The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20081011.tiff November 15, 2007 ��i (-0 k 't e cc K, 1 Q&�/ • Address / 370)3 di/e >�MvE, 7i C , /)o i/ vat,: ?lamming Department C/ 70 -7ax_ 7YS3 � �, � �` 7 UILDING •ear weld county commissioners NU� 1 4 2007 It is with great concern as community members (Grandparents, parents, children, family mertlbgr§;and ike) that we offer our sincerest efforts in requesting that the United Power substation not be approved for' thin its currently proposed/requested location. As with most electrical power proposals,we do have concerns with the potential for an increased risk of health factors, including cancer. For example, The EMF Research and Public Information Dissemination Program(EMF RAPID)of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the US determined that exposure to extremely low frequency EMF is a"possible"cancer hazard;however,in 2001,the International Agency for Research on Cancer issued a monograph announcing that as a possible carcinogen, extremely low frequency magnetic fields have statistically been linked to childhood Leukemia. Although not conclusively linked at this time,higher incidents of cancer development have been documented not just among children,but also among adult residents who live or work near high voltage power lines. We recognize the fact that"factual"and/or"concretely conclusive"results have not been made about health risks pertaining to such structures.Yet again,as people connected to one another in a variety of ways,we cannot allow ourselves to accept this for the sake of our children and families'future. Take the following statement from October 2001, which the World Health Organization endorsed concerns with regard to exposure to power line EMF. It was stated that countries should be considering the exposure to people when making decisions regarding the sitting of power lines. Now for such a large and well-respected organization as the WHO,why would such statements be made unless there were obvious concerns. If one were to simply peruse the intemet for even a fraction of time,their concerns would rise after ing the numerous conclusions that have been drawn in reference to their health risks connected to power lines and lirctures.Not only that, but the continuing scientific uncertainty over the adverse health consequences of EMFs must absolutely not be ruled out. Not only are health concerns an issue for us,however,so are the studies that explain that the development of power lines adversely affect the value of property values. Such an example may be found in the article, "Properties Near Power Lines and Valuation Issues: Condemnation or Inverse Condemnation?," The author found that general public perception that EMFs were harmful uniformly drove the values of adjacent property downwards. Furthermore,real estate professionals, even those performing studies on behalf of the power line companies themselves,are continuing to conclude that power lines are bad for property values. The examples are endless;In 1995,two academics named Stanley Hamilton and Gregory Schwan published a highly empirical study of residential home prices in Vancouver,British Columbia.The study contrasted sales in four separate Vancouver neighborhoods of residences adjacent to power lines of 60kV or greater from 1985 to 1991. The sample size was impressive, containing 12,907 transactions in the four study areas.The percentage decreases in property values were not as great as those originally measured in the Houston area in this author's 1993 study. Hamilton/Schwann nevertheless concluded to an undeniable drop in value: 'We fmd that properties adjacent to a line lose 6.3 percent of their value due to proximity and the visual impact."6 The well-supported findings presented in this article lead one to conclude that the depressing effect power lines have on property values is not merely an American phenomenon. Whether it is the concern for health related issues or the possibility of a decrease in the value of our properties, we feel that we are offering a valid argument against the development of the power sub-station. We recognize the need for such a structure, but feel that such considerations must be heard,especially when attempting to build within less than 500 feet of a newly developed conununity. As family members yourselves,please take the time to place yourselves in our shoes.We 41 I that we are making a reasonable request,especially considering that this proposed facility was not originally proposed alone in place when our homes were completed. EXHIBIT 2008-1011 1 • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency(Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately V2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately ' mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Since ly (Arc 970-7o - 0S's 3 (/ Address: / 3 7 3 etV/ utt (O, BoS Weld Cob?l; -!nr 3or,utment • SOUL-1,JHT BUILDING NOV 1 9 2007 RECWWED • • • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/ mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. ▪ Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately 'fa mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Si erely • F QLL Address: 1,3 0 1 ) LOi l l�l tin W �� y 1 1 \. Ld,, Co 5L' 1 • „' r , ., Planning Department DUILDING NOV 1 9 2007 WED • • • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/2 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely (Jt&S 124 P c �t e2e�®— 7014-7(0 0359 137'13 ,1-81,L L-ee //fi,�_n� Address: r (O aocga. Weld County Planning Department • 0'IT "$' CT BUILDING NOV 19 2007 RECEIVED • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The liming of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional lime to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/2 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely, /2/7 Address: > 7� /flf r(�ia� Weld County Planning Department ¶0'iru' ''ST RIJILDING • NOV E Pi. 2007(� u a. lL.D • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately 1/2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/z mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely T-PdLAc/ clitt trtit_ Address: /3682 if-D/Ye-n ' "2ea a7 Cr°74'Z • Weld C Department s0 NOV i 2007 sv.a�-.s 1 V D • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately / mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately /z mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely Address: I3Cogi 2- La1 atiner co AsaM d ect, Ce o54Z fJ Weld Li D3sartment BIJiLDING NOV I P 2007 • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/ mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/ mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely n 1/0 Address: 13 G 42 vJrost tf ( R64 Co WS4 Weld County Planning Department c(Hrl ,; t GJ LDING • NOV r P 2007 • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately 1/2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/2 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely ( mac ,. (cc� <3 (12_57) Address: ) U)r 2/e-x' �AJy• L1IE.A ( q' invent J 2907 • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately / mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 201h hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/2 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely L Address: Jy (du fuA-,C, Ler Wk, ! Ac c (u g 5 �Z • Weld County P'enring Department sotm `5 F( BUftDING v0'1 1 5 ZGGi ", ir �,4.� df g_ 411. . TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/s mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately Y2 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely "A I .5)• ,f2)t1S4 .11 /31x69 a (1) l-C/Ufce}1 Address: Wald t • ,>UILDING NOV d 2007 IED • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately 1/2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately 1 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely r /4”4071.) Address: /2 6 / //dn4 c/i 14 64b1 ed 1 Wald County lar�:n; Department • S J!!_+ G AV 1 2007 . ._y ; a • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/ mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/ mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely IJEl'�' L � �) of t te I Address l Z I,1 //t l bill Wr ti;; ii„eni NO P_ 2C07 ,y - , rk � i i , • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately '/2 mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about • whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately '/2 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely $R-O(e E. y dres W.°ld !s. ,[/ 9epnrlment JIG Nii''/ 7'07 • • • TO: WELD COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: RE: Case Number USR-1629, Site Specific Development Plan and Use by Special Review for a Major Facility of a Public Utility or Public Agency (Electrical Substation) Date: November 20, 2007 This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed United Power electrical substation which is to be located on County Road 5.5 approximately / mile south of Highway 66. As existing residents of the Liberty Ranch community, and constituents of Weld County, we are requesting that the Commission give full consideration to our objections. We offer the following concerns: The location selected by United Power is inappropriate. Liberty Ranch is a community that will eventually have over 400 homes, a large multi-use park, an elementary school, and small neighborhood commercial services. The substation is incompatible with residential uses, and will be located in an area that is targeted on the Weld County Comprehensive Plan as medium density residential development. The facility has the potential to diminish property values. The substation will be highly visible to anyone living in the community, or anyone entering or leaving the community. United Power has made only minimal attempts at visual mitigation. We believe this could reduce our ability to re-sell our property in the future, and may have a detrimental affect on our appraisal values. The timing of the facility is objectionable. Facilities of this nature are usually built prior to development occurring. We have been denied the ability to make an informed decision about . whether or not to purchase a home that is in proximity to a major utility facility. What other sites have been identified or considered? We understand that United Power has a desire and an obligation to improve their services, and to do so as economically as possible. However, it appears that United Power has selected the cheapest and easiest solution, at the expense of Liberty Ranch residents. We are recommending the following courses of action: • Continue the November 20th hearing for a minimum of 30 days. Residents need additional time to consider the full impact and facts of the facility. • Consider alternative locations. If the facility were located approximately 1 mile further south, in either