known as
13 Fredrickson Farms . So this is a project that has been in
14 the process for quite a long time .
15 The entitlements and the - - I' ll just keep this
16 out so people can review that . But the entitlements on
17 this property include 403 homes , of which 80 are developed
18 and 30 of them have families . There is an elementary
19 school site, there is a community park, there is a
20 commercial site . There has been, to date, 13 million
21 dollars of actual investment in the infrastructure at this
22 site . That includes the development cost by Centex and
23 the investments that people have made in the purchase of
24 their homes .
25 I'm not going to speak to the impact to
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
41
1 individual homeowners ; there are plenty here to do that .
2 As I mentioned, I'm a land-use attorney. I spend
3 about 95 percent of my time working on large master plan
4 communities and developments .
5 I' ve had, over the years, a terrific professional
6 relationship with United Power . I' ve entitled thousands
7 and thousands of acres of land within their service area .
8 It' s obviously awkward to be at a hearing to talk
9 about why this important service provider has taken a
10 misstep in this particular instance . And so I want you to
11 indulge me as I go through a series of issues that I think
12 are humungously relevant today.
13 Certainly, we' re fighting the 800 pound gorilla
14 today, and at the end of my presentation, I am going to ask
15 you to make a tough decision, and that is to deny this
16 permit and encourage them to find an alternate location,
17 many of which we can show you on the map.
18 I also want you to understand, as I certainly do,
19 how much I appreciate this process . This is a special
20 review. This is not a use-by-right .
21 Nobody is entitled to assume that a special
22 review is automatic, and you better than anybody in this
23 room appreciate the fact between - - or the difference
24 between use-by-right, and use-by-special-review.
25 To that end, your own code identifies a
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
42
1 use-by-special-review, or uses which have been determined
2 to be more intensive, or to have a potentially greater
3 impact than the uses allowed by right in a particular zone
4 district . Therefore, uses-by-special-review require
5 additional consideration to insure that they' re established
6 and operate in a manner that is compatible with existing
7 and planned land uses in the neighborhood.
8 The additional consideration or regulation of
9 uses by special review is designed to protect and to
10 promote the health, safety, convenience and general welfare
11 of the present and future residents of the county.
12 And while I know that you know that ' s the intent
13 of the special review, because I looked at your agenda
14 today, and we' re one of three of these applications in
15 front of you, I think it ' s important , especially when there
16 are people in opposition to these uses by special review
17 that we identify what the intent of the special review is
18 in the process .
19 Planning for a use, this major facility is
20 significant . And Dean, who explained that in 2001, they
21 did a comprehensive planning effort , and determined what
22 the needs were going to be in this particular area, made it
23 very clear how important planning is .
24 I had an old paralegal in my office who had a
25 sign on her desk which read, "You know, a lack of planning
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
43
1 on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine . "
2 She no longer works for me, because I oftentimes ran around
3 without a lot of organization and planning.
4 But the point of the matter is that this - - and
5 you will hear in a moment - - this is, in large part ,
6 unfortunately a lack of planning . Is it going to create an
7 emergency that these homeowners need to pay the price?
8 So the first standard that is identified within
9 the Weld County Code is under 23-4-420 and the burden of
10 the proof - - the burden of proof is on the applicant to
11 show the need for the facility. And let me give you an
12 example of where I feel that the applicant has failed to
13 demonstrate the need.
14 In our conversations - - and I do want to take a
15 moment to at least respect the fact that Centex and United
16 Power work together; sought a continuance two months ago in
17 an effort to try to find a compromise; were unable to.
18 But in the course of those conversations, we had
19 learned that United Power has been looking at this corridor
20 since 2004 , 2005 , and that was, again, evidenced in the
21 timeline that Dean showed you a moment ago .
22 I think he had identified, as he stated, "We were
23 looking at potential sites in December of 2004 . " November
24 of ' 05 , almost a year later, they were working with Mead
25 Crossing and then it took 18 months - - 18 months - - for
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
44
1 United Power to determine they weren' t going to be able to
2 reach a deal with Mead Crossing. Unfortunately United
3 Power wasn' t working on subsequent sites during that 18
4 months of negotiation.
5 And as Dean said, Mead Crossing - - well , wouldn' t
6 you know, they didn' t want it anyway, which didn' t come as
7 a surprise, I can assure you, to any of the folks who live
8 in Liberty Ranch.
9 So they' ve been examining the corridor since
10 2004 , 2005 . It ' s not on the Town of Mead' s Comprehensive
11 Plan. I' ll show that to you in a moment . This site is not
12 within their Comprehensive Plan .
13 Liberty Ranch, Fredrickson Farms, has had two
14 public hearings; two processes that they've been through
15 since 2004 , in front of you and in front of the Board of
16 County Commissioners . There has been no mention of this
17 need for power for this station in any of those hearings .
18 And what I ' d like to introduce into the record
19 are referral comments from United Power for both of those
20 reviews . This will, January 29th, 2004 , this was on
21 Fredrickson Farms - - again, that' s the predecessor to
22 Liberty Ranch -- the development is located within United
23 Power' s service area. United Power is ready, willing and
24 able to provide both residential and commercial electrical
25 service to development . United Power does have sufficient
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
45
1 capacity to serve the development . That ' s January 29 , 2004 .
2 I will follow that up, because in August of ' 06 ,
3 Centex, now under Liberty Ranch, had come back through, for
4 another plat approval, and I have those referral comments
5 as well from United Power . I' ll introduce these into the
6 record. These are far less exciting, because these
7 referral comments just identify easements that United Power
8 is seeking on those - - on those plats .
9 But actually, what I find the most intriguing
10 wasn' t these two public hearings but it was one that you
11 had two months ago on what is known as the Waterfront
12 Project . You approved the Waterfront Project October of
13 ` 07 ; the Board of County Commissioners approved the
14 Waterfront Project in November of ' 07 .
15 And to refresh your recollection, that was a
16 587-acre project, 18 hundred dwelling units , 100 thousand
17 feet of commercial space, and not one single United Power
18 condition placed on the resolution that was approved by the
19 Board of County Commissioners on November 14 , 2007 .
20 I 've got the 25 pages here . It ' s certainly part
21 of the record, as it relates to the fact that this was a
22 hearing in front of you and a hearing in front of the Board
23 of County Commissioners . Not one reference in the 25 pages
24 of the minutes and in the resolution that United Power has
25 an issue with service to this area .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
46
1 And just so the record' s very clear, this
2 property, this 587 acres is within the service area that
3 Dean had identified.
4 So planning is important ; it' s important because
5 it puts people on notice . It ' s so important that there is
6 a decision as it relates to a decision by this Planning
7 Commission. And again, to kind of reel it back for a
8 moment , you are the only body that makes a determination on
9 this type of permit request .
10 Most of the uses-by-special-review have a public
11 hearing at the Planning Commission to go on to the Board of
12 County Commissioners . You are the final decision maker .
13 Any decision that you make has to be appealed directly to
14 court . I only mention that because when you make the
15 decision, and if you were to approve the use by special
16 review, you have to comply with Section 23-2-340 (c) , which
17 states that a facilities plan is recorded with the County
18 Clerk and Recorder as a result of the decision that you
19 make .
20 Why? Well , the reason is obvious . This is a
21 major facility. People in this audience want to be put on
22 notice as to what kind of facility is going to potentially
23 be built next to them. Not unreasonable; not unfair.
24 In fact, the facilities plan that' s recorded, as
25 a result of your decision, needs to comply with 23-2-380 to
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
47
1 show a three-mile vicinity around this facility, and on the
2 site plan itself , it has to identify all of the uses and
3 structures that are proposed within 500 feet .
4 So this facilities plan, should you approve this
5 today, this facilities plan that would have to be recorded
6 would actually have a whole host of single family detached
7 lots, identified on a site plan, recorded with the Clerk
8 and Recorder. It doesn' t do much good anymore, but had we
9 been having this conversation three and four and five years
10 ago, in terms of siting, it would have put people on notice
11 as to the proximity of this facility to their homes .
12 Second, there is a very specific requirement in
13 the Weld County Code, and I understand why now, that notice
14 is to be given to all the Planning Commissions within three
15 miles . Most notably in this case, as you can well imagine,
16 is Mead, because Mead is just directly north of this
17 particular site .
18 Notice needs to be given to the Mead Planning
19 Commission, according to 23 -2-330 (B) (5) (a) . I reviewed the
20 record. A notice was sent to the town; not to the Planning
21 Commission. In fact, there is a letter that Michelle had
22 written, and she did a terrific job in giving notice to the
23 applicant .
24 There is a letter from Michelle Martin to the
25 applicants indicating to them that they need to follow up
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
48
1 with that referral to the Town of Mead, so that they can
2 find out when the Planning Commission meeting is going
3 to be .
4 It' s obvious why that ' s a requirement, because
5 otherwise this is the only public hearing for a use of this
6 magnitude, because it' s not going to the Board of County
7 Commissioners . So you, today, are the only opportunity
8 where we've had a public hearing on this particular issue .
9 So let' s get to the meat of what the impact is,
10 and I 'm not going to stand in the shoes of the homeowners .
11 They' re perfectly willing and able to speak on their own,
12 but let me speak to a couple of criteria, kind of in a
13 broad fashion that are relevant today.
14 First of all, you have to meet all of the
15 standards and review criteria under 23 -2-400 . You have to
16 meet them all . You can' t pick and choose . All of them
17 have to be met . So I 've identified about three of them
18 that can' t be met .
19 First : 23-2-400 (B) , the facility will not have an
20 undue adverse effect on existing and future development of
21 the surrounding area, as set forth in applicable master
22 plans .
23 What I' m presenting now is the Comprehensive Plan
24 for the Town of Mead. Let me read the standard, again. The
25 facility will not have an undue, adverse effect , on
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
49
1 existing and future development of the surrounding areas ,
2 as set forth in the applicable master plans .
3 "Master Plan, " is defined as one of these
4 comprehensive plans, a plan of a municipality. The Town of
5 Mead has identified, and you can see our little drawing
6 down in the left-hand corner . LR we made up, a Liberty
7 Ranch subdivision, and you can see the star identifying the
8 location of the proposed substation .
9 The comprehensive plan shows that 360 degrees
10 around this entire, proposed facility, is identified as
11 medium density residential . The site is completely
12 surrounded by medium density residential, as identified in
13 the master plan.
