Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. Is this on?

Okay. This meet this uh meeting of the Utah County Planning Commission is called to order on this August 29th uh 2025 at 5:30 p.m. We'd like to welcome everyone who's joined us tonight. We're we're grateful to have Seems like we've got a lot of public here tonight. A lot of times it's just us up here with with a few uh a few staff members to uh hold our meeting, but uh we're glad to have everyone here tonight. If uh for those in attendance, there is a a role in the back uh back of the door if you if you want to speak. Um it's it's a requirement to have your name there and then we'll we'll use that list if for those that want to speak to the topic. So, make sure you uh sign the the attendance role back there. The first item of business is to review and approve the minutes from our last meeting. Are there any corrections or amendments to our minutes from last uh last uh meeting which was in in June, right? So, if there's no uh amendments or corrections, do we have a motion to approve?

So, moved. Second. It's been moved and seconded to uh approve the minutes from uh our last meeting. All those in favor say I. I.

Any opposed? The minutes have been approved. We have um on our agenda tonight uh a couple of conditional use applications. And the first one is Richard uh Barascus for Pacific. H they removed that from the agenda. Actually, it's been removed for the last month.

We So the question is, do we have a pledge? And and actually we have we haven't done that for a few months now. I don't know why it's been removed from our agenda. So, if we want to put it back on, it's up to us. We could put it back on if we want. Now, we're good. Okay. Since it's not on the agenda, we'll just move on with our conditional use application. And do we have a uh do we have a st report? Thank you. Right. Uh let me give you just a quick 30 minute or 30 minute. Wow, we're off to a bad start. If that was quick,

no 30 seconds. Um just quick reminder, a primer on conditional uses. Um, conditional uses are specific uses that have been deemed allowed or permitted or appropriate in certain zones by previous actions. Um, however, due to their nature, there's uh the conditional use process provides an added layer of review so to speak um that allows reasonable conditions to uh of approval to mitigate any reasonably anticipated detrimental effects. So, that's kind of the the main the main purpose of of your role in this. Um, it's important to note that the state that state code

it's important to note that state code does not require elimination of those detrimental effects. Um, so in this specific uh situation, the first application section 8.44 44 of the Utah County Lannies ordinance identifies certain public facilities as being uh allowed in all zones um including electric power transmission lines. Now, however, if if the transmission line is uh has a transmission voltage of uh 345 KV or or higher and it's lies within a new corridor, then it elevates to a conditional use, which is the situation uh before you tonight. So that's that's why this uh this is a conditional use. Um it should be noted also that um I guess I guess to back up uh Greg Robinson of our staff will provide you kind of a general overview of the of the application and then obviously the applicant is present and can can give you more details on that including um the process and efforts involved in determining the preferred route. So I know that that might be helpful to know. Um, one matter of business or one matter of note, it's been represented to us that several of you have been contacted in person uh by by members of the public. I I think in all situations, you all handled it appropriately. First of all, I apologize for that. We we try to head those off. I think the the appropriate forum is this meeting or through an email which we have forwarded you to you um a number of comments. There have been several that uh have been contacted in person at their homes and they were all handled appropriately. They were uh those they were referred to uh to this meeting and the documents were were referred to this meeting. So just want to get that on the record. So with that, I'll turn it over to Greg for a a brief overview.

Sure. The applicant um Rocky Mountain Power Pacific Corps is has requested a conditional use as Bryce indicated for a 345 kilovolt um transmission line that is approximately 48 miles long that um goes through multiple jurisdictions um including unincorporated Utah County. Those portions of um that are in unincorporated are the only ones that we um look at. We do not look at those that are within other jurisdictions. We have only jurisdiction over the the portions that are within um unincorporated Utah County. Uh the transmission line is anticipated to as I said 48 miles long. The corridor is anticip the the request is for 125 foot wide corridor with the with monopoles being centered within that corridor. Those monopoles um are requested to be 90 to 135 feet in height. Um the monopoles also have and um are proposed to be between 60 and 8 ft or 6 and 800 ft um between each monopole. Uh again, as Bryce indicated, the in section 8.44 44 of the Utah County land use ordinance. That um is where the requirements for the area and also the ability for that request to be made or that that permitted use is in the public facilities section of of our land use ordinance. In A4, it lists um electric power transmission and distribution lines and substations lines of 345 kilovolts and over within a new transmission corridor require conditional use approval by the planning

commission. That's why it's before you today. Um also in 8.44, 44. It states that no minimum lot area or maximum height for utility line structures um and only requires setbacks um to be met for walled or roof structures. Um, as Bryce has indicated, the applicant is here today to discuss um their project and and their proposed project and um they have more detail than um that they can provide. They'll be happy to answer questions and respond to comments if needed. Um the as Bryce also indicated, we have received m multiple comments from the public. um they have most have requested to speak at this meeting and um as you kind of have made them aware that they need to sign up on the the signup sheet if they wish to do that. So with that I um if you have questions for staff I'm happy to answer those. Um I'm sure that we'll probably have questions after we hear from the applicant and also public. So I'll kind of let you handle that how you would like. So, so the blue line on this map shows the the route and of that how much is in unincorporated Utah County or is is there a way

Sure. All of it or the majority of it is un in unincorporated? It's also um a combination of both um public and private land. Um, so about uh if I remember right, somewhere between 45 and 46 miles of the of the corridor are within unincorporated Utah County, Utah County, five out of 48 miles.

Correct. And and you can see uh uh basically the uh majority of that is um oh did I I think anyway um it does pass through Spanish Fork. Um, it passes through uh Mapleton, Eagle Mountain, uh, Janola, uh, Salem, uh, and I I believe that's that's it, if I remember right.

Are you able to highlight on the map which parts of that line are in unincorporated? Is there places where it's kind of peacemail of there's a little bit here or is it mostly just that section?

So off to the side we can it um it it's difficult on this map and also there's not a really good map that we have for doing that. Um I would um let's see. So probably the best way to explain it is that the the the from the Mapleton area there is a small portion which goes through Spanish Fork and you can see the individual I it's difficult to see on this image but um if you see the boxed areas where with the numbers inside those boxes those are all areas within unincorporated Utah County that they've identified um that Rocky Mountain Power has identified on their map the except for the areas that are in public lands that do that they haven't included um images of those um specifically. So the areas that have a box around them generally are are either within unincorporated or have portions of unincorporated um within those areas.

Are there any places where we overlap where it's partially us and partially somebody else and do we have to have any coordination between entities?

Some is there somewhat? Um no there technically no we do not have coordination. I mean Rocky Mountain has coordinated with other jurisdictions um through their process. Uh but as far as coordinating with approvals, no the the each jurisdiction is required to follow their own ordinance and their own approval process and Rocky Mountain Power uh works with each of those individual jurisdictions to receive what approvals are required. Is the 345 kilovolt is is that the requirement that requires the conditional use? If it was less than 345, they wouldn't need a conditional use.

There are two conditions of that. Um, one that it has to be a minimum of of 345 kilovolts or greater. Um, and it also has to be outside of an existing corridor. So there are corridors that have existing transmission lines that if that if they colllocated a a transmission line within an existing corridor, they would not have they would not be required to um obtain a conditional use approval. If it already had if it already had a transmission line, um correct. If there was a cor existing corridor um then they would not be required to um receive that additional conditional use approval.

Have the other municipalities given approval for this project? Um I can't speak to that. I know that some um are not required they based on their ordinance they do not have a requirement for conditional use. Um it just depends on this is the specific jurisdiction. um the applicant probably is better um cap or better able to answer those questions about who um who has held meetings such as this prior to this this meeting the zoning is it several different types of zones

correct yeah there are there are a number of zones obviously uh that it would goes through and I can name all of those if you want but um sufficees to say that the 8.44 44 allows for um public facilities to be located in all zones, you know, and but the same conditional. Correct. Yeah. Requirement.

So, there's a Yeah, there's a specific section that talks about public utilities. In that section, this is a permitted use. However, in that permitted use, it requires um approval from the planning commission to be obtained. So maybe just to clarify that a little bit, the difference between a permitted use and a conditional use is conditional uses are allowed in a place. We're not really able to say no, you can't do this so much as we're able to put conditions on doing it. Is that correct?