the southwest or southeast corner of the Slater property, it would be a far more satisfactory site. Sincerely % /at l�'9619//A�" Address: /J '7,' 4//e4c' cer /c4.' it e-,0 6 dus%Z We, ^o ^ ;arimem` l Ui1_.Ji lNG 41) NOV HO? D http://www.powerlinefacts.com/Power Lin es_ant•operty_Values.htm • The following article was published by The Southwestern Legal Foundation in the Proceedings of the INSTITUTE ON PLANNING ZONING AND EMINENT DOMAIN,Municipal Legal Studies Center,Dallas,Texas,November 18-20, 1998;and The Urban Lawyer National Quarterly on State and Local Government Law,Spring 1999,Volume 31,Number 2. Power Lines and Property Values: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly David R Bolton, MM David R Bolton, Inc. Austin, Texas Kent A. Sick Womack, McClish, Wall& Sick, P.C. Austin, Texas :ant ?^0? 001. Abstract. This paper begins with a general review of major scientific and appraisal writings since 1993 on the subject of EMFs and their effect on real property value. Further, there is a brief examination of current cases, statutes, and municipal regulations on the subject. Finally, the authors explore the pros and cons of corridor valuation for expansion of existing utility easements, with an emphasis on the right-of-way marketing efforts of several major utility companies and using corridor sales data as opposed to traditional "at the fence" methods. § 1.02. Review of Original Conclusions. In 1993, one of the authors took a long look at the then-current relationship between electric transmission lines and surrounding real estate values. In the article, "Properties Near Power Lines and Valuation Issues: Condemnation or Inverse Condemnation?," this author presented a broad overview of the subject including the following: • An examination of scientific inquiry of the day concerning the existence of actual adverse effects of electromagnetic field radiation(EMF) from major transmission lines on human health; • Public perception of those effects; • Straw polls of real estate professionals on their views of whether these lines impact values; • A survey of 100 residential properties abutting a major power line corridor in Houston relative to their peer • properties not next to the line; • A brief review of four important condemnation cases dealing with the potential impact of EMFs on health and property values, as well as the admissibility of expert appraisal evidence; and • A developing method nalyzing compensation to landowner placement of a new power line which took into account an eive easement area, in addition to the aWal easement required by the condemning entity. At the time of the original article, scientific findings on the issue of negative health effects were inconclusive, sending mixed signals to the public. The author found, however,that general public perception that ElviFs were • °° =rmrseativotteivittes of adJsofiropeSty t[awi �uardx i n ings p r)ed i3gtli by his disco itc* �t t f Sionais and bit s aat� ' . '� e g l � �� .��„ "''.��'-�. '-�.a�" ��3�`�'lll�,�,g�n e aw'at t11P.,�IIS1P+ -eb a-�• ->.y" i" ' 'wiwa II two grin of 7 e e;N° iii - :,. n _ o� t `�€�. Y tkre ,s _vii do plat requirements mid other Since 1993, there have been significant developments on all fronts. Scientifically, the debate has reached the lofty halls of the Council of the American Physical Society and the U.S. Academy of Sciences. ReaNesfatbprofessioriai's �s_ K *ran �.� � 9 ¢e¢ ¢ d1eS 53e11a1 0 ., .. ai gem v o -z e. _,�. 7'.�a" '_;-t s, ,e , � d715�1 .�� en©1 71 W e ®ad I Imp iL non s orb¢ d� sibili ofexpert ag r e o ab jl .' but there is growing criticism of testimony deemed to be "junk science," fueled by the Daubert and Robinson opinions'. § 1.03. Scientific conclusions: still inconclusive. Scientific investigation of the potential adverse impacts of radiated fields has widened to include not only the low frequency emissions of transmission lines, the subject of this paper, but also high frequency emanations from cellular phones and microwave towers. Though the data indicating that higher frequency emissions may be harmful seems much more settled in the literature than that concerning low frequency emissions, it is probable that public perception blends the two such that general fear of EMF exists in the public mind across the board. [1] Good news. • In an attempt to quell some concerns, the Council of the American Physical Society, a body of renowned American physicists, issued the following statement in 1995: The scientific literature and the reports of reviews by other panels show no consistent,significant link between cancer and power line fields. . While it is impossible to prove that no deleterious health effects occur from exposure to any environmental factor. ...the co> rres relating c cer tarpower line fields.have not been scientifically substantiated:. One year later, the U.S. icademy:of Sciences joined the physciststn,their conclusions: af:D.t eiue d show tltatexposure to these spxesitts a junian hearth hazard Specifically,no conclusive to residential elecfric and'magiiet(c 8aprodiices.aer,adveise neuiobeliavioral effecis _agd'developmental These statements were foreshadowed by a British group of epidemiologists known as the Advisory Group on Non- ionizing Radiation ("AGNIR") in 1994 AGNIR, however, reserved judgment on the issue with regard to childhood leukemia: ''...epidemiological studies [do] not establish that exposure to EMFs is a cause of cancer