14 That is the standard upon which this facility is
15 to be reviewed; not the fact that there' s agricultural
16 ground there, that there' s a PUD to the south. It' s how
17 these properties exist and are proposed to be developed via
18 the comprehensive plan. There is no debate that this site
19 is surrounded entirely by medium density residential .
20 This is also not a case of angry neighbors
21 showing up and talking about a facility that has already
22 existed in their neighborhood. Candidly, I wouldn' t be
23 here if that was the nature of today' s conversation.
24 This is about folks who' ve lived here, who have
25 had every opportunity to be put on notice by this entity,
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
50
1 United Power, through their governing body, through their
2 planning process . And they didn' t have notice . Why?
3 ` Cause there wasn' t a site here .
4 This is not a bunch of angry neighbors now
5 showing up later to protest a use that they should have
6 been put on notice about . Not the case here .
7 You know, as a land-use attorney, and I ' ll
8 digress for a second, property rights are paramount to me ;
9 somebody' s property rights are paramount to me . And in my
10 mind, the property rights of people who own their homes is
11 tantamount to a company that is anticipating buying a
12 property to get a use permit that they have no right to
13 have . They have every opportunity to get one, but they
14 have no right to have this permit issued, unless you seem
15 to believe that they've met the criteria.
16 Compatibility. The code, Weld County Code,
17 discusses compatibility. How? It' s very clear . There are
18 two zone districts in Weld County that allow for this
19 facility. Ag and 1-3 . That' s it . You cannot get a use-
20 by-special-review for a major utility facility in any other
21 zone district .
22 That speaks very clearly to the fact that
23 residential , commercial, other zone districts are not
24 compatible with this use . That' s relevant because of the
25 master plan that I just showed you.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
51
1 It' s hard to imagine a circumstance where you
2 could approve a use-by-special-review on such a limited
3 amount of space, nestled between all of the other uses and
4 ultimate zone districts that don' t allow for this facility
5 to exist .
6 Now, it makes perfect sense, had United Power
7 been here five years ago, and had sited it here, prior to
8 the platting of Liberty Ranch, prior to people living here,
9 and had identified it . It would have made sense .
10 In fact , I don' t know when Mead' s -- well, Mead' s
11 Land Use Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2004 , so they
12 would have beat it . That would have been a no-brainer, to
13 have sited this facility there, because it wouldn' t have
14 been in direct conflict with this comprehensive plan .
15 So what I think is telling is the way in which
16 the applicant determines compatibility. And in their
17 application, which I know is part of the record, they
18 filled out the use-by-special-review questionnaire, answer
19 number 4 , "What types of uses surround the site? Explain
20 how the proposed use is consistent and compatible with
21 surrounding land uses . "
22 The use of land around the site includes farming,
23 pasture, grazing land, and residential subdivisions .
24 Again, I told you that the master plan is determinative .
25 United Power' s proposed use is consistent and
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
52
1 compatible with the surrounding land, because the area is
2 developing at a fast rate, and reliable power needs to be
3 provided to these developments . So United Power' s
4 definition of compatibility is , "Well , you' re going to need
5 the service, so we' re your provider. We are inherently
6 compatible . " That' s the wrong standard of review. That is
7 the wrong standard of review.
8 Nobody here doesn' t want United Power to serve
9 them, but that doesn' t , in and of itself , define
10 compatibility. We know it' s not compatible with
11 residential zone district , otherwise you would allow a
12 use-by-special-review, major utilities, within a
13 residential subdivision, and you don' t . So we know it ' s
14 not compatible .
15 The county, in their staff report , says that the
16 facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing
17 and future development of the surrounding area as set forth
18 in applicable master plans . The subject property lies
19 within the three-mile referral area of Boulder County, City
20 of Longmont, Town of Firestone and Town of Mead. Town of
21 Mead, in their referral dated 10-10-07 states that United
22 Power and the Town of Mead have entered into discussions
23 for annexation and development of a power station on the
24 proposed lot . No response has been received by Firestone,
25 Longmont and Boulder County.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
53
1 They' re explaining compatibility because "we
2 say it' s so . " There' s no evidence of compatibility in
3 suggesting that because United Power has entered into
4 conversations about a voluntary annexation to Mead, that
5 there' s compatibility. It' s - - there is nothing in the
6 record that would suggest that this facility is compatible .
7 In fact, the only evidence in the record is that it' s not .
8 Second standard that they can' t meet :
9 23-2-400 (c) , the design of the proposed facility mitigates
10 negative impacts on the surrounding area to the greatest
11 extent feasible .
12 Again, what is the surrounding area? We know
13 from the previous criteria that surrounding area is what ' s
14 identified in the master plans, what ' s identified in the
15 Town of Mead Comprehensive Plan. That is the surrounding
16 area .
17 So United Power - - and again, these are all
18 voluntary acts . So United Power chose that site, that six
19 acres that is immediately adjacent to Liberty Ranch. Nobody
20 forced them to take that . I mean, apparently it ' s the only
21 site that has a willing seller, so nobody forced them to
22 take that site .
23 My suggestion to this Planning Commission is that
24 if you' re going to choose to site a major facility of this
25 magnitude, which we already know is incompatible with
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
54
1 residential development, you better be prepared to do
2 something massive in terms of mitigation. And I hate to
3 kind of use a phrase that' s used in baseball nowadays,
4 but this should be mitigation on steroids . And there is
5 nothing that is worthy of calling that mitigation on
6 steroids in what you've seen here today.
7 We did take the opportunity to meet with the
8 landscape architect over the course of the last couple of
9 months to determine whether or not some berming, some
10 trees, some additional landscaping was going to make this
11 viable, and you know, again, I think United Power and I
12 know Centex worked in good faith to figure that out . So I
13 don' t believe that anything was done in bad faith.
14 But really, it was ultimately concluded that you
15 can only put so much lipstick on a pig. And in this
16 particular instance, there was no amount of landscaping
17 that was going to mitigate the impacts that we've
18 identified and talked about today.
19 So how do the applicant in their proposal and the
20 county discuss this mitigation? Answer number six from the
21 applicant : "Screening and landscaping will be accomplished
22 by different means . The substation will be enclosed by a
23 fence . . . " we heard that " . . . ten feet , that meets United
24 Power' s and Weld County' s specifications . Berm walls to be
25 utilized to help screen the substation. Initially United
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
55
1 Power would like to plant native grasses that do not
2 require constant irrigation for landscaping purposes . "
3 We've seen, again over the course of that last
4 couple of months, that the facility was moved a little
5 bit further south. We certainly appreciate that effort,
6 but it doesn' t resolve the problem. This is not the kind
7 of mitigation that would be required next to a residential
8 subdivision.
9 And the county indicates that the design of the
10 proposed facility mitigates the negative impacts on the
11 surrounding area to the greatest extent feasible . "The
12 proposed facility will be compatible with surrounding land
13 uses . " While there are predominantly agricultural uses in
14 the area, the property to the north is located within the
15 Town of Mead, property to the south is on PUD with the
16 state uses, the property to the east is proposed as
17 residential subdivision - - that ' s Waterfront, so it' s
18 actually been approved now. "Proposed conditions of
19 approval and development standards will minimize negative
20 impacts on the surrounding area . "
21 Well , how? Why? By saying it' s so doesn' t make
22 it so . And I have to say that that finding by the staff
23 falls far short of what mitigation these impacts would
24 require .
25 Finally, the final criteria . 23-2-300 (g) "All
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
56
1 reasonable alternative to the proposal have been adequately
2 addressed and the proposed action is consistent with the
3 best interests of the people of the county. "
4 We already know that there are thousands of acres
5 available within this service area. The disappointing
6 issue that I might confess is the fact that we really did
7 believe that United Power had gone out and asked all of
8 those owners, again, whether or not they would have an
9 interest in selling their property for this site .
10 And it was only because Liz Alexander got back on
11 the phone and started calling around - - because you know,
12 the development community is kind of small ; people know
13 each other. And it was determined that a lot of these
14 people who we made contact with weren' t contacted
15 subsequent to that continuance back in November. That ' s
16 unfortunate .
17 The other part of the issue that ' s unfortunate is
18 that we think that within the definition section here, that
19 a reasonable alternative - - a reasonable alternative - - is
20 to potentially have one additional transmission line, and
21 move the substation further south.
22 There is a cost involved; we understand that . I
23 mean, it' s not our cost . It' s costing United Power, and
24 really if I were a receiver of service from United Power, I
25 would actually appreciate the fiscal , conservative nature
L-Mac R&T 303 .798 .0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
57
1 that United Power has brought to bear in this particular
2 instance . They' re not just spending money haphazardly.
3 But in this instance, it does seem to me that
4 it' s reasonable to move that station further south, within
5 that 160 acres . And we've had the conversation between
6 United Power and Centex that they work with willing
7 landowners, willing sellers .
8 Again, the word "condemnation" is a terrible word
9 when you have property that you' ve owned for years and
10 years . But United Power does have that ability to condemn
11 property in very rare instances where they can' t reach an
12 agreement .
13 And what we' re suggesting today is, find a
14 reasonable alternative . And it is not unreasonable to move
15 the facility further south, put up a transmission line, and
16 to the extent that that seller, who has been apparently
17 agreeable all along, becomes unagreeable, you move to the
18 next phase, because it' s not fair to the folks here who
19 have an existing property right , versus United Power that
20 is trying to seek an approval that they don' t have an
21 absolute right to.
22 In closing, I did want to identify - - I did want
23 to identify, Commissioner Berryman, you had asked, kind of,
24 in your initial questioning as to whether or not this whole
25 site was being purchased, or whether - - you know, how this
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
58
1 site fit within the 160 , and that was kind of where we
2 were, initially. Well , why can' t you move it south? And
3 why can' t you even move it halfway down the County Road
4 5 . 5 . And so I want you - - we appreciated your investigation
5 as to that issue .
6 We' re available for comments, questions .
7 Appreciate your time today.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any
9 questions for Mr . Foster? Okay. Thank you very much.
10 Anybody else that would like to speak?
11 MR. SERIS : Good afternoon, commissioners . My
12 name is Keith Seris . My address is 13643 Saddle Drive,
13 which is inside the Liberty Ranch Community. And I'm - -
14 myself and Casey here are going to be representing some of
15 the homeowners in Liberty Ranch.