Yeah. So there there are specific state code that that um governs how a conditional use is um to be heard by individual jurisdictions specifically counties is the section that we would be under. Um conditional uses are permitted uses that you can add um conditions to mitigate detrimental effects. Um, those detrimental effects have to be specified and as Bryce said, those detrimental effects do not have to be totally mitigated. They just have to be mitigated in some way. If a conditional use uh or if a if a measure cannot be mitigated to a sufficient degree, the com the planning commission has the ability to deny that. But that is probably and and I can let our attorney speak to this, but it's extremely rare. This is Bryce of staff that would in that case the statute says it it substantially cannot be mitigated and you'd have to find specific findings to that effect. Do you hear from the applicant?

Are there any additional questions for staff? I just have one. Um I'm just Does the public service commission have any role in this project? I'll let our attorney speak to that. So

yeah, that's a wrinkle in this conditional use permit. Um because Rocky Mountain and Power is a public utility. They're regulated by the public service commission for the state of Utah and probably a federal agency, but I'm I I have no experience with that. The way the public service commission works is um they've they oversee public utilities, expansions, extensions, building, basically anything they do, their rates, uh they're they're they're regulated in in every sense of the word. And what happens with a case like this is Rocky Mountain Power is supposed to come to us and ask for the conditional use permit. However, if we put any conditions on Rocky Mountain Power or if we deny the permit, it goes back to the public service commission to make the final decision. If they decide that the condition was uh not appropriate, they strike it down and we have to issue the permit. If they feel like the conditions a possibility, they order Rocky Mountain Power to pro prepare an estimated cost excess cost of the change that you order that that you impose and the county's required to pay the excess cost. So, for instance, if they have an overhead uh line and you were you were to instruct them but with your conditions in your permit that it had to be buried and underground, Rocky Mountain Power would submit a a cost estimate to us and we would have to go to the county commission and ask them if they would pay that additional cost to bury the line. If Utah County says we will not pay that additional cost, then we have to issue the permit without that condition. So, this this is a strange animal. Well, I don't think you'll ever see another one like this. I hope. Um, but

so if we add turns and movement to the proposed line, that could add cost. Yes. That the county has to pay. Correct. That's a cool law. Way to go. Well, yeah. I I suppose just speculating that that law has to do with public utilities. Um, you know, no one likes to see sewer lines and and and roads across property and and and power lines, but you have to have public utilities to to to have a community to have a civilization. And so they've given that commission that kind of power to regulate and also to oversee what we're doing tonight.

Is there any way to know in this meeting what some of those cost might be? Is there any I mean I know we're just kind of spitballing but that would come from the applicant. Um they're required to provide us with any what's called excess cost. It's a it's a defined term in the statute that they believe the condition we're imposing will uh that they will incur. Um if we just agree to pay it, I suppose they do it. My opinion is anything like that would go up to the public service commission for review. an approval. Right.

Just I want to add one thing and I'm trying want to stay in my lane so uh I'll be corrected here if I need to be but as I understand it in part of that review it would it would part of that review looks at if whether or not those added costs could be absorbed within the existing um utilities fee structure their rate structure and uh if not then it could potentially elevate to um being borne by the the local community or local jurisdiction. So question uh do they present multiple proposed alignments or do they agree on what they feel is the best alignment and there's no alternatives that we can suggest or review. So we'll let the kind of the applicant probably speak a little more detail to this, but as I understand it when they initially recognized uh you know the need to build this line between the two two end points, there were several proposed um alternatives and those were all studied and went through a a robust process that I'll let the applicant speak to and the applicant came to the conclusion that this uh this was the most um desired or feasible or whatever preferred from from their point of view. to follow up with that. Um the applicant is the one that submitted the application. They they determined the the route. They're making the request. The county um as far as staff goes does not get to determine the specific route as part of this um process,

but the the applicant did did come to the county and and including our legislative bodies and to get feedback. So, so, uh, the county was involved as far as just kind of looking at, you know, this is for the county. This is a long stretch and so there's a lot of area to cover and I think the county responded with kind of general follow corridors where possible or roads and and avoid, you know, uh, areas, sensitive areas as much as possible. Kind of those those general wishes Any further questions for staff? Okay. Do we have the applicant here would like to speak? Great.

Please state your name and and so everyone can hear. Um, yes. Good evening. My name is Rita Rutderman. I'm with Power Engineers. We're a contracting engineering firm um that has been working with Rocky Mountain Power on this project over the last couple of years. Thank you, Greg. Um thank you commissioners for the time this evening. We're grateful for the opportunity to present more information about the Spanish work to Mercer project. Sorry, need to get my bearings here a little bit. I've got my notes on here and the presentation's up there. Do I click up there? Do I point there? Oh,

okay. So, first an introduction to team members that I have with me here this evening. Again, my name is Rita Rutderman with Power Engineers. Um, we have Richard Bardosquez. He's a project manager with Pacific. Tammy Moody is the principal regulatory permitting manager at Pacific. Um, Patricia Peterson is our principal permitting project manager with Pacific Core. We have Austin Trip, transmission um, rideway project manager with Pacific. And then also from power engineers, we have my colleagues David Gellner. He's a senior environmental planner and Marley Capasinskus um, an environmental planner with power. We also have with us from Exponent Gabbor Mesai. Um, he's a doctor and principal scientist without organization. So, first a few preliminary matters. A lot of this was covered um prior to me being up here, but um Rocky Mountain Power acknowledges Utah County's 20 listed standards which the county can consider when making a decision for a conditional use permit in conformance with chapter 16.94. Rocky Mountain Power conducted a comprehensive transmission line routing study to address these considerations and our responses are provided in detail um in our permit application. Okay. So this slide illustrates the permitting process in Utah County. In addition to public the public involvement component of developing this project, which we will go into in detail later in the presentation, the permitting process in Utah County is an important step of the public process to gather comments on the project. That's why we're all here this evening. Okay. This is um the next few slides are pres um meant to present an overview of the project.

Okay. Um, Rocky Mountain Power pro proposes to permit, construct, and operate and maintain a new 345 kilovolt or KB transmission line in southern Utah Valley between our existing Spanish Fork and Mercer substations. Um, we'll pull up a map in a moment. Over the course of the last two years, we have conducted a study to identify and evaluate a network of alternative routes between these two substations. The purpose of this presentation is to show the preferred route as presented in our permit application with Utah County. Okay. So the project need the Spanish fork to Mercer line is needed to improve reliability and efficiency increase capacity and flexibility and support additional energy sources to be added to the system including renewable energy generation. The Spanish Fork to Mercer line will provide these important system improvements to all customers in the southern val Utah Valley area. This is a map of the proposed route. We ma kind of, you know, made the graphic a little bit easier to view. Over the course of the last two years, um, Rocky Mountain Power has evaluated several possible routes. And by several I mean it's it was several hundred miles over the course of two years. We even looked at a route that went under Utah Lake. Um so this the study was involved. Um took a lot of time and a lot of data gathering. But we evaluated several possible routes to get from Spanish Fork to Mercer. After a detailed routing study that involved data evaluation, stakeholder engagement, numerous site visits, and public open houses in which we received landowner feedback. The proposed route represented on this slide was ultimately

revealed to be the best and least impactful route. Um, examples of alternatives that were explored that we did present at our open houses include um, one that was north of the proposed route along the Highway 6 corridor. Um, and it proved to be just too physically constrained by existing linear facilities, including the highway, the railroad corridor, and there's a high pressure gas line plus the um, existing homes that come right up against those rightways. um and that was that prevented that route from being a sensible path out of the Spanish Fork substation. Similarly, an alternative route was explored south of the proposed route and was constrained by multiple developments. We all know how much this area has been growing um notably um very large developments um south of 8,000 South. So this slide is important because it shows the physical characteristics of the transmission line. Again it's a 345 kilovolt transmission line. They will be steel monopole. Um the end points again Spanish fork and Mercer substation. The approximate length is 48 miles and this is an important just clarification. Um 12.99 miles are an unincorporated Utah county. Um we we do need to obtain a permit with the Bureau of Land Management and we're working with that through that process with them. Um and we're working with, you know, other jurisdictions in the area, but 12.9 miles is in unincorporated Utah County of the 48 miles. The height of the monopoles, as mentioned, is 90 to 135 ft. And the span between monopoles is typically 600 to 800 ft. although that can be larger

depending on what we're spanning if it's like a pivot irrigation system. And the right-of-way width that Rocky Mountain Power will be pursuing from land owners is 125 ft. So 62 1/2 ft on each side of the center line. Um as we continue, it's important to note that as we continue to work through the design phase, there may be areas such as freeway crossings where the pole types may vary to accommodate the conditions on the ground. So a freeway, they're going to have to be taller. So, what's on this slide is that's a typical. Okay, we have some photo simulations that we've um done over the course of the last couple of years. This first one is looking toward um West Mountain. The you know the p the panel on the top is the existing conditions and then the um panel on the bottom shows the transmission line. Does this have a laser pointer? Okay.