although taken together they suggest that the possibility exists is the case of childhood leukaemia."4 [2] Bad news. The most recent official pronouncement on the subject reopens the debate and muddies the waters more than ever. • In June of 1998 an expert panel convened by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences ("NIEHS") at the behest of Congress issued an alarming press release. The panel concluded that low frequency EMFs, like those sumountiiag transmission rues,should he classified as a Group 2B human carcinogen"Sthe jiitehuational Agency for Research on Cancer classifi n scheme. A Group 2B classification i s that "the agent 014%170 ispossibly carcinogenic to humans. The exposure circumstances entail'exposures that are possibly carcinogenic to Wining? ',Ugly news. As both the following look at subsequent appraisal literature and common sense make clear, the continuing sbteiitific uncertainty over the adverse health consequences of EMFs only serves to perpetuate the debilitating effect of"power lines on abutting property values. § 1.04. More Recent Literature and Surveys. [1] Hamilton/Schwann. In 1995, two academics named Stanley Hamilton and Gregory Schwann published a highly empirical study of residential home prices in Vancouver, British Columbia. The study contrasted sales in four separate Vancouver neighborhoods of residences adjacent to power lines of 60kV or greater from 1985 to 1991. The sample size was impressive, containing 12,907 transactions in the four study areas. The percentage decreases in property values were not as great as those originally measured in the Houston area in this author's 1993 study. Hamilton/Schwann nevertheless concluded to an undeniable"drop m value "We find that properties adjacent to a line lose 6 3 percent O,011tva, e due tO ,roxnnrtir..and toe visual impadt 't The weld supported findings presented in thus.article lead o , o eptlglude t i1t'tHe depress g effect power lines have on proporly values"is`not merely an Anieriean phenomenon [2] Cowger/Bottemiller/Cahill. !se three real estate professionals employed by the Bonneville Power Administration in Portland, Oregon, published another study in Right of Way magazine in 1996 This study again concluded that overhead transmission lines nega<tiuely influence value;;."Overhead transmission lines-can reduce"the,value,of residential and agricultural prof ` The impact is usually small (0-10%)for single-family residential properties. The greatest impacts have been measured in intensively managed agricultural property(irrigators, etc., and in rural, second (vacation) home developments."' [3] Development Strategies Survey. In 1995, a group of real estate consultants in Missouri conducted a survey of residential brokers and salespersons, some 167 professionals, all in the St. Louis area. The results were published in a study concluding that 54%of those surveyed believed high voltage overhead electric transmission lines("HVOETLs") "very negatively afire led" residential-property values;another 23.8%considered HVOETLs to "somewhat negatively"affect property value $ s_ [4] Rikon article. In January of 1996, a New York attorney named Michael Rikon published an article in the Appraisal Journal following up on the landmark Criscuola decision, which had just been handed down at the time of this author's original paper 9 Criscuola was the landmark New York Supreme Court decision allowing appraisal evidence in transmission line cases to be based upon fear in the'market place rather than actual epidemiological evidence of verse health effects from EMFs. Rikon noted that the Criscuola court's embrace of the;"fear in the marketplace" a ry of damages had spread beyond transmission line cases to include actions against a cell phone provider to stop construction of a tower, against Amtrack to oppose electrification of its tracks in New York, and in increasing numbers of inverse condemnation cases.10 Clearly, the Criscuola buzz continues to grow. [5] Gimmy seminar. • • In late 1994, Arthur Gimmy, MAI, presented a seminar before the EMF Regulation and Litigation Institute". In part, the seminar presented a matched-sales analysis of California residential property that indicated diminutions in tot_yalues from properties abutting power line easements of 18%to a whopping 53.8%12 While the methodology employed in this study does not seem as rigorously empirical as that used by Hamilton/Schwann, it may demonstrate that California landowners are more sensitive to the EMF property devaluation issue than those in British Columbia. [6] LCRA Commissioned Study. More recently, in late 1997 the Lower COtt ado TZ;iver t ulhor ty commissioned a study to quantify the property value impact of electric transmission lines in and around Georgetown, Texas13. The study was performed by a local MAI who the LCRA had also hired to do all of the appraisal work for the concurrent acquisition of numerous easement parcels for a new 138kV line, Well over 100 real estate transactions were analyzed, including both sales from eight different residential subdivisions and vacant land sales Even in a study prepared for a condemning entity in connection with a numb' ofpend ng adt]tti ifi undeniable yatue tlai age alvas-f'ouiid: From the data analyzed,it is concluded that from an overall value peispective,an electric transmission line easement has less than a 10% impact on price,and in most instances, less than a 5%impact on