16 You know, we' re very concerned about this
17 special-use proposal . The entire community is upset at the
18 fact that we' re - - you know, we basically have two or three
19 major objections . One of them is that our rights as
20 landowners, we feel , are being violated. And primarily - -
21 primarily the right to choose whether to live next to a
22 substation or not .
23 Speaking personally, my wife and I used to live
24 next to a high voltage line in Longmont, and one of the
25 reasons we moved out to Mead was because we were unaware
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
59
1 that there were any high voltage power lines out that way.
2 It became - - it was very surprising to us that when we did
3 notice - - I'm going to refer you to this particular picture
4 that United Power put up .
5 You can see this tower right here . Well, this is
6 a wooden structure . And anybody who lives in Weld County,
7 anybody who lives in Longmont or Boulder County is very
8 aware that the majority of the high voltage power lines are
9 on these massive metal structures that are 100-plus feet
10 tall, with multiple arms . And they' re highly visible .
11 So when we - - after we purchased and we saw these
12 wooden frames, we assumed that they were regular telephone
13 lines , or - - or just, you know, multiple telephone lines on
14 one trestle . We are not utility engineers, and we don' t
15 know that these are high voltage power lines .
16 So I think, in our meetings, we actually asked
17 the majority of the homeowners who knew - - and one person
18 raised their hand and acknowledged that, yeah, they knew
19 that they were high voltage power lines . No one else
20 acknowledged so .
21 So you know, our concern is that we should have
22 the right to choose to live up to or next to a substation .
23 And the substation is going to be highly visible throughout
24 our community.
25 Any of the pictures that United Power showed
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
60
1 you - - this one, or the one coming in on County Road 5 - -
2 if you come in on County Road 5 , there is no way that
3 you' re not going to see this . It' s impossible not to
4 notice . It' s industrial nature, and it' s an eyesore, and
5 it ' s impossible not to see this .
6 Not only does it deny our right to choose whether
7 we live to it - - live next to it, we have a significance
8 here that this is going to impact our re-sale on the
9 houses .
10 Liz Alexander showed you this picture of the
11 community. The majority of homeowners, any homeowner along
12 this west side of the property, they actually paid a
13 premium for those lots - - a premium for those lots because
14 of the view. And now every single one of those people,
15 when they go out on their back deck are going to have a
16 straight line of sight to that substation, and it ' s going
17 to be unavoidable . You' re just not going to not be able to
18 see it . So all the people who paid premiums for those lots
19 basically have lost their investment .
20 So - - and we do think this is an inappropriate
21 use of the property, specifically because we had no notice .
22 We' re getting notice after the fact .
23 My wife and I moved into Liberty Ranch, and two
24 months later, we get notice that there' s a substation. If
25 this substation had been on the books, and it was visible
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
61
1 at the time of - - when we were coming out to Liberty to
2 look at the property, and we' d been informed of that, we
3 would not have bought in Liberty Ranch, and we would have
4 gone elsewhere, whether in Mead, or other parts of Weld
5 County or Boulder County.
6 So you know, we' re very troubled at the fact that
7 this proposal is - - was presented. And also, we had sort
8 of objected to the timing. You know, Liberty Ranch is not
9 new. Dave basically made the point that this has been on
10 the books for years, four-plus years .
11 There are other communities that are on the books
12 that just have been announced recently, and I 'm sure that
13 now they' re aware of this proposal , but this doesn' t affect
14 them because it ' s not next to their community. And they' re
15 not going to - - they' re having the right to choose, because
16 this facility - - if it were built elsewhere it was - - if it
17 were built on their property or in their development prior
18 to houses being built, then everybody has a choice to make
19 on whether they' re going to live next to it or not .
20 And then the other point that United Power made
21 was that there was going to be, you know, this peak load
22 issue that we' re developing in Mead, we' re developing in
23 weld County, and there' s going to be a need for additional
24 power, and that the cost is something that they' re
25 considering.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
62
1 The cost for this substation is going to be
2 fractional , pennies on the dollar - - you know, pennies per
3 kilowatt hour. Fractions of a penny. So to move this
4 somewhere else, to add additional lines is going to be
5 additional fractions of a penny, but you' re still talking
6 fractions . And the cost is going to be distributed over a
7 wide base .
8 So - - but for the residents in Liberty Ranch, if
9 we have trouble selling our property, because there' s this
10 visible, unhideable object next to our property, we' re
11 talking about losing property value way above that .
12 One of the articles that we submitted on the
13 previous planning meeting that all of you should have is
14 this article Power Lines and Power Values - - Property
15 Values - - excuse me . And in this article, they - - if you've
16 gone through and read it, they talk about the health
17 effects and all that, and we' re actually not - - we will
18 concede the point that the health effects are ambiguous;
19 that science cannot prove that there' s a direct link, and
20 that ' s not even the argument that we' re concerned about .
21 What we are definitely concerned about is that in
22 the marketplace, the general public, regardless of the
23 scientific evidence, believes, in fact, that there is some
24 kind of health effect . So this article basically says that
25 there' s a legal background and precedence to show that that
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
63
1 argument has been brought into the legal system as an
2 argument for compensation; that the fear in the marketplace
3 of EMF affects housing prices . So it doesn' t matter
4 whether it ' s real or not .
5 When it comes to transactions on a house, people
6 believe it, so there' s going to be a de-valuation of the
7 property based on the proximity to the substation. And
8 yes, we know the power lines exist, but the power lines
9 actually do not look like high voltage power lines . So
10 no one really recognizes that those are high voltage
11 power - - we didn' t . The majority of the people in Liberty
12 Ranch didn' t .
13 As soon as you put a huge substation there,
14 everybody is going to know exactly what' s going on, and
15 there' s no way that you' re going to be able to hide it . So
16 we' re looking - - the community of Liberty Ranch has already
17 taken a ten percent drop in the price of their homes based
18 on the housing market . So on average, that' s $30 , 000 .
19 This article states that you could have a very,
20 at minimum, five percent drop in property values, due to
21 proximity to a structure like this, and up to 14 percent .
22 So if we, in the future, try to sell our homes, we' re
23 looking at an additional five to ten percent drop in our
24 property values, and that' s another 15 or 30 thousand
25 dollars . The majority of us are already upside down on
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
64
1 our houses by that amount . So you' re adding that on - -
2 you' ll be adding that on top of our burden of costs, and
3 on top of that - - I just read several articles on Yahoo
4 News today that says the housing market is not even close
5 to being bottoming yet .
6 So we' re in this situation where the housing
7 market is continuing to go down. The sub-prime concerns
8 are continuing to grow. Credit concerns are continuing to
9 grow. So the effect, basically, is that no one knows when
10 the bottom is going to come . It could be a year from now,
I1 it could be three years from now.
12 And then we' re going to have to recover all of
13 those - - all that cost, and houses on average grow about
14 five percent a year. So you' re talking - - we' ve already
15 taken a ten percent drop. If we get another ten or fifteen
16 percent due to the housing market, plus substation effects,
17 you know, we' re talking significant costs, and we' re very,
18 very concerned about this .
19 You know, additional news is coming out , and
20 everybody is saying there' s a recession coming. Job losses
21 and recession and housing foreclosures go hand in hand.
22 And there are some in our community that are
23 concerned that if we actually have to try to turn our
24 houses over, in this climate, and a substation being there,
25 it' s just going to make it incredibly more difficult for us
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
65
1 to do that . We' re going to - - we' re going to bear the
2 majority of the burden of cost for this substation.
3 You know, United Power, basically touched on the
4 fact that Mead Crossing, when they told them they were no
5 longer interested, they were not really that concerned
6 about not being considered, because they don' t want the
7 facility in their business park. This is a business park .
8 We' re talking about a residential neighborhood, next to a
9 residential neighborhood.
10 Mrs . Slader, again, required them to move the
11 facility, you know, far away from her so that for whatever
12 reason she didn' t have to look at it , or when - - if she has
13 to sell more property or her property, that it ' s not an
14 impact to her .
15 But every -- but, you know, basically everybody
16 is asking United - - Liberty Ranch to bear that burden, to
17 bear the cost of having a utility next to the site .
18 And so we' re definitely strongly objecting to
19 this being there . And we think we deserve the right to be
20 able to make a choice . If we want to live next to a
21 subdivision, we should at least know that it ' s going to be
22 built way in advance so that we can choose to either live
23 next there, or if we buy a house, the price depreciation is
24 included already in the price of the house .
25 So those are - - those are my concerns . And I
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
66
know Casey has some other things that he' d like to comment
2 on so I 'm just going to turn the mike over to him.
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
4 MR. MEDLOCK: Good afternoon. My name is Casey
5 Medlock, as stated. I, as well , am a homeowner . Myself
6 and my wife are actually the very southern - - southern-
7 west-most portion of the development currently. Granted
8 there will be a good number of houses that will go in,
9 within the development . We are probably right about here,
10 when it comes to respect - - respects to the property.
11 My goal right now is simply just to reiterate
12 what Keith said. First and foremost, I would imagine the
13 people that represent - - that are here from the community
14 would agree that for myself , at least , and us, this street
15 that we live on is , to me, a dream come true . Not to sound
16 too cliche, but it is .
17 I never imagined having the connection that I
18 currently have with the neighbors that I have, and now
19 there' s a concern of their being - - this power substation
20 going in, which is going to affect, most definitely my
21 property value, and it ' s also affecting the choice as to
22 whether or not we' ve been given - - which in this case,
23 we' ve not - - we are not being given the choice to move into
24 our homes, knowing that there' s already a structure there .
25 Personally, if this structure goes in, I 'm going
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
67
1 to think very strongly about what do I do next . Do I stay
2 or do I put my house and move?
3 It is an eyesore, it is going to depreciate the
4 value of our homes , and I don' t know whether to make that
5 decision now, get out of Dodge, or if it does go in, ride
6 it out . I' d be heartbroken to have to move and lose the
7 neighbors that I have .
8 I - - last night , or this morning, when I drove to
9 work as I drove down the center of Wrangler Way, I was
10 looking at the different houses and counting the number of
11 children that my son has been able to make connections
12 with, let alone the parents . The people across the street
13 have become our surrogate grandparents for Colorado.
14 There are 20 - - currently 27 children from when
15 you first come in from the stop sign, all the way down to
16 the last few houses, and three children on the way. As a
17 father, I want my child to grow up here on Wrangler Way.