Probably not. Um, but the trans, you can see the transmission line along West Mountain. It's supposed to be sort of representative of what it would look like from this viewpoint. This next one is looking at Spanish Fork um substation from, I believe, Highway 6. Um and you can see on the top the existing infrastructure and then on the bottom the um thank you the this would be the new pole and then the transmission line comes up over the ridge right here. [Music] So, it is important to note that this is representative that this alignment has changed a little bit due to our conversations with the Bureau of Land Management. Um, we don't come this far south any longer, but it does show you where the transmission lines would be on the east side of West Mountain from this viewpoint. Okay. So, that is a um brief public overview or project overview. My apologies. And um I'm going to hand it over now to Tammy Moody to discuss the public involvement portion of the project. Thank you. [Music]

Thank you, Rita. Commissioners, see if I can get settled in here. Is this one the clicker? Okay, perfect. Um, so let's Okay, so um public outreach and involvement does play a big role in Pacific Rocky Mountain Powers um project development process as it does provide valuable and insightful information. And in addition to our own standards for outreach, this project also followed the compliance requirements for Utah State code 5418, noting the sighting of high voltage power lines and the public outreach requirements that are listed in that code. So to comply with state code in 2024, Civa Corp, Rocky Mountain Power sent out notices to stakeholders and to land owners that were within the 500 ft study area noticing 250 ft on each side of the preferred center line. And the mailing lists were based off of county records. So the communication that was sent out to the stakeholders and the land owners included project information as well as a schedule of the planned openhouse engagements. Um information was also distributed through several media outlets including the Salt Lake Tribune, the Desireette News, and the Daily Herald. Let's see here. Okay. So, the company's outreach efforts actually began back in 2023. That is when briefings with local land use authorities um that are listed here took place. And that includes Utah County, Mapleton, um Salem, Santa Quinn, Spanish Fork, uh Janola, and several

other impacted jurisdictions all the way up to Eagle Mountain. We also met with local utility companies including Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Southern Utah Valley Power Systems, Utah Association of Municipal Power Systems, Utah Municipal Power Agency, and the South Utah Valley Electric Service District. As Rita noted, we also met with the Bureau of Land Management, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Department of Natural Resources, and the Utah Department of Transportation. Knowing that there were also several large-scale developments that were taking place in the area, we met with developers that included Edge Homes, Dr. Horton, and Modera. Um since the initial meetings took place um we have actually been through several um following meetings with each of these agencies um just meeting with them several times in order to coordinate and to plan and to keep them updated on the progress of the project. Um we do continue to maintain communication with each of these agencies and will continue to do so throughout the life of the project. Let's see. So this slide shows um the outreach with the public. Um so for members of the public, we actually held a series of five public openhouse meetings. Four of those openhouse meetings were in person and they were placed at various locations along the preferred route. And one of those public openhouse meetings was a virtual option in order to ensure that even those who could not attend in person still had the opportunity to participate and engage with the prop the project. So these meetings offered an opportunity for public to engage with staff to address any concerns and talk about any

concerns um any suggestions priorities um and make any comments. At each open house, we had a list of or a series of display boards that provided an overview of the project. Um, as well as the purpose and need for the project, the factors that go into identifying a route. Um, we also, as noted, had a managing scientist present at the public openhouse meetings to address any concerns regarding health and safety. We had giant map books where landowners could go and identify their properties and see where it was in uh proximity to the route. And we had GIS stations where individuals could sit directly with staff, zoom in on their property, and give more specific information about their property. Um, you know, a lot of times some of the items that they have on their property don't necessarily show in our mapping or our studies. And so that's some really good engagement there as we give, you know, as we go through that process and they're able to provide some direct comment as it directly relates to their property. Um, as noted, the open houses are very insightful for acquiring additional information and hearing from the public. Um we learned a lot about um where some flood irrigation areas are, where there are some wells and some existing structures that we were unaware of. Um there were also some new developments that we had learned about that we had, you know, no records of. So it was very helpful to go through that process. Um, as we took all of that information back and kind of went through it and analyzed it, we actually did end up making some minor adjustments to our route based off of that information that was provided.

So, this slide right here kind of gives a um by the numbers approach regarding our efforts. So earlier in the presentation we noted that we began this process in 2023 um with the sighting and routing um to further our efforts with transparency and responsible communication to the communities. We requested briefings with elected officials um with city and county staff um just to review the project and make sure that they were aware of what the plans were and you know just kind of coordinate with what they had going on in their areas as well. Um as noted since then we have had numerous uh meetings with those bodies to date and we'll continue to coordinate throughout the progress of the project. Um if you look at the bottom left here again as we said by the numbers this shows the number of open houses that we held for this project. Um we held five open houses that included that virtual option. We had 268 participants in the public openhouse meetings and received 145 comments from those participants. Um we created a dedicated website for the project um with detailed information about the project. It also hosts an interactive map so that anyone can go in and kind of zoom into the route, zoom into their properties, look at their property in proximity with the line. Um, it also has uh fact sheets noted on it so that there are detailed facts about the project. Um, it also covers, you know, factors that went into the routing process. Um there are a list of frequently asked questions with responses as well. And then the virtual openhouse that we held was also placed on the website so that it can be viewed

at any time by anybody and it remains there to this day. Um, we have had over 3,600 visits to the website to date and we have sent out over 700 mailers with information about the project and we do continue to work with the community. So, this next slide shows kind of what each of those 145 comments centered on. Um so if you look at the lime green section at the bottom this represents the most comments that were received and they mainly were you know focused on very routes specific comments and questions. Um they wanted to know how the project route related to um their personal property, how it was selected, why it's here instead of here. um what an easement is, what an easement means to a land owner, what they can do with their property when there is an easement. And then if you look at the next largest box, that is the purple box. Those were general comments. And that mainly centered on, you know, why is this route needed? What is the purpose for this route? Um who is it going to serve? And then of course those comments generally landed with whether or not the commenter was in support of the location of the line or not in support of the location of the route. Um other comments were based on potential property value impacts which we do work with land owner land owners on that through the rightway and easement process. Um agricultural impacts which again we also address. Um, in fact, to date, we have actually gone out with a few of the land owners and walked their properties and, you know, tried to help work through some of those agricultural concerns that they had. Um, inquiries on health and safety potential, which our website does offer information on. There are links to

learning more about those. And then as noted in the virtual openhouse, we did also have a segment from the managing scientist who offered um information about health and safety concerns. There were also um comments referring to noise and environmental impacts. And um as noted in our application, we do uh try to ensure that this project meets all health and safety standards um as required by federal, state, and local agencies. So let's see. So seeing as how uh routing questions tended to be the largest comment section um that we received, this image breaks it down. So each of these segments on the wheel represents a factor that um Pacific Corp, Rocky Mountain Power has to consider as they are conducting a routing study and making both preliminary and final decisions for routing on a project like this um to identify a viable route that poses the least impact on the community, on land uses, and the environment while still meeting specific standards. So these projects involve transmission lines and they span many miles. So as much as there is an impact, we really do work to try to reduce that impact as much as we are able to. Um the team also must consider sensitive environmental issues, um design requirements for uh substation engineering and transmission engineering. um if there are any needs for any land acquisitions um for land rights, uh any economic factors, and then of course, Pacific

Court must also uh meet and comply with safety and construction related regulatory requirements as well as compliance with federal, state, city, and county codes. So, as we speak of county codes, I'd like to turn the time back over to Rita to discuss our project and how it aligns with the requirements of Utah County.