price.14 It is important to note that the appraiser in this study was referring to a l0%overfill jpipgct on price, iot j, t on the va4ti f the land rnirgei1 ately a#leeted by or adjaceni to the easement:For those areas, he reached a specific conclusion: [1]t is concluded that the area located within an electric•transmission line easement has a 90%rlimmunon ie value due th the presence of tjieyeasemen„j_. [and),[i]t is conctudedct atn i azea 200 feet wine adloiniiik he proposed easeineut has some dimlmshed value.The extent of the diminished value can be dependent on various factors which would include the location of the easement relative to the who'll tract,and the physical characteristics of the remainder." This author's original 1993 estimate as to the probable width of an effective easement was 150' on either side of the actual easement'. The fact that a study prepared on behalf of a major Texas condemnor reached a similar eone si 11 Jeri onstrates the va laii of the effeeffire easermerit theory. § 1.05. Municipal Regulations and Statutes: More Bad News. [1] Set-back requirements. Since the original article, this author has become aware of building set-back requirements from HVOETLs imposed by a few Texas municipalities that convert effective easements from theory to undeniable reality in some jurisdictions. For instance, the Town of Flower Mound, Texas (just north of Fort Worth) mandates that no building be constructed within 100' of the edge of the right-of-way or easement of any high voltage (60kV or higher) electrical transmission line.i' Although its requirements are not as concrete as those of Flower Mound, the City of Red Oak, Texas (south of Dallas) has enacted similar restrictions tied to height, In Red Oak, buildings in residentially zoned areas adjacent to elevated power lines or towers must be set back an additional one foot for every foot by which the neighboring transmission line or tower exceeds 15'18. For instance, if a residential property abuts a 90' high transmission line or tower, an additional 75' building setback would be imposed. The City of Plano has related provisions tied to tower or line height19. Obviously, all other things being equal, a purchaser comparing properties affected by these • regulation-imposed effective easements would pay something less for them than for other competing properties unaffected by such setbacks. . [2] Potential Legal Liability. • 0 In addition, the Texas Health and Safety Code contains at least one provision related to high voltage power lines ( hing over 600 volts)that the authors suspect could have a chilling effect on the values of the underlying 'ent estate beneath an electric line easement. Chapter 752 of the Code sets out a host of prohibited activities in an around power lines, such as restrictions on operation of certain types of machinery or structures near the line without posting a statutorily-required warning20. Curiously, the Texas Legislature even saw fit to declare violation of this chapter a criminal offense punishable by jail time, fines, or both.21 Perhaps the most damaging provision, however, is the one that establishes civil liability to the power line company for any contacts with the line caused by violations of the statute: If a violation of this chapter results in physical or electrical contact with a high voltage overhead line,the person,firm,corporation,or association that committed the violation is liable to the owner or operator of the line for all damages to the facilities and for all liability that the owner or operator incurs as a result of the contact 12[Emphasis added.] While at first blush an underlying landowner's liability to a power line company for a downed transmission line or tower seems obvious, the effective global indemnity of the line operator contained in the last clause could definitely negatively impact underlying property values. Consider this hypothetical example. Developer John, whose 300 acre tract is bisected by a 138kV power line easement, is preparing the surface of his newly subdivided tract for roadways with a bulldozer. Inadvertently, the operator of the bulldozer bumps one of the towers supporting the line. The tower, having been incorrectly engineered and installed by the power company, immediately falls over on the operator, instantly killing him and knocking out power to all users serviced by the line. One of the users, a major semiconductor manufacturer, sues the power line company for consequential damages flowing from the manufacturer's closure of two full shifts while the line was being repaired and re-energized. Can Developer John possibly be held liable? 084, a Federal Court sitting in Texas concluded that the "all liability incurred" language of the statute provided full indemnity to an electric utility for any claims arising out of any violation, including liability for the electric utility's own negligence.23 Subsequently, in 1991 a Texas appeals court held the language extended even to the "violator" being responsible for the power line operator's attorney's fees, costs, and interest.24 There are few— if any —other types of"improvements" to real estate that require an underlying landowner to be responsible for someone else's negligence. §1.06. A Quick Case Review. [1] Old cases. The author's first look at power lines and diminished property values in 1993 contained synopses of three cases from literally across the country standing for the proposition that fear in the minds of potential purchasers of real estate was an admissible element of damages in a statutory condemnation proceeding.