18 I'm currently in my first year as an assistant
19 principal, so I understand the position that you guys are
20 in right now as to meeting the needs of my community,
21 meeting the needs , most importantly, of the children that
22 has (coughing - inaudible) on the most .
23 In conclusion, what I would ask is that we just
24 briefly take a look at Section 23-4-420 . It may have
25 already been mentioned. But with reference to public
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
68
1 utility facilities it does state that the public utilities
2 shall have the burden of proof to demonstrate that there' s
3 a need for the facility, and what affects me here is,
4 within the proposed area of service .
5 Personally, there has not yet been much proof
6 that it' s needed right adjacent to a housing community.
7 Please give us the choice, give the - - and possibly if it
8 affects other people in the future, it will affect other
9 people, but at least they' ll have a choice as to whether or
10 not they want to move into a community located directly
11 next to a power substation.
12 And then lastly, you guys definitely have a tough
13 choice to make . Section 23-2-150 says "The intent of the
14 site plan review procedures is to provide present and
15 future residents and users of land in the county the means
16 whereby orderly and harmonious development is assured in
17 the county. " I respect that that is the goal with United
18 Power; I respect that that is the goal here with the
19 Planning Commission.
20 Granted, it continues - - it says "The reviews
21 require additional consideration to insure that the uses
22 permitted are established and operated in a manner that is
23 compatible with existing and planned land uses in the
24 neighborhood. It doesn' t seem compatible to us . We don' t
25 feel that this is compatible for us . We don' t have the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
69
1 choice right now. Will you give us that choice? And
2 again, thank you for taking the time to hear us today.
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
4 MR. SERIS : And just for the record, we' re just
5 going to ask that you deny this proposal , that you would - -
6 yeah, just deny the proposal . Thank you very much.
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
8 MR. HOLTON: I 've got a question for you.
9 Everybody' s been talking that this should go someplace
10 else . I don' t deny that this area is growing and they' re
11 going to need power . So if everybody says they want it
12 moved, where would you guys like to see it moved? I mean,
13 obviously somebody' s got to have some ideas on where to do
14 that, besides eminent domain.
15 MR. SERIS : Right . In the initial meeting with
16 United Power they basically stated that they have a
17 community where the substation pre-existed prior to the
18 development . And people bought right up to the substation.
19 Well, they had that choice to buy, and there was - - there' s
20 a cost associated with that .
21 There are several developments that are - - that
22 have been announced for Weld County, that are just in the
23 very, very beginning phases, and you know, those -- those
24 are opportunity sites for this substation.
25 MR. HOLTON: So you want it moved to Foster Lake,
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
70
1 then? Or to (inaudible) Farms?
2 MR. SERIS : I want to move it to somewhere where
3 basically someone is going to have - - you know, you should
4 have the - - you should be able to choose if you' re going to
5 live next to this substation. And the cost that you' re
6 going to - - your house should reflect that cost .
7 What we' re being asked to do is absorb all the
8 cost , because it ' s going to be right next to our property,
9 and our property values are going to drop . You know, our
10 kids are going to be playing in the neighborhood, and
11 granted, they' re going to put up fences, and stuff, but
12 that doesn' t mean that some kid' s not going to climb over
13 the fence and go into the substation, you know.
14 People should be able to choose . So there is
15 most definitely some other site location. And I talked to
16 the city planner - - he was the Mead City Manager, and he
17 said that United Power actually looked at a site next to
18 the U-Haul-It at 66 and I-25 . And that' s an ideal - - I
19 mean, from the prospective of development, it' s right next
20 to a business . It' s not right next to residential .
21 That particular area they' ve had roads in there,
22 but no development for at least ten years . And I 've been
23 driving by that site from ' 97 until the present . You know,
24 there are other opportunities , and I think that they need
25 to look for another opportunity.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
71
1 That power line runs from one side of I-25 all
2 the way down into Longmont, so you know, it ' s a huge
3 corridor . And if they put it on the south side of 66 , or
4 the north side, I don' t think that that' s going to affect
5 their - - you know, they showed the picture where that area
6 that they' re trying to service, that' s the load side, well ,
7 it ' s in - - on both sides of 66 . You know, have they looked
8 into people on the other side of 66 who' d be interested in
9 selling? Are there communities going in on that side? You
10 know, I mean, we' re in the middle of a - - everything around
11 us is supposed to be residential . And just like they' ve
12 said, you know, this is - - this is not even your own - -
13 your own statutes say that this is not an appropriate use
14 for this site .
15 You know, myself and Casey, we have jobs during
16 the day, so we' re doing all this - - we' re trying to look
17 into this on our off time, which is not very much. If we
18 have to go out and look for another site for United Power,
19 hell , we' ll do that . We just don' t think that this is the
20 right place for it, and we don' t think the due - - whether
21 due diligence has been put in or not , there' s another
22 alternative somewhere .
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any more questions? Thank
24 you very much.
25 [Off microphone comment . ]
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
72
1 MR. KNUTSON: My name is John Knutson. I live at
2 1322 - - 692 wrangler Way. I haven' t had a lot of time to
3 get involved with this . I only became aware of it the
4 latter part of November.
5 But just to kind of reiterate what everybody' s
6 been saying: number one, depreciation of my property. Two,
7 alluded to or factual health or non-health risks , and the
8 fact that it' s a major eyesore . They hid the fact that it
9 was going in, because I bought my house in July. There was
10 no mention of any power station anywhere . So that' s my
11 point . I don' t feel that it should go up in that
12 particular spot anyway.
13 I mean, if they were going to - - if my house
14 value is going to go down, why didn' t they tell me that
15 when I bought the house? How can they tell you if they
16 don' t even know. And that' s my part of it , so.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Is there any --
18 how many more people do we have that want to speak? I have
19 to decide if we want to take a break now, or we - -
20 MALE VOICE : Three or four.
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Let ' s go ahead and take a - -
22 just a five-minute break right now, and then we' ll come
23 back and we' ll continue the - -
24 [Recess taken. ]
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. We' re going to call this
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
73
1 meeting back to order. We' ll continue with the public
2 testimony, so please step to the microphone, give us your
3 name and address .
4 MS . NELLINGTON: Good afternoon, commissioners .
5 My name is Pate Nellington, and I live at 13733 Saddle
6 Drive, which is about right here .
7 This is my first home, and when I considered
8 where I would be living, I did take into consideration - -
9 [replacing microphone] - - sorry -- I did take into
10 consideration the view of the mountains . And across the
11 street is the elementary school .
12 And when you drive from Longmont down 66 to our
13 subdivision, you could plainly see if there was a
14 substation located right next to us . You can' t hide it
15 with a fence . It' s not - - you can' t make a fence tall
16 enough to hide that structure .
17 And I think it is a real concern that had I known
18 about a substation being there, had it been there prior to
19 my buying the house, I would have chosen somewhere else . I
20 wouldn' t have selected this neighborhood.
21 It ' s a really beautiful neighborhood, and I think
22 that that would really change everything for us . And I
23 guess that ' s - - and I agree with everything else that was
24 said on our behalf concerning, you know, the neighborhood
25 and our property values . And that ' s it .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798 .0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
74
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
2 MS . NELLINGTON: Thank you.
3 MR. PALASZEWSKI : Good afternoon, gentlemen. My
4 name is Jerry Palaszewski , spelled P-A-L-A-S-Z-E-W-S-K-I .
5 A good Irish name . And I live at 13701 Wrangler Way.
6 You know, you gentlemen have heard some
7 compelling arguments on both sides of the fence today,
8 obviously for and against , and I really don' t envy you your
9 choice that you' re going to have to make in this situation
10 here . It' s going to be a hard choice .
11 But first of all , before I start , can I ask
12 everybody who' s in the audience who lives in Liberty Ranch
13 to stand up, please? Obviously you can see that the
14 majority of the audience here are affected members that
15 this substation is going to have an impact on. Thank you.
16 A lot of stuff has been said already, but the
17 only thing I' d like to say is that we are a very small part
18 of Weld County. Yes , we' re in Mead, Town of Mead, but
19 we' re also a very small part of Weld County.
20 In the big part of the picture, we' re not a whole
21 lot . Okay? But this substation and the installation of this
22 substation does not impact the entire community of - - or
23 the entire County of Weld. It impacts Liberty Ranch
24 directly. And everybody who' s in this room right here - - I
25 think I can speak to all of you -- is 100 percent opposed
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
75
1 to having this substation in our development .
2 Can it be moved? Yes . Let' s speak plainly. Can
3 it be moved? Yes, it can. What' s the biggest impact to
4 that cost? Okay? Everything boils down to money. Is it
5 for our community? You' ve heard testimony today that
6 United Power said they had the available power to feed our
7 development in here . Why is it going in now? Certainly
8 it' s not for us . It seems to be for all the other use that
9 has already been set - - that you guys have already
10 approved. Foster Lake, whichever one it is .
11 You know, and I don' t know - - I 'm just talking
12 off the top of my head - - I don' t know right now if
13 Lifebridge is part of this thing . Is it in your service
14 community? Well , there' s another compelling reason to have
15 a substation in the area right there .
16 Now, is it just because it' s available? That ' s
17 the only spot they could find? You know, that doesn' t cut
18 it with a lot of people . What I think everybody here is
19 asking for is some kind of alternative .
20 Does it need to be moved over to Foster Lake?
21 Maybe it does .
22 You know, DIA went out and bought millions of
23 acres and built an airport up there . You know as well as I
24 do that some fool is going to build a property right - -
25 some fool is going to build a house right next to the
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
76
1 property line, and they' re going to start complaining
2 because airplanes fly over them.
3 Well, that' s their choice . They knew that that
4 was there before they decided to build, or before they
5 started to buy that property. That' s what we' re asking for
6 is that right as part of Liberty Ranch. And us being
7 residents of Liberty Ranch, is to have that right to choose
8 where we want to live .
9 I also, at the same time, would never have moved
10 into that community if that substation was sitting there .
11 So that ' s all I have to say. Questions?
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, I have a question for you.
13 Some things that we've heard today are, "I wouldn' t have
14 bought into that neighborhood if I' d known that . " Clarify
15 for us a little bit . I mean, what is the main reason? Is
16 it safety, is it just property - - I mean, not just property
17 value, but is it property values? What - -
18 MR. PALASZEWSKI : It' s a combination of
19 everything. I don' t think I can stand up here and cite
20 one compelling reason more than anything else .