Excuse me, Arena. Um, do you do you have an idea how long your presentation will Well, you have two more slides. Two more slides.

Yeah, they're very brief. Um so yes, as demonstrated in our application, the proposal um does meet all applicable standards listed in chapter 16.94 for conditional use application um that are intended to mitigate detrimental effects. For example, you know, and probably one of the most important examples is during our routing and sighting process, we um you know, we adjusted many times over the course of the two years to avoid impacting natural areas to the extent possible, densely populated areas, and we made an effort to route along existing linear facilities. Um the plan is supported by policies and specific language in the Utah County general plan. And then an important an important note um to make this evening is that the we are requesting that the um planning commission approves the conditional use with the extended time frame as allowed by the um Utah Utah County Land Use Ordinance Chapter 16.94G. the I believe so in the code Greg it's a year to start construction

sorry yeah actually we just recently changed that the the uh approval period is three years with um the ability to request an extension up to five years um so there is the the ability to ask for an extension beyond the five-year for the or for the initial three years if you feel if you if the planning commission can make findings based on the need of the project. Um but the initial approval will last three years and then an extension would have to be requested that can go up to five years. And is that for project completion or start? That is for start. Is that enough? You don't need it.

Three years is fine, right? Yeah. So, so yeah, I put down um on the staff recommendations that the termination be um August 19th, 2028 to meet our current ordinance and you requested less time than that. So,

okay. So, strike that. We're not asking for additional time. Um Oops. Okay. So, just briefly this this slide we just want to show sort of remind you where we were, where we are, and where we're going. Um system planning and load growth analyses and feasibility analysis to identify alternative routes in addition to our data collection and field visits and public involvement were conducted in 2022 and 2023. In 2023 and 24 we conducted the analysis of the alternative routes which has been supported with import input from local governments and agencies. Um, we anticipate that permitting will be let that local land use permitting, I'm sorry, um, will be completed in the fall of this year. Federal permitting with permitting with the Bureau of Land Management takes a little bit longer. Um con pre-construction activities will take place between early to mid 2026 at which time we anticipate um that construction will begin and construction will continue through 2026 and 27 with a target completion date in early 2028 around February. Okay, that is the end of our presentation. Um we're happy to take questions from the commissioners at this time. What uh what were the detrimental effects that uh you considered and and and and have included mitigating factors for

Dave? I don't know if you have that list with you. There's there's you mentioned 19 that that could There's 20 20. Yeah. Um I think it's well one is avoiding impacts to natural areas. Um, another is avoiding impacts to densely populated areas, which was a that's an important one, right? Because we don't there's areas where we physically

can't fit or would, you know, cause too much of an of an impact in moving existing infrastructure around, which isn't feasible really or appropriate for a project like this. We're looking for more, you know, appropriate areas to route a transmission line. Um, such as along existing infrastructure, a linear infrastructure. Um, I think a lot of the comments that that that I saw uh off the top mentioned fire hazard. So, what what have you guys So, I'm going to ask Richard to come up. Um, Richard Bardosquez from Pacific Corps, but Yep.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I'm Richard Bardowskis. I'm working for Rocky Mountain Power Pacific Orb. Um, as far as like fire hazards, you know, typically our transmission lines are built to, you know, are typically higher away from most of your, you know, your fuel sources and all that. It's stuff that we have all over the place, stuff that other utilities have all over the place. Um, we obviously have a huge focus on on our wildfire program that's been with the state for the last couple years and we keep working with the state going forward and updating those plans um and updating our standards to to help with that mitigation. Um, but all of our transmission lines are built to wildfire safe standards that's been approved by the state.

Can you talk a little bit about what those are? I mean, what's the difference between what you plan to do and infrastructure failures that do lead to fire hazards? So, I mean that, you know, as far as like the construction, I mean, it's it's a new construction, new, you know, updated standards. It's more robust. Um, but then also, you know, we've got protection and controls in place that that are able to detect a, you know, a potential fault or a trip, you know, or is able to trip the line. So that way it basically eliminates that, you know, that that source of of fire. So So you have a high windstorm that comes through, it causes some damage to the power line. As soon as that connection is broken, then your transmission ceases in that area. Correct.

Um, do you guys get sent the public comments that we received over the last week? There are there any of those you want to kind of address some of the main concerns or just do we want to do that now or provide or hear me? You have a public commentary we can do it then particular that you'd like us to address right now. Yes. Is there anything in particular the commission would like us to address? We don't want to leave any stone uncovered that

um some boy there were a lot of comments. Um I know some of the comments that I saw were saying that they didn't get notified. Um I know you guys talked about all the outreach that you did. Um yeah.

Yeah. So we do have a mailing list that is pulled from county records. Um it again went to all individuals within the 500 foot study area which is 250 feet on each side of that preferred route center line. We do have um lists of the you know the mailing lists that we could you know provide for the commission if you would like to see it. Um, I did have seven return letters out of everything that was sent back, but none of them were the names that were on the list, but we did match some of the comments that have been received from you guys, and those names and those addresses were on the mailing list. So, other than that, I can't explain uh why they would not have received them. Um, unless I mean it says Pacific Corp, Rocky Mountain Power. Sometimes people have their, you know, they have auto pay. Um,

right. I mean, but but I can't really explain why they You um, you guys did your outreach and then as part of the part of our county process, we also did notifications, right? Well, can we? Yes, we followed all state state law for noticing a public meeting, which is this is in addition, our ordinance requires for conditional uses, property notices sent out to adjacent property owners. And so we were um a little overzealous along the route. Yes. Yes. We sent out how many? Four 500. Yeah. Between four and 500. But for clarity on that, if the if the alignment lies within a municipality, you don't notify those property owners. Is that correct?

Correct. We only address the unincorporated. Well, if if the if the property owner lies within the city, but they're adjacent to an unincorporated portion that is in the project, we did notify them. Okay. So, I have a couple of questions. Um, I don't know what the projected cost of this project is going to be, but obviously you're trying to get power out to Eagle Mountain, and they've got several facilities out there that are huge power draw with the data centers and stuff like that. Has there been any consideration just to build a a power plant out there to service that area? So this line isn't for any one particular customer or even a group of customers. This is a line that's been needed for existing loads that are in the in the system and power flows between basically all the northern Utah area. And it's also to be able to bring in generation from southern Utah through Spanish Fork and down, you know, to service Utah County, but also to be able to get that power flow to uh the Eagle Mountain area and up into, you know, lower Salt Lake area up into our Camp William substation. So, it's not for anyone individual customer. Um, this is it's for ex existing load and you know, basically creating a loop uh between Salt Lake and Utah counties. But in your in your talk and discussion of flexibility and redundancy and stuff like that, wouldn't an additional source of energy be

So there are additional uh you know generation sources that are coming online and some of them are up in the Eagle Mountain area. I believe one of them's going to be up here on your uh on the agenda for later. Um but that project has has nothing to do with with this one in particular. um there's more growth and load coming on in in the Utah, you know, northern Utah area, including, you know, Utah County that this line is needed to basically create a loop there. Um and there's federal requirements on and be able to create this loop just with outage requirements. So, Ferg um the Federal Energy Regulatory Committee, um it's basically if we have an outage on one line, we're not able to push enough amps through with the existing line. So we have to have this this other line there to be able to otherwise we'll have you know rolling blackouts and brown outs.

So it uh has your rightway width increased on these type of power lines. No for uh three 145 kilovolt lines. You know our standard um is 125 foot on the on the rideway width. The the power transmission line that's uh over on the east side of Utah Lake. Is that a similar voltage? Yeah. Yeah, there there's several different voltages over there, but yes, we're Isn't that one just 120 ft? I couldn't speak to that off the time. I believe it is. Yeah.