--5 These cases Criscuola26 from New York, Ryan27 from Kansas, and Daley28 from California—have all survived the appellate process and CAM-tie to be controlling law in their respective(jurisdictions. One important distinction has been drawn from this principle of law, however, at least in California. In San Diego Gas &Electric Co. v. Covalt29, a landowner tried to make out a claim for inverse condemnation caused by a pre- existing power line based in part on a diminution in value of his property due to fear in the marketplace of EMFs. The court declined to accept that Daley controlled. The court held rather that while fear in the marketplace was an ,ptable element of damages in a conventional condemnation, such fear could not create a new cause of action nverse condemnation when the power line in question already exists.30 [2] Coker. One relatively recent Federal al merits discussion, though it does notStly involve power lines. In U.S. v. 14.38 acres of Land(Coker)31, e Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals embralelyd the fear in the marketplace theory of damages. Coker involved a condemnation for a new levee which the landowner's appraiser testified would create "fear" that land on the river side of the levee would be significantly more likely to flood, thus decreasing its market value. The court upheld the admissibility of this testimony in this context, relying on a prior power line case: • '._ v . n t ofrtuA va ue;[such.ateo aaf a po ,erwiur F ,s ' a hl li Alt3 key _ ss 1 gh geelectde� acrd ctoflaiid to be pang_th?g' � h �tm _` ——tob lia tbthe are x ed though as a separatdrtem o damage.m �lle too sPecq�ry conk W be slrbmrtfe�to the the lower court in Coker had excluded entirely the testimony of Coker's appraisal expert, finding essentially that his opinions were "junk science" under the Supreme Court's now famous 1993 opinion in Daubert v. Merrel Dow Phai rnaceuticals, Inc.33 In holding that Coker's expert should have been allowed to testify, the court observed: The value of property taken by the Govemment...is largely a matter of opinion.Since there are no infallible means of determining with absolute conviction what a willing buyer would have paid a willing seller for the condemnee's property at the time of taking,eminent domain proceedings commonly pit the Government's valuation experts against those of the landowner...Recognizing the critical role of expert witnesses in these cases and the strong interest on both sides that compensation be just,trial courts should proceed cautiously before removing from the jury's consideration expert assessments of value which may prove helpful.?' The Coker court thus acknowledged the obvious: "how much" in any given condemnation case, particularly ones involving the establishment or expansion of high voltage power lines, will always be a matter of opinion for competing appraisal experts to set forth and for a fact finder to ultimately decide. § 1.07. Newer Issues: Utility Corridors Can Be Extremely Valuable. Within the past few years a new industry has emerged requiring the use of right-of-way corridors for • communication lines and fiber optic cables. These communication lines are responsible for transmitting data involving national security, banking, world wide web, tele-conferencing, and most types of data transmission. What better avenues to install the hardware necessary for this product than existing utility corridors, which already offer the physical, economic, and legal attributes for this kind of use. [1] ATF or True Market Value?A Question of Highest and Best Use. Acquiring rights for Communication lines by condemning entities has been fairly rare until recently, primarily because there was no need. As the need for communication lines increased, the utility companies have begun to acquire these property rights. Naturally, the valuation issue is now becoming a factor. The position taken by most companies with the power of eminent domain is to value the property rights as simply the pro rata share of the easement value as determined by the "at the fence" (All') prices. From a pure appraisal perspective, this method is inappropriate and does not conform with generally accepted appraisal practices set forth in the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practices (USPAP). "In developing a real property appraisal, an appraiser must be aware of, understand, and correctly employ those recognized methods and techniques that are necessary to produce a credible appraisal."35 The foundation of proper appraisal methodology is an analysis of a property's value based on its highest and best use, defined as "[t]he reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value."36 The basis for appraising property rights of this type is plainly set out in the Appraisal Institute's text book, which is universally accepted as the best authority: "Analysis of the highest and best use of the property as though vacant and of the property as improved is essential', in the valuation process."37 In the evaluation of a taking of additional property rights within an existing right of way corridor, very rarely can the highest and best use he anything other than for those kind of uses that are already found within the corridor. authority and ignore the data and evaluatioethods