21 I 've been an electrician for 35 years, commercial
22 and industrial electrician. I appreciate what United
23 Power has to go through, in order to supply power for
24 communities, okay? In doing that, I see both sides of
25 this, okay?
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
77
1 Yet, at the same time, if it ' s in my community,
2 I'm going to lose my housing values , okay? It' s - - and
3 I 've seen evidence pretty much that it can happen.
4 The perceived dangers of EMF, you know, for every
5 person that comes up here and says "No, " you can find
6 another person that says "Yes . " So they kind of cancel
7 each other out . Okay?
8 But being an electrician, I do understand that
9 there is, you know, a very diminished part of EMF, okay?
10 That ' s why they keep their power lines so high up in the
11 air, because the electrical field is around the equipment .
12 And the farther away you get from the pieces of equipment,
13 the less it becomes . So is that a danger? Yes , or no, you
14 tell me, okay?
15 And the other big thing of this is not so much
16 EMF, would be safety. You know, sooner or later, some
17 curious kid is going to go play somewhere . It' s up to the
18 parents to control their kids and teaching them to stay
19 away from those kind of things, but you know, can it
20 happen? Sure it can. It' s like lightning can strike in
21 the same place sometimes , twice .
22 I think it' s a combination of everything, you
23 know, that ' s - - that everything rolled up into one is why
24 everybody' s opposed to having that thing in there,
25 including right of choice .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
78
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
2 MS . TRIPON: Hi , my name is Beverly Tripon. I
3 live at 13661 Wrangler Way, and I 'm the old person on the
4 street . I spent two - - we went 2 , 000 miles driving all
5 around Colorado when I decided I wanted to live here . The
6 second I saw that area, I knew that ' s where I wanted to
7 live . I knew that this is where I wanted to live forever .
8 I know now, if I had seen that power plant , my
9 first thought is health. I have this saying, if you talk
10 to 100 people, and they asked "Is it safe living that
11 close?" I think 80 would say "No . " I think the majority of
12 people believe that it ' s not safe .
13 If I drove down the street and saw it, number
14 one, the eyesore, house value, and health, I wouldn' t have
15 done it . I 'm just going to ask you guys, "Please say no. "
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else?
17 MS . DELAUDER: Good afternoon. Don DeLauder,
18 13681 Wrangler Way. I just want to respectfully request
19 that you deny this application. I agree with the majority
20 of what my neighbors say. We don' t want it .
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you.
22 MS . PAGE : My name is Barbara Page . I live at
23 2229 Nicholas Drive . I live in Johnstown. The pretty
24 little lady that was up here, she says she' s the old lady,
25 I 'm older than her . I'm her twin. I 'm two minutes older .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
79
1 I talked them into coming out here from
2 California, to move out here, and when she saw the
3 property she really wanted it desperately. I was going to
4 put my house up next -- this March, and move in. I won' t
5 move in now.
6 The one think that nobody has ever said anything
7 about this development and the power plant coming in, for
8 security reasons, I believe they' re going to have security
9 lights 24/7 up, and these are very bright lights . And most
10 of these people that live on Wrangler Way that are facing
11 west, they' re not going to get much sleep at night , having
12 lights glaring in their windows . Thank you .
13 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Anybody else?
14 MR. ROBERTS : My name is Joseph Roberts, and in
15 September I bought into Liberty Ranch for the same reason
16 that everybody else did, because of the beauty. And I have
17 to agree with everyone else out there . I' m totally against
18 the power station going that close to our neighborhood.
19 And I just want you to think about if someone was
20 putting it in your back yard, what would you think? So
21 that ' s all I can say.
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
23 MS . OKKERS : Hi, I 'm Jen Okkers, and I 'm at 13631
24 Wrangler Way and I represent the single side of Liberty
25 Ranch. And I' ve worked really hard. It ' s quite a - - I' ve
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
80
1 worked really hard to get where I' m at , and this is my
2 future, so I do ask that as an investment side, and health,
3 but as from the investment perspective I do - - I have put a
4 lot of eggs in this basket , and because of that I would - -
5 I' m on the opposition side, and just want to put that on
6 the record.
7 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
8 MS . LEWIS : Good afternoon. My name is Meg Lewis
9 and I live at 13662 Wrangler Way, and I just wanted you to
10 know that I agree with my neighbors . It' s a great street
11 to live on. It' s beautiful .
12 As you can see by the pictures that United Power
13 put up, there' s a lot of property that could be utilized
14 other than right up into our neighborhood and my neighbors
15 back yard. I' d just ask that you consider that when you
16 make your decision . Thank you.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
18 MR. BALDISPINO : Hello. My name is Eddie
19 Baldispino and I live at 13672 Wrangler Way, and I just - -
20 to give a little human point . I mean, you've seen all the
21 schematics and pictures , and you know, that doesn' t do it
22 justice . How many times do you take a picture and you' re
23 going, "I thought it was closer than that . " And that' s
24 what it is ; it' s pretty close . You know, those pictures
25 don' t do it justice, it ' s going to be right there in front
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
81
1 of us the whole time .
2 And it' s a great block. It' s a block that I want
3 to grow old at . So I don' t feel like moving anymore .
4 Tired, you know. Gray hair. But anyway, I just want to say
5 I 'm opposed to it , too . So thank you.
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: I have one question for you.
7 MR. BALDISPINO : Sure .
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s been brought up to the fact
9 that maybe moving it down south a little ways . I know you
10 can' t speak for your neighbors, or anything, but is that - -
11 to you, is that an option?
12 MR. BALDISPINO : I look at it like Jerry said.
13 You know, why us? Why not the new ones that are coming up?
14 You know, there' s two new communities . Why - - they have
15 the option then to choose . I want it more - - I don' t just
16 want it south. I want it out of there, you know.
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
18 Going once? Okay.
19 Actually, I' ll ask, is there a representative
20 from the Town of Mead that is here and would like to speak?
21 Okay. Seeing none, we will close the public portion now of
22 this hearing. If the applicant would like to come back up
23 and address any of the issues that you' ve heard, or - -
24 MR. HUBBUCK: There' s a lot of, obviously a lot
25 of emotion and a lot of eloquent speaking that has come
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
82
1 out . You know, some of the things that we' re taking a look
2 at , as hard as it is for either United Power or the
3 residents is obviously going to be the decision that you
4 have to make .
5 By taking a look at the area and the definition
6 that was laid out by Mr . Foster, basically there is no
7 space that would be able to fit a substation in that arena .
8 It doesn' t matter if you moved north or south, because
9 you' re taking a look at , primarily, a lot of residential
10 development .
11 When we' re in the planning process, we' re making
12 decisions based off the best information that we know at
13 that time, with general ideas . But we always have these
14 issues that pop up that were unplanned for . It ' s a - - you
15 try to plan the best that you possibly can and then you
16 hope that you' re about 75 percent correct, in some way,
17 shape or form.
18 And when you start achieving the growth level
19 that we've been achieving over the time, one thing I can
20 absolutely positively guarantee you, you' re not going to be
21 right . You' ll get - - you might get lucky; sometimes you
22 get unlucky.
23 If we had an idea of what the growth was going to
24 be when it was going to be, it would be ideal to be able to
25 go in, purchase property five and ten years into the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
83
1 future, and say, "This is where we need to go. " But we
2 don' t always necessarily need -- know where all that - -
3 how that' s going to develop.
4 We don' t see CDOT widening, necessarily, I-25 .
5 We don' t see the plan on a major arterial like Weld County
6 Road 7 . We don' t see, necessarily, the bridge enhancement
7 on Highway 66 , or that these things are going to happen.
8 So we try to make - - try to do the best that we
9 possibly can, and sometimes our best intentions come back
10 to - - you know, come back to always haunt people .
11 The other thing we' ve been hearing on this is ,
12 you know, we - - maybe the substation is needed in the area,
13 but we don' t want it in our back yard. We want to put it
14 over into this development . We want to put it over to
15 another development . We want to move it south. It doesn' t
16 affect them, but then it affects the people south.
17 There' s always going to be somebody that' s
18 affected. Everybody wants power; everybody wants their
19 lights to turn on when they turn on; everybody wants to get
20 their plasma screen TV' s . But they don' t necessarily
21 always want to see where that - - how that power gets to it .
22 That transmission line has obviously been there
23 for over 32 years . We' re talking about building a - -
24 wanting to build a proposed substation in Weld County to
25 help with, not only reliability and the quality of service,
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
84
1 but to keep on encouraging the economic development that is
2 occurring in that entire area .
3 And if we do not get the - - if we' re not -- if
4 this proposal is not accepted, we' re obviously going to
5 have to take a look at different options . And some of
6 those options may be including a moratorium on building
7 until we' re able to supply the power in that area, and
8 define what we need to do.
9 We don' t want to do that, but that may be the
10 real crux of it , as we' re trying to take a look at trying
11 to provide the level of service that we need - - that ' s
12 needed in that entire area. Not by us , but by the
13 residents, the businesses and everything that ' s coming in.
14 So you know, what we' re going to ask is obviously
15 that you accept this proposal so that we' re able to start
16 taking a look forward, start moving on, and start planning
17 for the future . Thank you.
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Any questions?
19 MR. HOLTON: What other locations did you look
20 at, besides Mead Crossing?
21 MR. HUBBUCK: We had - - we had conversations - -
22 when we started the process , actually the very first site
23 that we went on was the site where Liberty Ranch is . And
24 then our contractor that we had at that time basically
25 said, "Well, they started moving dirt and it' s planned. " So
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
85
1 we never even made it out there to talk to them.
2 The only other site where we had anybody that was
3 even remotely willing to talk to us was at - - was at the
4 Mead Business Park. And I was going to say, that' s - - that
5 was the reason why we primarily focused on that area .
6 We looked at another piece of property on the
7 east site of the Waterfront up against I-25 , but CDOT
8 actually acquired that land for drainage . We didn' t do any
9 thorough investigation into that , primarily obviously
10 because, again, CDOT had acquired that property.
11 When we went back, we had talked to the developer
12 of Waterfront, we talked to the developer of Kitely Farms ,
13 we - - although it' s heard opposite, we did talk to the
14 Hergenraters on their project, or potentially moving - - you
15 know moving further west , and we were told they were happy
16 where it was at . They did not want to talk to us .