I mean, 5T is pretty minimal, but you know, when you're talking about somebody's property and impacts, you know, 5T can be um necessary. So, the other question I have, a lot of the comments that we had are are uh around a particular subdivision down in Salem. Um, when you began your notification process, were do you know if those lots in particular were actually owned or occupied by homeowners or were they still under developer uh contracts? Um, when we matched up names, uh, so the individuals that were on the no north side of Snowy Egret, it does it does appear like most of them were property owners. Um, they were already in the homes. So, I believe those homes were existing um, in 2023 when we um, initially started making all of our lists. When things went out in 2024, um, there were homeowners in in ones that we've researched. I mean, I obviously some of those went to there were some addresses that included trusts. Um, and uh maybe last names that matched, but first names didn't match. Um, so ownership could have passed on to a child. You know, we're not sure. We just we looked at the addresses. Um, and we matched that up with the mailing lists that were provided by the county and those were the addresses that we sent it out to. So the people that were on the north side of Snowy Egret should have received notifications according to the mailing list.

We we have information to the contrary and I can't argue one way or the other. If those homes were not occupied or if homes had not been built, did you notify the the home builder? Yeah, we do. Yes. Is there any requirements and maybe this is a legal question for our legal, you know, not that it's a county thing, but if the if the developer was notified about that, is are they required to notify any purchaser of that property of impending projects or anything like this that would impact, you know, that no individual in their home? I couldn't answer that. Uh that would have to be a question for the developer. I think that's all I've got for now.

Um, one a couple of some of the public comments that I saw um listed some alternatives that they had explored. Obviously, um, you guys have explored a lot of different alternatives. Are there any of those alternatives maybe you could speak to as why they weren't chosen or some of the I don't know considerations? some of the considerations if you we can go through some of the alternatives that we explored in the area. I don't know if it's going to match up exactly, but it will show the challenges. Okay.

Um Okay. So, we do have some. Okay. So, this is an overview of the the route. This map is I think Greg showed this one as well. It's a little bit busy, but the teal route is the proposed route. If you can see it, you you know, commissioners, you can probably see it a little bit better on the screens in front of you, but the the green Where did that mouse go? Um the green and yellow hash that goes north along Highway 6 corridor and then heads um west to West Mountain. The orange drops down south to go over West Mountain and the green stays on the north side. So for folks in the room, this alternative was not deemed feasible due to the constraints on the Highway 6 corridor. Um

so so expand that ex constraints on the Highway 6. Okay. So we when we one of the first things that we look at when we're developing a a a routing study is we look at existing linear facilities. Is there already a corridor? Is there a road? Is there a highway? Is there somewhere that we can, you know, railroad? Is there somewhere that we can be safely alongside an existing linear facility? The highway 6 corridor is enticing, right? Because it's a busy highway. There's already infrastructure there where a transmission line would it's already a mess. So, let's keep going.

Um, and so we did look closely at that. The constraints in that corridor however include the railroad rightway which runs alongside runs parallel to highway 6 and there is a high-pressure gas line I believe in between the highway and the railroad. So there's not enough physical space between the fences of the homes. You have the fences of the homes, the sidewalk, the railroad, the highpressure gas line, the highway. There's not enough physical space to put a 345 KV transmission line through there. So, that was a challenge of getting going anywhere north out of Spanish Fork. The pink dash line more on the south side coming out of Spanish Fork along the same existing route, but then it follows here along Powerhouse Road and then kind of drops down in here. this route wasn't deemed feasible because of existing urban infrastructure. So, a lot of homes and then a lot of the larger planned developed developments. Um, I can't remember the name of it off the top of my head right now cuz my brain, but starts with like a V right in here.

Vidian. Vidian. Um, you know, we met with them. They were great to to talk to, but that we physically again couldn't fit within their planned development because of the um proximity of the homes that had already been approved. These were existing, you know. Um and then the the there's a canal that runs through there as well. So, we couldn't physically fit the transmission line in there. How does the canal impact these lines? Well, the is it the strawberry canal? Is that what it's called? Strawberry Water District.

The Strawberry Water District because they have an easement in there as well. And with the it's, you know, there's the road, the sidewalk, the canal is in there. We can't fit the transmission line structures over the canal or you're talking about along 8 north side of 8,000 South? No, I'm talking about the one that there's that it looks like a diagonal scar that goes through um the the Vidian community. It's It'll be a road. Oh, you were looking at running it through there. Yeah, we did. We looked at that very very hard. Um I don't know if that's What about down 8,000 uh south in Salem?

We looked at 8,000 South in Salem. We met with um We met with Salem. We met with the canal. Um the the impacts to the existing homes along that road would be pretty severe. We'd have to potentially take out homes and um there would be a loss of a lot of trees in order to get to parallel along 8000 South. Um those homes are own older, so they're built, you know, kind of in different areas a little bit closer to the road. Um, so there wasn't, again, enough physical space for the impact to make sense. Along 8,000 South,

how wide is the big how wide at the base are these monopoles? How wide are they? They they'll span from 6 to 10 to 12 feet depending on what six feet in some cases. Six to 12. Six to 12, but six in some cases. Yeah, I mean they're they're going to be Yeah, the the straight line structures will be typically a little bit smaller unless there's a also needs to come to the microphone. The microphone. Sorry. You were more than 12 feet away from the mic.

Yeah. So, we're Yeah. Yeah, I mean the the foundation sizes are going to change depending on the soil conditions, what kind of structure is in place. Um, but they can range anywhere from 6 to 12 if not sometimes a little bit bigger just depending on what the size of the pole is, you know, all all the deciding engineering factors. Okay, thanks. So, um, I believe on a lot of these canals and stuff, uh, if I'm not mistaken, there's a potential for them to get enclosed and be piped. Has there been any discussion with the water districts to to co-mingle and use that existing easement?

Yeah, so along 8800 South um kind of south of the river bottoms um we we did look at that and we we had discussions with them on that. Um but then there was you know that constraint, but then there's also the constraint of uh you know the existing homes and and trees and everything like that along along 8800 South through there. That's just one example. Um, then there there's other spots that we we've discussed with other water conservancy districts and and they they've got they would potentially work with us, but at the same time there's other constraints that have led us to the decision and the and the route that that has been deemed a buildable line.

On this map right here, the pink areas, what are what are those why are those highlighted? Those are preliminary. Um I can't read that far. Yeah, they're planned development. I'm sorry, I need better glasses. Um they're they're planned and proposed development. We wanted to highlight, you know, just how there's a lot going on. Okay. So, I know a lot of comments um ask why why these lines aren't being buried. Okay, I have a slide for that.

Thank you. Um, give me a minute on this one. [Music] Okay. So, Rocky Mountain Power does get asked quite a lot about undergrounding. All utilities do. Um, it makes sense. It's a reasonable question. So undergrounding a transmission line does present multiple challenges in addition to technical and system designs. Um the impacts to land use as you can see in these pictures are pretty severe to build an underground transmission line of this high voltage. Um you know they're building a a giant trench. Those the concrete sort of rectangles that you see are um they're basically the size of a um onecar garage. They need to be spaced every approximately 1,200 ft in order to allow access for maintenance on the line. Um when there is when an outage occurs, it's not as easy to find in an underground line. So the the time to complete those repairs is is serious. on, you know, if you experience an outage with on an overhead transmission line, it can be out, you know, uncomfortably for a few hours, maybe a couple days in a major event. You know, I know not of Rocky Mountain Power because they they don't have any um lines buried at this voltage, but I I do know of other utilities who who have had outages on underground lines that have taken, you know, six, eight months to complete a repair, which is obviously a pretty big impact to the system. Um the picture that you see on the right of the screen here, this is this is something that at a 345 KV trans uh voltage would be needed at every entry and exit point. So everywhere where you're building where you're transitioning to underground, you would need one of these. And then everywhere

that you pop back up, you would need one of these. And they're basically, you know, it's a substation at that point. It's not just a structure. Um and then you know before we began our presentation we did talk about the costs. Um you know Richard was talking about at a lower voltage a line that is being undergrounded that's 22 2,000 ft

2,000 ft and 7 7 and a half million to do that. The costs are you know when you compare can be you know 15 20 times as expensive as building it overhead. And those are costs that ultimately are passed on down to the rateayers. So that's it's not a it's not a feasible solution. It's a reasonable it's reasonable that people ask about it, but for a project of this size at this voltage, building them underground isn't feasible or reasonable. Otherwise, you would see it everywhere. What are the likely scenarios that would lead to the a power outage if it was buried like this? And normally look at things like wind as being a primary cause.