used when the same rights area or leased to users of corridor properties. [expanding an Existing Easement: The Condemnor's Valuation. Consider this scenario. A major utility company owns a prior easement which grants the rights for three electric transmission lines across an approximate 110 acre tract of land in central Texas. A petition is filed to obtain additional property rights within the easement for the "right to construct, place, operate, maintain, reconstruct, replace, rebuild, upgrade, remove, inspect, patrol and repair communication lines and facilities and all necessary and desirable appurtenances on, across, and within the property..." The proposed easement is within the existing 75-foot easement and the length is approximately 1849 lineal feet or about 113 rods. Citing sales data averaging about 150 acres in size and prices averaging about $1000.00 per acre, the utility company's appraiser concludes to a market value for the communication easement with the following: 124 acres(area of the existing easement)x $ 1000.00 per acre = $3,224 Value of the property rights within the existing easement 95% or$3,078 Value of the Communication Easement iior$162 [b] The Landowner's Valuation. Assume for purposes of this hypothetical that the condemnor utility company had recently leased a fiber optic line to a communication company on the basis of$21,312/year, equating to a value of$266,400 (based on a capitalization rate of.08)or$832 per rod. Utilizing this and other actual market data of sales and lease information from comparable corridor uses averaging between$300/rod and $880/rod,the landowner's appraiser, considering the property's true highest and best use, could conclude to a significantly higher value: 113 Rods x $500 per rod= $56,000 Given the foregoing example, it seems manifestly unreasonable for a utility company to consider only the ATF value when it is purchasing an easement and then turn around and sell or lease the same easement, based on its true highest and best use, for an exponential profit. § 1.08. Arguments Against Corridor Valuation Theory. [II Corridor Transactions Are Inadmissible Data. The traditional rule in Texas has long been that market data involving entities with the power of eminent domain are legally inadmissible to determine just compensation, because such transactions are not arms-length as a matter Sw.40 There are obvious inequities raised when a utility company is allowed to take using one valuation method sell based on another. This fact, considered along with the rationale behind the prohibition against sales involving condemnors, leads the authors to believe that a good faith argument exists for the extension of the existing law. • Weld County Planning Department `_ f, i;ilwrr BUILDING • November 14, 2007 NOV 1 3 2007 .;, VED Michelle Martin Weld County Planning and Building Department 4209 CR 24.5 Longmont, CO 80504 Weld County Planning Officer and Commission Members: I am writing this letter in response to the electrical substation United Power is proposing to build south of Highway 66 and east of County Road 5. 5. After attending the informational open house hosted by United Power, I came to realize how massive and close in proximity this structure will be located to our home. My two main concerns regarding this project are the potential decrease in property value and the possible health threats. Based on the concept pictures provided by United Power, I feel this structure would be aesthetically devastating to our neighborhood and would severely damage the appeal of our subdivision to potential buyers in the future. My other concern is regarding the effect this structure may have on the health of my family and me. Information I have found on this topic does not appear to be conclusive one way or the other. Some research indicates there are no health threats while other research suggests a multitude of health related problems. In a subdivision slated to receive an elementary or grade school building and already full of neighborhood children . I do not believe we should take chances when it comes to their well-being. • As I understand, the reason this site was chosen by United Power was because it was the easiest solution. I feel a structure such as an electrical substation would be better suited to an industrialized or undeveloped area not adjacent to a residential development. I understand United Power wants to "fast track" this project, but certainly the impact it will have on the residents of Liberty Ranch Subdivision makes it worth spending the time and effort to find a more suitable location for this site. On a personal note, my husband and I have an 11 - month old son. We have worked very hard so we could buy a house to raise our son and any future children in - a safe environment. Those dreams will be replaced by - the constant fear our health may be jeopardized and - -_ - the knowledge that the investment we made in our rem litfr .r home will probably be a losing one if this structure is -• i built. We have been so happy in this subdivision and I have - _ blessed with wonderful and caring neighbors. included a photo of my son Kyle, he and my husband - mean the world to me, please do not take away our dream to live somewhere we can be safe, happy and healthy. Thank you for your time and consideration on oz this matter. Sincerely, (ham( SitfrhW_ Laura Stubbs 13651 Wrangler Way Mead, CO 80542 (970) 405-1471 Hello