17 MR. HOLTON: I mean, it just seems like, right
18 there, given the opposition, no one was going to be there .
19 And whether you put it over by Foster Farms or anyplace
20 else, I mean, this couldn' t have been your first choice .
21 MR. HUBBUCK: No. Again, as I said, our first
22 choice was working - - trying to work with the Mead Crossing
23 people, but there was a lot of complexities . They' re not
24 returning our phone calls , not returning information,
25 trying to get pricing. CDOT had problems even dealing with
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
86
1 them when they were trying to acquire their property just
2 for additional right-of-way. So I mean, they were not easy
3 to communicate with, and to try to get information back out
4 of . So I mean, this was not necessarily our first choice .
5 Even though we do have the rights for
6 condemnation, it' s not a way to build relationships , and
7 we try to avoid that at all costs . And that' s the reason
8 why one of our criteria is trying to find an agreeable
9 landowner .
10 And you know, obviously depending on - - you know,
11 on location, you know, City of Longmont did not comment , as
12 an example . But in one of the City of Longmont' s plans is
13 potentially widening the reservoir, the holding tank - - the
14 holding pond that' s down there . Well, that move - - if we
15 move south, it could potentially put us right basically
16 where they' re planning, so we may all of a sudden get a
17 comment about that .
18 So we try to weigh all the options . We've worked
19 with the Town of Mead. They presented, actually, a letter
20 as late as last night to them to their town council
21 meeting, explaining all the options that we've looked at ,
22 what we' re looking at doing for at least basically the
23 landscaping and the aesthetic values .
24 We also answered the question about - - somebody
25 had a question about security lighting. Yes, there' s
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
87
1 lights in the sub . There are motion sensors . When the
2 sensors go off , it sends an alarm to - - we' ll send back an
3 alarm to dispatch, so that we know something' s going on
4 within the substation.
5 They' re not on all night . They' re only on when
6 it picks up motion within the substation. That is a safety
7 requirement , not only for people that are in the
8 substation, but also for the copper theft and the other
9 items that have been hitting the utility industry with the
10 price of metals over the last two, three years .
11 MR. GRAND : I have a question.
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
13 MR. GRAND : On this January 29th, letter, 2004 ,
14 when Mr . Meyer expresses his ability to provide plenty of
15 service and power, has there been any communication
16 subsequent to that indicating that a need for power would
17 be an issue at this location?
18 MR. HUBBUCK: We' re - - we get these, what we call
19 "will-serve letters, " basically routinely, because they' re
20 needing those a lot of times for their financing aspects .
21 MR. GRAND: Mm-hmm.
22 MR. HUBBUCK: Anything, basically, we can get
23 power to and there may be, unfortunately an associated cost
24 to that . So since they - - generally speaking, if somebody
25 comes to us and they say, "We want you to -- we need
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
88
1 power, " we' re going to work to get you that - - get you
2 that power.
3 It does not say that we' re not going to have to
4 build more infrastructure . It does not say that we' re
5 going to have to build a substation. What it says is , can
6 we get power to that area, and the answer is yes, we can,
7 but there may be additional work that' s going to have to
8 get along.
9 MR. GRAND : The letter doesn' t say?
10 MR. HUBBUCK: The letter does not say that,
11 correct .
12 MR. GRAND : Thank you.
13 MR. BERRYMAN: I guess my question would kind of
14 go back to my earlier question. On the Slader property, I
15 mean, you had kind of given us some reasons - -
16 MR. HUBBUCK: Mm-hmm.
17 MR. BERRYMAN: - - as to why you' re locating the
18 proposed substation where you are . But what flexibility do
19 you have, for instance to, as some have proposed, to go
20 further south, you know, just to give some greater distance
21 between the current location and a location that might be
22 more acceptable to the complainant .
23 MR. HUBBUCK: Well, primarily right now, we have
24 an agreeable landowner where it' s located. If we start
25 moving it farther south then where it is actually proposed
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
89
1 right now, we lose an agreeable landowner . And all that we
2 end up doing is moving the who other people who' s effected.
3 If you take a look at -- if we need six and a half acres of
4 land, and you just are moving down at six and one half
5 acres you start getting some funny land pieces . What does
6 that enable her ability to do, at any particular point with
7 whatever she decides to do on that property. So there' s a
8 lot of those things that are obviously taken effect and
9 primarily in this one is an agreeable landowner. We've
10 pushed it basically as far south as would be allowed to
11 have an agreeable landowner .
12 MR. BERRYMAN: So you are saying that ' s the
13 potentially the only location that she is agreeable to have
14 that substation?
15 MR. HUBBUCK: that is the only location that she
16 is agreeable to have . Correct .
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any more questions for the
18 applicant? Okay. Thank you very much.
19 MR. HUBBUCK: Thank you.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: We may have you back up to answer
21 some more . Let' s go, actually, back to the Public Health.
22 Do you have any comments that you heard, or - -
23 MS . SMITH : I do . Pam Smith, Weld County Health
24 Department . I just wanted to let you know I did some
25 research on line while we were hearing other people speak.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
90
1 And just to give you some background information on the
2 health aspects of it, just so you have a counterbalance to
3 the other things that you've heard, I did not find any peer
4 review articles or any kind of documentation that showed
5 there were any significant health effects from electro-
6 magnetic fields .
7 In fact , what I'm citing comes from an EPA study
8 in 1992 , and the article was called EMF in Your Back Yard.
9 And what it did is it reviewed the electromagnetic fields
10 of some common household appliances at six inches and found
11 that they were stronger than the typical electromagnetic
12 fields that you would receive standing on the ground below
13 or near a power station.
14 What it said was that most of your fields , your
15 activity was going to be at the source, and as you got away
16 from it, which makes sense - - as you got away from it, the
17 background level - - that actually the fields reduced to
18 what you would find as normal background levels .
19 So just to give you a counterpoint there . I
20 talked to Trevor, too, about it to make sure that I was on
21 track with what I was finding. And he said that that was
22 consistent with what he knows about this research, so if
23 anyone has any scientific documentation, we would love to
24 have that, because that' s just not what we' re finding .
25 And I know that , Char' s done some research in the
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
91
1 past on this also. And in fact, some of the - - what they
2 use as a standard is two milligauss, as a magnetic field
3 level . It doesn' t mean that that' s a safety threshold.
4 It' s just a cutoff point .
5 If you' re less than two, you' re considered to be
6 unexposed, and if you' re over two, you' re considered to be
7 exposed. And the typical American home has an average range
8 of point 9 milligauss . And what they found was some of the
9 appliances at six inches, a blender had 30 milligauss , a
10 can opener had 500 , a coffee maker had four, a hair dryer
11 was one, a microwave was 100 , and an electric oven was
12 four . I didn' t find anything on what a cell phone would
13 be, ` cause I was trying to track that down, but I didn' t
14 find anything on that .
15 This is just some information for you to have as
16 a counterpoint on the health effects . We just don' t - - we
17 don' t have any peer review pressure - - research that says
18 that there is a significant health effect .
19 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Unfortunately
20 we can' t take more public testimony. We will, at the end
21 of the meeting, though, if you do have information, you can
22 give it to our staff, but unfortunately we can' t take more
23 testimony. Any other questions . Yes, Bob .
24 MR. GRAND : I have a question for our attorney.
25 Being an old, new guy, the exact process of this approval
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
92
1 or denial , and how that relates to the - - some of the
2 issues that - - I think the attorney' s name is Foster - -
3 brought, in terms of the notice to the City of Mead' s
4 Planning Commission . Two questions .
5 First question is : what ' s the process with us at
6 this point? If it ' s yay or nay, is there an approval
7 process? Is there a - - what ' s the option for the folks who
8 aren' t happy with whatever that decision is?
9 MR. BARKER: Sure . The process is the one in
10 which under the, in essence, the USR for a major facility
11 of a public utility that comes to you, pursuant to the
12 state statute, it requires that you' re the ones that
13 hear that . It does not go on to the Board of County
14 Commissioners, for them to hear a new case, in essence .
15 You do that with your typical USR where you make
16 recommendations for approval or denial , and the Board of
17 County Commissioners makes that decision. So you' re the
18 final hearing officer, in essence, for the county, for the
19 purpose of hearing the case de novo, which means a new
20 case .
21 We have never had a situation, but I suppose
22 pursuant to our Home Rule Charter, every case can be
23 appealed to the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to
24 the charter . And so it could be that an appeal would be
25 taken by either side to the Board of County Commissioners ,
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
93
1 and I think it would be up to the board to determine
2 whether or not that is something that they would hear,
3 pursuant to the charter, and then also if they want to hear
4 that case . The code does not require that . So in essence,
5 that' s it .
6 One thing that I do want to mention is that about
7 five or six years ago there was a statutory change that
8 any power company - - or in essence, any power company is
9 regulated by the PUC, has the ability to go ahead and - -
10 in certain circumstance - - appeal any denial by a local
11 governmental entity to the PUC for their review. And that
12 is something that is statutorily available . So that' s that
13 process .
14 Your second question was regarding the - -
15 MR. GRAND: The issues brought up by - -
16 MR. BARKER: Mr. Foster?
17 MR. GRAND : - - the attorney. Yes .
18 MR. BARKER: Okay.
19 MR. GRAND : Relative to the question of whether
20 proper notice was given to the Mead Planning Department,
21 and whether we have any responsibility there to follow up.
22 MR. BARKER: Well , I - - I guess I take exception
23 to the issue that I believe was being proposed, which is
24 sending notice to the town does not constitute notice to
25 the Planning Commission . If that' s the standard, then
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
94
1 we' ve been doing it wrong for years .
2 Typically for the towns , we send something to
3 them and ask their Planning Commission to review. And
4 even though we send it to the town, if it' s not directly
5 addressed to the planning commission, I think that that is
6 something that is diminimus .
7 It' s gotten there, and you know, the response to
8 that is , we get responses from municipalities all the time
9 in cases like this . And they say - - well, from their
10 planning commissions, and to say, well , that doesn' t
11 constitute notice or doesn' t act as notice, if it' s not
12 addressed to them, I believe, is inconsistent with our
13 experience . So I 'm going to say that sending it to the
14 town was sufficient for notice purposes .