Yeah, that's an interesting question.

Yeah, I mean it's a lot of it's going to be diggings or or just even cable failures. I mean, not everything we we want it to go in and we want it to last forever, but you know that things just tend to fail. Um, and when it's up in the air, you're able to spot it real quickly and be able to go and make that repair. If it's underground and you have a bad splice or a cable fails or something gets in there or someone digs into it, you know, there's that that potential. I know we're doing a job right now um, you know, in in a different area that we've got undergrounded 138 kilovolt. We had a you know, a developer dig into the line. It was 20 feet deep. they still dug into it, you know, and that that's now a repair that's taking two years. So, just there there are opportunities for things to happen like that and we don't have any buried uh transmission lines in the Rocky Mountain Power Service territory that's above 138 kilovolt. So, so we're we're, you know, operationally we're not set up to to be able to do that. Um it's a new new system and technology to Rocky Mount Power at that rate and the the costs are wildly prohibitive of doing that and the impact to to us even building line where you might have a 6 to 12 foot structure, you know, along along a linear structure or a corridor. Now you've got a a huge trench that's going to be opened up, you know, as big as a road coming through there, and you're not allowed to put anything on top of it. It's got to be be free and clear of anything. It's Yeah, it's it's tough. It's not like your distribution lines that you see buried all over the place. This is uh significantly different. This would be, you know, without doing a real design on it, you're probably talking 10 8 in conduits, you know, three to four 4 inch conduits and and several 2in

conduits along with 8 by 33 foot vaults every,200 ft. Adds up. Thank you on that. And um another uh concern I've heard is health. What what what are the health concerns with this with the large transmission line above?

Um yeah, so glad you asked. Um with us this evening we have um Dr. Gabbor Mzai. Um he is a physician and epidemiologist with over 25 years of experience in research of clinical outcomes and environmental and occupational health issues. Um he designed, conducted and evaluated epidemiologic investigations and directed multi disciplinary research programs related to children's health including childhood leukemia and brain cancer, adult cancers, neurodeenerative diseases, reproductive health outcomes, and occupational injuries and ergonomics. So he we have him here with us today. He's a principal scientist with an organization called Exponent, and he's here to address those concerns. This is the former have to introduce yourself.

Well, thank you very much for the introduction. My name is Gabor Mez. I'm a medical doctor and a PhD in epidemiology and I'm a principal scientist at Exponent. U my office is in Oakland, California. So I was asked to come here to provide uh answers to these type of questions and uh answer any other question related to health. So much of uh my work in the last 25 26 years was related to conducting on evaluating research related to EMF and potential health effects prior to joining exponent uh in 2013. Uh for 14 years I was at the notfor-profit electric power research institute when I was where I was heading the EMF health assessment research program. uh so I'm kind of familiar with this area but uh you don't have to take my word for it. So this research is started long before I got involved in this area. So uh the first study that was looking at the potential health effects of EMF for living near to transmission lines was published in the 1970s and then since then uh thousands of studies were published in this area and then the studies were basically three in three main categories. One is epidemiology studies and I'm an epidemiologist so I conducted some of those and epidemiology is basically looking at disease patterns in human populations. Uh the second big area is so we are observing basically an epidemiology study people living in their environment or or in the work environment and see if that environment causes any adverse health effects. The second big uh group of studies are animal studies. Laboratory animal studies where scientists can expose laboratory animals to much higher fields that humans would ever be exposed to and

see if there is any potential health effects. And then the third group of studies is looking at cells and tissues in laboratory environments whether they respond to EMF uh or not. Uh so over the last 50 years or so uh thousands of studies were published and this uh these studies were regularly evaluated by uh state and international and national health and scientific agencies or government agencies uh that assemble typically a panel of scientists. It's not just individual scientists to look at all these papers because the vast amount of re research requires a group approach. So uh uh these uh agencies typically assemble a group of experts with various expertise, epidemiologists, medical doctors, engineers, uh laboratory scientists and so on. and they look at all the literature published to that date and they evaluate the weaknesses of the studies, look at the strengths of the studies and then they look at the evidence all together the totality of the evidence. So a main point that I highlighted here in the bottom of the screen is that you cannot rely on individual studies or a selected small group of studies what you like it shows some outcome. So you have to rely on the totality of the evidence and and this type of reviews uh were done by a number of uh as I said government and uh scientific agencies in in in the US in Canada, internationally and then many countries in Europe. And uh all of these studies looked at the evidence that were available at that time when they conducted their the evaluation. And uh uh in short, none of these con came to the conclusion that the available evidence confirms the existence of any

adverse health effects at the levels that we are exposed to due to the use of or transmission of electricity. And then I had two quotes uh from the World Health Organization website um uh and you can read and then it says that despite of the feeling of some people that there is more research uh needed in this area uh this uh area is more research than many other uh so we know more about this exposure than many other chemicals or other exposures. And then uh the second uh sentence I highlighted here is that uh despite of this tremendous amount of research data, the evidence does not confirm any uh adverse health effects in association with um EMF what we are exposed to from uh the use or or transmission of electricity.

So for uh Dr. Sorry to interrupt there, but before you move to the next slide, can you talk a little bit about what low-level electromatic fields is? Is this I mean, do we know this is lowlevel?

Well, yes. And then actually goes to the next next slide. So uh what typically so I don't know exactly I can't I don't want to quote specific numbers but uh uh if we talk about specifically magnetic fields uh transmission lines right under the transmission lines it could be like tens or maybe hundreds of millig where you or even I see even okay so those are the typical values right under the the transmission line. So uh if you and then we have to know that the fields diminish very quickly as you move away from the source. So typically at the edge of right of way is is in it's in the tins or several could be several milligaus and then there were two international agency and then I just provide some comparison what we think is low-level exposure. So there were two international agencies that I highlighted here that looked at the the totality of the evidence and they were trying to set guidelines that protects the public from all established health effects. Uh because there is no in the US there is no federal regulations to limit uh magnetic fields exposure, EMF exposure and in Utah there is no state limit to limit exposure to EMF. But there are these two international scientific agencies that reviewed the evidence and then they they they concluded that there is no long-term health effects associated with fields. They only identified short-term acute effects that were observed at extremely high levels that we would not experience near even transmission lines or in any normal day-to-day uh environment. So these are uh basically based on laboratory observations that where they

generated very high fields and then those effects were very short-term like nerve stimulations or muscle stimulations or some visual effects but again these are much higher than you would expect and then these two agencies set the limits at 2,000 and 9,000 migos for magnetic field exposure and as I said uh even at right under the this type of transmission lines it would be the values would be lower than this.

So the representation is that these uh this 345 kV line is not going to produce an electric magnetic field that's greater than these the 2000 and the 9000. U based on my experience it's unlikely that there would be any even close to these values right under the lines. Yes. Okay. and but I I can't speak for specific values but the the company will do the calculations but uh typically what I have seen across the country in other locations those are much well below these values.

So have there been any long-term studies on the impact? Yes, as I said, there were a number of studies and as when I said epidemiology studies, many of those were looking at long-term health effects, looking at various types of cancers in children, in adults, in in residential environment and also among workers and uh there were large number of studies and then the results varied but the quality of the studies varied. But overall these organizations that reviewed the available evidence none of them concluded that there is a confirmed health effects associated with those levels.

Okay. Thank you. uh and then basically just in summarizing what I just said uh this research has been going on for approximately 50 years and then the available large body of research has been evaluated regularly and repeatedly by various uh national and international health and scientific and government organizations and none of them uh concluded that there is an adverse health effect associated with u uh EMF at the levels we are expo experiencing in our daily lives and then there are as I said health-based exposure guideline limits established by two scientific international scientific agencies and uh the values that might be anticipated with the the proposed lines would be in my opinion below the magnetic field levels would be below those guideline values. How about how about is there is there sound the sound of the lines does that

yes there is there is some sound associated again that could be uh calculated but then there there's no adverse health effects associated with those how about uh to to two animals I mean is is there we have a lot of wildlife that gets impacted by yeah I mean the research is mostly focusing on human health because that was the priority for research. But there are a number of studies looking at like dairy cattle or or domestic animals like swine or or other animals and also looking at wildlife like deer and there is no consistent adverse health effects with those as well.

Any further questions for the doctor? Okay. Okay. Thank Can you ask him what he's being paid to be here today and how often he's appeared and testified against a power to come the mic? That would be if we can wait for the public comment period. Thank you. Are there further questions for the doctor from the commission?

Not from the for the doctor, but u couple questions couple of the questions I have. you know, noise has been brought up, and I know these these power lines are a source of noise that uh maybe the the decibel level of the noise isn't irritating, but it certainly is aggravating if you live or work near those lines. Um uh there's concerns of decreasing land values. Uh is there any mitigation for that? Uh there's also this power line was is going to affect existing businesses that would have um buildings or facilities normally underneath that line. And typically and I I believe you're limited to about 12 ft of any type of a structure or trees underneath these lines. How are you going to help those businesses retain their, you know, their their business uh if this line gets put across top of their property? So, with respect to um businesses that would be impacted by the line, if if they're, you know, a land owner with whom we're pursuing an easement, we'll work with each landowner on an individual basis in negotiations with those easements to um place polls where it makes the most sense, where it's feasible for Rocky Mountain Power, where it makes the most sense to be accommodating to the facilities on their properties. As far as like height restrictions, it's most it's Yeah. Yeah, large growing trees, um, things that could interfere with the safety of the line.

And then is there do you regulate the flow of power? Does it decrease, increase with different times? I mean, you know, the the 345 KV is what you're applying for. Is there a chance that you'll come back later and just increase that that uh level?

No. I mean, so like the voltage won't change. um not not that we would be able to, you know, foresee. Um but it's it's all based on like your framing of the structures, the type of structures that you're using. You know, going from one voltage to another voltage typically means a different framing size. Uh different insulator sizes, you know, basically because we got to keep the conductor away from anything that can be grounded um and then cause a you know, a phase to ground or phase to phase. So, so the voltage class is is pretty much what it's going to end up being as far as the amps going up and down. Uh the current going through the line. Yeah, that's that's going to potentially go up and down throughout the day as load requires and and generation comes on and off. Um but that's that's typical. I mean that's I mean just going to your house on the service lines to your house, you know, the the power flows to there goes up and down just as as much. Yeah, that's part of the reason of the question because I lost an air conditioning unit because of it. So anyway,

did you answer the question about value? I'm so sorry. I shouldn't interrupt, but you asked about value. There's value. We probably need to wait for the public comments. Sorry to step in there, but I I do have some more qu Are you gonna go, Robert? I've just I we haven't addressed the the flooding in in uh down through the Spanish Fork River Bottoms. Tell us about that or if you've made contingencies for that.

Yeah, so I mean honestly a power line in a flood zone is actually probably advantageous or it's it's a good use of it. Um you know I mean we we've got structures that are built for that. We've got structures going through uh you know like at the toe of the Great Salt Lake. We've got them through other flood zone areas. That's not a not a necessarily concern. We just designed to account for that. So I mean a single structure that gets flooded with a little bit of water around the base of it, you know, is it's not going to cause any kind of concerns to to safety or the integrity of our our structures. Do you make uh provision for that then? Like will it be a different structure down through the river bottoms? Typically those foundations will get a little bit bigger and deeper just because of the you know the the soil conditions. But as far as you know like the the style of structure is going to be pretty typical. It just it might get a little bit taller, a little beefier. Um you know it's just it's going to be designed out that way.

Okay. Thank you. What's the design impact for uh earthquake mitigation? That's so I mean it's all based on the seismic reports and the seismic zones that we're we're building in. Um you know up around magnets built a little bit different than it is you know in other areas, right? Um we we look at those individual areas and and size accordingly. So uh so I've got some just some general questions. first of all and um my understanding is that Rocky Mountain Power Pacific Corp has the power of eminent domain. Is that correct? Yes.

So the utility company has the power to just take the land. Correct. With the obligation to pay fair value for the land. Yes. But our intent is to be able to negotiate with each individual land owner for a fair Sure. But at the end of the day, that's the power that the utility company has ultimately. Yes. Right. And and is there a reason that you chose to take an easement rather than fee title?

We want the land owners to to still be able to to own their property and be able to to do with it what they want. It's, you know, it's it's their property. We want them to to be able to to still be able to to use it, you know, with us. Similarly to like a sewer line following a road, gas line, water line, you know, you name it, right? Communications. A lot of those go through private property, you know, through a public utility um easement or through a private easement. Um and we're just we're trying to do the exact same thing. So So you'll share share the easement down the road. Correct. Yeah. These are non-exclusive fees.

Okay. And um the concern I have with that is they get to use the land, continue to use land, but they can't put anything on it. There's limitations to it. They can still farm it. They can still, you know, we're we're cohabitating um you know, working with uh Utah County.

So if you're not a farmer, you can't you can't use it. what I'm what I'm saying like so we're working with Utah County right now um with the public works you know as far as some some other road projects that they're doing and they're planning on putting in a trail system you know and and doing all sorts of those kind of things. So there's there's multiple opportunities for kind of joint use and cohabitation of of the areas that we're working in. But but the then the land owner has to continue to pay property taxes on that land, right? Yes.

So, um, another question I have is about the access roads, the 15oot access roads. Are they going to be within 125 ft easement area? For the most part, there's going to be spots where we'll work with each individual land owner on figuring out how best to get to to that particular structure where we have to to maintain or do construction on it. Um and and we'll work that out with each individual. So, that would be a separate easement. Yes. Or property access, property agreement.

Okay. Okay. Um while he's looking at that, didn't I didn't I see that there's some construction easements that are 300 feet wide? Um, yeah. So, I mean, where we're going to have, you know, setting the structures is one thing, doing that, but then during construction, there's going to be spots there where we're going to have to widen out a little bit. Um, when we're pulling cable, we're going to have to have some temporary agreements in place to to be able to set up our equipment, you know, out past the pole. Um, be able to to be able to pull that wire in and and tension it on the other side. They're temporary, though. They're temporary agreements. Yeah. Yeah.

That with the land owner And we will work with each individual land owner on those agreements. And just to continue on that thought, that's where I was going with this. So you got the construction yard, the layown area, the storage areas. Um are those going to be those will be temporary units uses.

Yes. Yeah. And we'll work with each individual land owner as we approach those areas to to finalize a a lease or agreement or or something to that effect. And we work with land owners who want, you know, are interested in having that temporary for as far as lay down yards go and access roads. You know, we we try to seek out land owners who who would want that temporary use and the payment associated with it. So the landowner loses the land, doesn't can't really oppose the loss of the land, gets paid for it, has an income tax obligation because of that, and then has continued property tax obligations even though its use is restricted now.

So we're no real different than any other utility that there. Yeah, I get it. Yeah. Um, so who benefits from this project? So, pretty much everybody. Um, so it's it's a overall grid optimization project. So, it overall like it improves grid reliability. Um, it allows for new generation to come online for the continued growth within the county. Um, you know, to be able to to be able to get power to where we need it. Um, and so ultimately, you know, it's it's not a direct, you know, individual, you know, beneficiary to it, but it's ultimately it's a it's an overall grid optimization and reliability

for and so it benefits everybody in the county. Yeah. I mean, so everyone here in the Rocky Mountain Power Service Territory and then everyone that we help support as far as, you know, because a lot of the the local municipalities that are the power providers to a lot of the folks in this area, they get their power from Rocky Mountain Power a lot of times. And so that ultimately helps helps them out as well. Okay. Um, and and you've got to get permits from every municipality along the way. That's correct. They've got to approve every single monopole that goes up and the wiring and that goes along the way. If they have Sorry, Greg, did you want to

if there's Yeah, if I mean there's ordinance that applies. Yeah. If they have a land use ordinance that applies to that. However, there's also um building code regulations that may exempt them from being required to obtain building permits for those. So, um if there are regulations that um they would have to follow as local uh regulations, then they would have to get that. in reference to the construction areas and and temporary construction yards, they would have to get permitted for those areas that they're going to have that those temporary construction yards um have a limitation on the duration and um the location of those as well.