15 MR. GRAND: Thank you.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Any other questions for staff, or
17 for the applicant . Okay. Let' s go through and we' ll make
18 the changes that staff has recommended, and then we' ll go
19 into more discussion.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: You want to do it?
21 MR. HOLTON: I' d make a motion that we modify and
22 amend K. 7 , on page 6 , as per staff recommendation.
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
24 MR. LAWLEY: Second.
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: It' s been moved by Tom, seconded
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
95
1 by Mark to revise K. 7 on page 7 to reflect the
2 classification of the road as a collector status and the
3 requirement of 110 feet right-of-way. All those in favor
4 say "Aye . "
5 VOICES : Aye .
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Opposed? Motion carries . Staff ,
7 are there any other comments or changes to the development
8 standards?
9 [No audible response . ]
10 Okay. Would the applicant please come to the
11 microphone? Have you read the development standards and
12 the conditions of approval as amended and are you in favor
13 of those?
14 MR. HUBBUCK: Yes , I have, and yes, we' re in
15 favor of those .
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you very much.
17 Okay, I guess we' ve got some discussion. I just
18 want to thank the applicant for their presentation and I
19 want to thank the public for your participation in this .
20 It' s been a perfect example of how the system works . I
21 mean, you guys presented a very good case, and we' ve got a
22 very tough decision here that we need to get on. So I ' d
23 just like to thank both parties involved.
24 So commissioners, how do you feel? Go ahead,
25 Bob .
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
96
1 MR. GRAND : Well, I'm a United Power customer
2 over in Keenesburg, and United Power has always been a good
3 community partner . I recognize that they' ve probably been
4 very aggressive in getting the best value for the piece of
5 property but my concern level is, is that we' re asking the
6 folks in this community to absorb that cost saving as an
7 impact to their value of their house, and I think that' s
8 a concern.
9 I think their turnout today was good. I think
10 their concern, they presented a very positive presentation,
11 and I think in terms of the United Power, we all recognize
12 we have to have power to grow and to provide for the jobs
13 that we need, but I think this really puts an unfair burden
14 on the folks in that location in terms of direct impact .
15 That' ll mean, in my view, probably a greater
16 expense to every other United Power customer, including
17 them, but I think their consideration in this is such that
18 they bought in good faith, United Power planned in good
19 faith. As we say, you know "Man plans , God laughs, " but
20 bottom line is , the direct impact on these people I think
21 is unreasonable .
22 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Anybody else? Mark, you
23 want to - -
24 MR. LAWLEY: Obviously the impact and growth - -
25 or growth in this end of the county is one that we' re all
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
97
1 going to have to deal with in the future, or continue to
2 deal with in the future and deal with now.
3 It ' s easy to through out the word "condemnation"
4 except when it' s your land that' s being condemned. As a
5 property owner, I don' t think I would want a utilities
6 company to approach me and tell me that my land could be
7 condemned, especially when I had other - - there were other
8 landowners in the area that were willing to negotiate in
9 good faith on my piece of property.
10 I understand the concerns of the people in the
11 community, but there was - - but someone was generating that
12 power, some substation was generating that power before
13 they moved in. They reaped the benefits of that .
14 There' s other development coming in, so it' s
15 going to have to - - the growth is going to have to be
16 addressed one way or another . I' ll just leave it at that .
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Tom, any comment?
18 MR. HOLTON: Yeah. I live by a substation, and I
19 live by a huge power line, and I don' t think they' re nearly
20 as bad as what they' re perceived to be .
21 On the other hand, I find it amazing that United
22 Power chose this location, when you can look at a map and
23 there' s other locations there . And if I was in charge of
24 this deal , being a businessman, I ' d take the easiest route,
25 and I don' t think this was the easiest route .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
98
1 You know, it puts everybody, and especially this
2 planning commission, in a bad position, ` cause I know we
3 need the power over there . It' s got to be done . It ' s
4 going to have to be put there someplace . But to put it
5 there, I'm just not sure I 'm in favor of that . I haven' t
6 made a decision yet, but I don' t like being put in this
7 position.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. I'm also torn
9 on the impacts of the substation. I guess I feel like
10 safety-wise, to me that ' s really not that big of a concern.
11 I think we've had testimony from the staff and from the
12 applicant that is - - that has shown that safety-wise, there
13 are a lot of other things that are going to affect - -
14 affect your health more so than this substation.
15 The property values is something that I think
16 is a concern, but perhaps that ' s - - that ' s where the
17 subdivision and the Realtors need to get together and
18 show that if a buyer comes in and is concerned about
19 safety, to have the articles, to have the power, or to
20 have the information to show that it ' s not a concern.
21 I would agree with Commissioner Holton that it' s
22 a tough position to be in.
23 MR. BARKER: If I just might interject . I think
24 that I 'm hearing your comments . Again, any motion and your
25 findings, you need to make findings of fact to go on the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798 .0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
99
1 record, and I ' d steer those toward those standards that
2 have been talked about extensively in section 23-2-400 .
3 One of those - - I mean, I don' t see any specific
4 standard that is there that deals with property values .
5 The one that comes about as close as any would be in
6 subparagraph (e) that deals with the health, safety and
7 welfare of the inhabitants . That is not defined in our
8 code, and it really would be up to you how you would define
9 that, but there is no specific criteria in that section
10 dealing with de-valuation of properties .
11 Also, you need to take a look at the Section 420 ,
12 which deals with Mead. And again, and I didn' t mean to cut
13 you off - -
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: That ' s okay.
15 MR. BARKER: - - but I do want to remind you that
16 that' s the criteria, and you' re making a findings of fact
17 that' s going on the record, and for both sides . I think
18 it' s important that you stick to those criteria, and ask
19 that you do so.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: Wouldn' t Section 23-2-400 (b)
21 that states that " . . . the facility will not have an undue
22 adverse effect on existing and future development of the
23 surrounding areas . . . " wouldn' t that constitute value?
24 MR. BARKER: It doesn' t specifically say it has
25 an adverse effect on property values .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
100
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right .
2 MR. GRAND : But I think the testimony of the
3 folks that was rather eloquent in some areas, would
4 certainly indicate that in their view, their welfare is
5 significantly impacted.
6 MR. BARKER: Okay. That ' s - -
7 MR. GRAND: However you define that .
8 MR. BARKER: Yeah. That' s really up to you as
9 to how you define that . And I 'm not saying that that' s
10 something that - - you know, definitely that testimony
11 isn' t to be considered when you consider welfare of the
12 inhabitants . I' m not saying that it is . That' s up to you
13 to define it .
14 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. I guess I' m
15 finished. Nick?
16 MR. BERRYMAN: Well, I guess with that comment it
17 changes things a little bit . I suppose I would say that I
18 think it could be reasonably expected that there is a need
19 for additional power in the area, and whether or not it' s
20 been proven at this point, or not, I think we all recognize
21 that it will need to be there at some point . And of
22 course, that does have to go somewhere .
23 I guess my biggest concern - - and I 'm not sure if
24 I can quite tie it to the point of fact that Bruce had
25 mentioned earlier, but I guess I ' d blow it down to there
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
101
1 would be an impact on the effect upon the Liberty Ranch
2 subdivision. And of course, that' s kind of open to, I
3 guess, our definitions of the terms being used here;
4 welfare or what have you.
5 But I guess, again, you know, there - - I believe
6 there has been some sort of need demonstrated toward this
7 type of facility.
8 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you . Okay. Do you
9 want to entertain a motion and - - before I ask for the
10 vote, I' ll give you a couple of minutes to go through some
11 of these codes, so that when you do place your vote, that
12 perhaps you can reference some of the sections of the code
13 on how you made your decision.
14 Let' s take a five-minute recess, and we' ll - -
15 [Recess taken. ]
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Getting back to order . Before we
17 get into the motion and discussion anymore, I ' d like to go
18 on the record and just ask for legal counsel on the best
19 way - - or just some instructions on how to go about making
20 the motions in our voting process .
21 MR. BARKER: Sure . The best way to go ahead and
22 do that is typically on a USR, you know, the staff is
23 saying the recommendation for approval .
24 I think your - - the habit of the planning
25 commission has been motion to approve based upon the
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
102
1 planning department' s recommendations as set forth in the
2 record. Usually in those we' ll go through all of those
3 elements .
4 Typically what we do is if it' s going to be
5 contrary to that recommendation, we ask that you go through
6 with that criteria and spell out exactly if your motion is
7 to deny, and the recommendation has been to approve, in
8 essence it' s better to go ahead and make it a full record
9 as to what the elements are, as to why you think that the
10 burden hasn' t been made as to the denial .
11 It happens in the reverse, too. If the
12 recommendation is to deny, they give, you know, full
13 reasons why there was a recommendation to deny. And if
14 you' re, instead have a motion to approve, it' s always good
15 to go on record with every one of those criteria and
16 elements as to why you think either they have met the
17 burden or haven' t met the burden, whatever it might be .
18 I think in this instance, it would be best, at
19 this point , to go ahead and go through those criteria, if
20 you can. I ' d prefer to have that on the record so that you
21 can be very clear what it is, why you think that the
22 criteria either has been met - - burden of proof either has
23 been met or not been met , and the motion maker ought to go
24 through those elements to make it clear on the record, as
25 to why the reason is for that motion.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
103
1 And then the second, if you echo those things,
2 you can say that , or if you have anything else to add, that
3 would be fine to add that .
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Before we do
5 that , has staff been given any new information to - - from
6 staff or from public , to - - as far as articles or any
7 current information that needs to be shared?
8 MR. BARKER: Mr . Chairman, there was a member of
9 the public who had, at our break, came up and provided me
10 with a copy of some information that was directly on the
11 issue that Pam brought up on the -- I guess the electronic
12 or magnetic field issue . And so at this point, it ' s at
13 your discretion if you' d like to accept that or not .
14 Your public testimony has been closed, and that
15 typically is when it ' s supposed to come in.
16 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. If the person still has
17 that, we would be willing to accept that information.
18 MR. FOSTER: And again, it' s being submitted on
19 behalf of some neighbors who had done their own research.
20 Again, just to re-emphasize the point , that there is no
21 certainty. I don' t think anybody was assuming that there
22 was certainty of the (inaudible) .
23 MR. CHAIRMAN: And we' ll pass that information
24 down the line and review it before we make a vote . So
25 while we' re waiting for that information, I think we can
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
104
1 still work on a motion.
2 [Off microphone discussion. Inaudible . ]
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, do you want to take a shot at
4 making a motion?
5 MR. GRAND : I can do that .
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
7 MR. GRAND: Mr . Chairman, I would move to deny
8 USR-1629 , specifically looking at Section 20 of the code,
9 Section 23-2-400 . C, "Where the design of the proposed
10 facility mitigates negative impacts on the surrounding area
11 to the greatest extent feasible . " I don' t believe that ' s
12 been explored to the full possibility.
13 Section E, Section 23-2-400 . E, we' re " . . . to
14 insure the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants of
15 Weld County would be protected, and to mitigate or minimize
16 any potential adverse impacts from the proposed facility. "
17 Again, I don' t think that' s been adequately addressed.
18 Section 23-2-400 .G where " . . . all reasonable
19 alternatives to the proposal have been adequately assessed
20 that the proposed actions are consistent with the best
21 interests of the people of Weld County, and represents a
22 balanced use of resources in the affected area . " I am not
23 convinced that is true .
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Is there a second?
25 MR. HOLTON: Second.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798 .0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
105
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Who seconded that?
2 MR. HOLTON: Me .
3 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. It' s been moved by Robert
4 and seconded by Tom to deny USR-1629 based on the criteria
5 stated in the motion. Before we vote, we will have a
6 chance to - - for discussion, if anybody would like to argue
7 or support the motion.
8 MR. GRAND : I just offered it, I think there' s
9 no - - oh, sorry.
10 MR. CHAIRMAN: No, that' s okay. Go ahead.
11 MR. GRAND: I think there' s a need for the power .
12 That' s not the issue . I just don' t think these people
13 should be singled out , as opposed to the three points in
14 the code that I mentioned. To me, that' s a penalty that as
15 citizens of the county, they should look to us for
16 consideration for their welfare .
17 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, I' ll go on the record as
18 stating that I would probably dis- - - I am going to
19 disagree with you on that . That Section 23-2-400 says the
20 facility will not have an undue adverse effect on existing
21 and future development of the surrounding area as set forth
22 in applicable master plans .
23 This proposal , I may have a, in my opinion, a
24 small effect, but I don' t see it as an undue adverse effect
25 on the future development . I believe most of the concerns
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
106
1 can be mitigated.
2 The applicant in section - - or section of the
3 code, 23-4-440 that requires - - or shows that the applicant
4 show need for the facility. I think that they have done
5 that properly. They have shown the growth that is outlined
6 in that area, and the need to go along with it is obvious
7 with that many new subdivisions, residences and businesses
8 planned in the area.
9 Section 23-2-400 . E, the applicant has agreed to
10 implement any reasonable, major scheme necessary to insure
11 health, safety and welfare . I believe that they have shown
12 that the health and safety of the residents of Weld County
13 are not going to be - - what sort of - - are not going to - -
14 that health and safety is not going to be an issue on this
15 substation.
16 All reasonable alternatives to the proposal have
17 been adequately assessed. Yes, I believe that they - - that
18 you have to be reasonable in that situation. You can' t
19 just pick out a point on the map and say, "Well , it would
20 be better right here . "
21 It has to be -- I believe that they' ve had their
22 locations near the transmission lines . They've had a
23 couple other locations that have been selected and have not
24 come to fruition. They have a location that they have a
25 willing participant, and no other alternatives have arisen.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
107
1 MR. BERRYMAN: I think I might chime in here and
2 probably comment and say that I would agree with the point
3 that Doug had made . However, my one concern would boil
4 down to the - - I think it ' s point in 23 -2-400 .B with the
5 language where it talks about undue adverse effect .
6 And whether or not that has been demonstrated here in
7 this case .
8 I suppose I would like to throw it out there for
9 discussion amongst the board here to maybe, at least, try
10 to reach a little bit more consensus on how we define that
11 language, and ultimately, you know, how we interpret that .
12 MR. CHAIRMAN: As far as when the - -
13 MR. BERRYMAN: Well , in terms of , you know, I
14 guess contributing to the ultimate decision here . We
15 certainly have a situation where - - I think there' s no
16 doubt an impact is going to be, you know, with the Liberty
17 Ranch subdivision.
18 However, do those concerns of the residents
19 there, do they meet - - I guess, the - - I guess criteria
20 for what we would term an undue, adverse effect for their
21 properties .
22 MR. HOLTON: I guess I'm uncomfortable with doing
23 this motion the way we' re doing it . I don' t necessarily
24 agree with Bob on, you know, his first two. I do agree
25 with 23-2-400 .G, so how do we reconcile that? I mean, I
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
108
1 can' t argue for his - - for 400 .B, or what was the other
2 one, E?
3 MR. GRAND : C and E .
4 MR. BARKER: I think the way you reconcile it is ,
5 you have a vote, and in essence you' ve got a motion and a
6 second. You have to have a vote on that .
7 And that really comes down to the way however you
8 feel that that has been - - that those items have been
9 addressed. Either you agree with that they have been - -
10 the burden of proof has been met, or you disagree that the
11 burden of proof has been met . I think the motion is that ,
12 in fact , the burden of proof has not been met, and that ' s
13 really the issue . Your discussion is regarding that at the
14 present time .
15 MR. CHAIRMAN: And not necessarily that you agree
16 with all three portions - -
17 MR. BARKER: You don' t have to agree with
18 everything that' s there . It' s really up to you. Again,
19 the way you resolve that is , you have a vote on the motion.
20 MR. CHAIRMAN: So even if it was - - even if we
21 disagreed with one of his points for his reasoning for
22 making the motion, we can still vote with him?
23 MR. BARKER: Correct . Remember that the
24 standards are ones that I think Mr . Foster put it very
25 well, in that every one of those criteria needs to be met .
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
109
1 You know, and so those - - those are criteria you can' t just
2 pick and choose which ones they' ve met the burden of proof
3 on. In essence it' s saying, all of those need to be
4 proofed up .
5 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.
6 MR. LAWLEY: I have a question, I guess, and I
7 guess I have a procedural . I have a question for the
8 applicant, if that' s possible, but --
9 MR. BARKER: It ' s up to the Chair how you' d like
10 to approach that . If you have a question for the applicant
11 specifically about something, you can do that , or if you' re
12 thinking that you' re, you know, finished taking testimony
13 from every side, it' s up to you how you' d like to address
14 it . Typically, with the Board of County Commissioners,
15 once the motion has been made and a second, that' s pretty
16 much it . It' s discussion amongst yourselves and based upon
17 what you' ve heard up to that point .
18 MR. CHAIRMAN: Would that testimony sway your
19 vote one way or the other?
20 MR. LAWLEY: Yeah, but I' ll ask the rest of the
21 commissioners . I was going through my notes, and I did not
22 find anything that indicated that the applicant had
23 exhausted all the other options in the area, as far as
24 additional sites . Bob, I don' t know if I missed something
25 or whether they had exhausted that .
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
110
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Well , my recollection was that the
2 applicant stated that they have exhausted all of their
3 sites now - -
4 MR. BERRYMAN: All of the sites that they
5 contacted. Not necessarily every site in the - -
6 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right . And that' s - -
7 MR. LAWLEY: I think the definition was an
8 agreeable seller .
9 MR. CHAIRMAN: Right . And that ' s up to the board
10 to decide is, did they go far enough? Yes , they had - -
11 they had some sites that did not work out , they did contact
12 people but it' s up to - - at this point , they have - - the
13 applicant has said they have exhausted all of their
14 options . It is up to us as the board to decide if under
15 G, Section 23-2-400 , if all reasonable alternatives have
16 been met .
17 MR. BERRYMAN: And I think, you know, the
18 operative word here, to me, would be "reasonable
19 alternatives . "
20 MALE VOICE : Mr . Chairman, call for the question .
21 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Go ahead and poll the board
22 for a vote .
23 MR. BARKER: You may want to restate the motion.
24 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Yes .
25 MR. GRAND: Is it up to me to do that?
L-Mac R&T 303.798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
111
1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have that record? No.
2 Okay. Do you - -
3 CLERK: (Inaudible - overspeak) pick up any - -
4 MR. CHAIRMAN: Bob, can you restate your motion?
5 MR. GRAND : I move to deny USR-1629 based upon
6 the evaluations - -
7 MR. BARKER: Based upon the things that you
8 stated.
9 MR. GRAND : -- of my view of Section 23-2-400 . C,
10 Section 23-2-400 . E, and Section 23-2-400 .G.
I1 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Thank you. Now, please
12 poll the board.
13 CLERK: Berryman - no; Grand - yes ; Lawley - yes ,
14 with comment - -
15 MR. LAWLEY: Citing 23 -2-400 .G, I believe there' s
16 probably other areas that they could look at, or should
17 exhaust . Despite my views on condemnation, I think that
18 it' s incumbent upon them to look at exhausting other - - or
19 looking at other landowners for another site .
20 CLERK: Holton - yes; Ochsner - no, with comment .
21 MR. OCHSNER: I believe that the applicant has
22 proven Section 23-2-400 , all items . Motion fails - - I mean
23 motion passes that it fails . You want another break?
24 MALE VOICE : Yes .
25 MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay. Five minute break.
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
112
• 1 [End of discussion and action on USR-1629 . ]
2 CERTIFICATE
3 STATE OF COLORADO )
4 ) ss
5 COUNTY OF ARAPAHOE)
6
7 I , Laura M. Machen, an independent transcriber and
8 notary public within and for the State of Colorado, certify
9 the foregoing transcript of the digitally recorded
10 proceedings, In Re: Weld County Planning Commission
11 Meeting, January 15, 2008, Case No. USR-1629 , and as
12 further set forth on page one . The transcription, dependent
13 upon recording clarity, is true/accurate with special
• 14 exceptions (s) of any or all precise identification of
15 speakers, and/or correct spelling or any given/spoken
16 proper name or acronym.
17 Dated this 6th day of May, 2008 .
18
19
20
21 ,Or( Cra-e416
22 My commission expires June 21 , 2008
23 ORIGINAL 4)--
24 CERTIFIED COPY ( )
25
• 26
L-Mac R&T 303 .798.0380 Weld Cty. Planning Commission 1/15/08
•
Transcript contains digital
CD recording of Planning
Commission Hearing on
January 15, 2008
•
Please see original in file
•
Hello