And and isn't Rocky Mountain Power part of its licensing? Isn't it required to maintain this level of service? Is there's a level of service it has to maintain for the customers? Isn't that part of the licensing that Pacific Corp has with the state or the public service commission? I mean, why why do this? Why do what? Why do why do what you're doing? Well, we do have a responsibility to ensure that, you know, we have enough power. Who says you have that responsibility?

Uh, Burke. Yeah, there's federal state. Yeah, there's federal and state requirements. Um, and we do have to provide power for

anyone who needs power. I mean, you know, that's that's what we do. We we make sure that everybody has power. Um, and you know, when we strengthen the grid, it really does benefit everybody. The grid is a large connection. Everybody is connected to the grid. And so, this is really just a grid optimization pro pro uh project um in efforts to you know make sure that the draw on the grid the constraints that we're feeling you know that we can strengthen that grid and um increase our resiliency our redundancy um just again like he had mentioned to avoid the potential for those rolling blackouts and I think that you know we've all seen how much growth has taken place in the area and it really doesn't seem to look like it's slowing down. Um, so there is definitely a need to make sure that the energy grid is strengthened

and the line is not going to push any power create any power. It it creates no power it on its own. It's going to explain how that it's the ability to push more power, deliver more power to the community as a as a whole. Without it, you can't deliver that extra power. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. So there's additional generation coming online that is a requirement for this line to come online before they're able to to be, you know, be able to start generating. But even if they're generating in southern Utah, Wyoming, wherever, you know, we need to be able to get the power to where it's needed and between Utah County, Salt Lake County, that's kind of creating that loop so we can be able to generate, you know, be able to push power where it needs to go.

Okay. Be able to serve those customers. You know the difficulty I have with these kind of projects is that the there's a overall community benefit but that benefit the burden of that benefit is placed on a very small handful of land owners and whether it's a new road whether it's a power

I get that I get that but every road that's out there every road all of us are using somebody lost it somewhere every And so that that's what's really difficult with this, right? It's and you guys are got this mandate. You got to push power, get power, keep it reliable. And we all we're we don't have enough power. We don't have enough power. That's a fact. We got to get more power. So that I mean that's what's really hard with this is there are it just imposes a burden on a few land owners that um benefits the whole community and the whole community is not here to say thank you.

But so thank you for your answers. I appreciate it. Just want to I ask you I I assume Rocky Mountain Power pays property tax on their transmission lines. No, yes. Personal property tax be probably a personal property tax the company. I I don't think the easements are taxed real property tax. I don't think easements are I don't know if we have anyone here to be able to to answer that. If we got some builders nodding their heads. Yeah,

everyone's going to get an opportunity for both comment. So, please keep comments for that. Is there any further questions for the applicant? Just thank you. Thank you for Thank you.

your presentation. Um, are there any questions back to staff before we just just to summarize what we can do here is allow them to continue with some um constraints, some conditions. as long as those conditions are reasonable and if those conditions cost more that burden comes back to the whole county. Is that

oversimplification? Yeah, it's close. Um really what you're looking at is identifying any um reasonable and reasonably anticipated detrimental effects and then anticipate then if you can identify those clearly um assess what um conditions can be attached to mitigate those. Um and then there is another process that uh the utility provider can pursue that that through a a review uh with the state agency that can determine basically who's going to bear those costs which yes ultimately um it could end up being the county meaning that this would have to go back to the county commission to assess whether or not they would be willing to take on those costs and um if not then those condition that condition would not be deemed applicable. and or and we can deny it

again. Yeah, you you do have that right, but you'd have to find identify adverse effects that cannot it has to be with can't yes because we want to discussion which that decision can can also be appealed to the same this same uh board. And I I I don't I maybe we you know skipped over this part or maybe said it so quietly I didn't hear it but your your recommendation from staff is that that that they've met minimum requirements and your your recommendation is to approve is there were there any conditions?

Yes, there were several conditions um obviously conditions to to meet all applicable state federal requirements get applicable permits. They proposed a number of uh mitigation uh measures. So those would all be incorporated as uh a condition of approval to follow those. They've already added those to their Yes, they're in your application. Yes, there's a table in there that addresses. So with with their application and and their mitigating factors, your the recommendation from staff is to to approve at this point. Okay. So one more question. Yes. Does this go to the uh county commissioners?

No, this you are the land use authority for conditional uses. So this would be the final decision as far as the the county land uses goes. Now obviously the caveat that can it can be appealed but yeah this is the uh you are the land use authority for the the decision.

Okay. So, we we do have um we do have uh the option to um to hear public comment. And I I I I want to say uh just first hopefully those in attendance uh because some of the comments we received uh before the meeting, it uh it appeared maybe there was a misunderstanding that somehow this group up here planned this power line and that's not the case, right? We're we're here to hear the the applicant's uh request for a permit and um so you know we're here to to hear the you know the both sides and and try and make the best decision. Um

there's a list. Uh yep. Okay. So there's a list on the back of that.

Oh there's a list on the back here. Okay. So what we we do have uh a list of everyone who wants to speak and um we have received a request that some with some uh children it sounds like would like to uh be represented by possibly a group maybe or or would be allowed to uh speak first. I do want to say that we our rules are um that each each one that is allowed to speak is limited to three minutes. And so we do have a timer

we have a timer here that we will use and we will we we've got to adhere to it or we'll be here all night. So uh we've got to adhere to that. And so I guess uh uh first question is there are there any what would we call it here? Are there any um cuz I think we do also have uh the the idea here that uh there can be a group spokesperson who can uh speak for three or more. Does this group that has submitted their names is having children here with us and wanted to go first from Salem Park. Uh do you have a a spokesperson possibly? No, that's the list. Yes, we do.

You have a spokesperson. Okay. So if we have a spokesperson, we can give u uh a maximum of seven minutes, but you'd be speaking for the entire group um for that seven minutes. Does that make sense? The rules we were told is everyone gets to speak. Seven minutes goes to the spokesperson. Mr. Chair, your your res just something to clarify. You have adopted a resolution that allows a spokesperson to speak for three people for up to seven minutes. Those three people forfeit their time. That's right. Perfect. Which we have three other people that do not want to speak.

Okay. And they have to be on the list and then we need to verify who they are. Is is there also a provision like if we if a public comment covers a particular topic, we don't need to rehash that over and over with subsequent topic comments. So if someone says something that is your point that's already been made, let's not belabor the point. Yes. And we'll rely on the chair to kind of emphasize that. But yes, it is.

Yeah. This is part of the the resolution that we abide by. Speakers are requested to speak to the issue and not be redundant. If a point a speaker wishes to make has already been stated by someone else, the speaker should state his or her agreement but should not restate the whole matter again. And the chair may cut off a speaker clearly off the issue repeating information already presented. So, I'm going to do my best here and but again, my my purpose here is make sure people get their chance to to get their their opinion voice heard and but again, if we if we've got a particular statement that's been made, we want to just say I'm in agreement with this statement and let's move on to the next speaker, okay? To to to be as judicious as we can. So,

Mr. Chair, that also would include those um written statements that are included as part of the record. They can reference those. Yep. Okay. Yeah. Okay. So, uh so do we uh do we need to do we need to open it up to the to the hearing or this is not a public hearing. We don't need a public hearing. This is not required to have a public hearing. You are choosing to allow public comment. Uh do do we need a vote? Do we need a vote to Nope. You can just you can just say I'm going to we're going to accept public comment and go through your list.

Well, we've already got a list. We've got people that want to speak. Is is uh is the commission okay with uh taking these uh these speakers first even though they're not the first on the on the uh list? Yes. All those in favor say I. I. Okay. It sounds like we will go first with Joseph Yabara. Yeah. Is that a Is that a And is are you speaking for a group, Joseph? Yes, for the uh Salem Park Residents and Wildlife Coalition. Okay. And actually, could we get that reset to seven? Yeah, we'll need that to seven. Sorry. Thanks. Is it all right if I start? Yes.

Okay. Uh chair, commission members, thank you for allowing me to speak today. I know you didn't have to, so thank you. I I do appreciate it. My name is Joseph Ibara. I represent the Salem Park Residence and Wildlife Coalition. Uh we're here to address what we've been talking about the the Mercer project, right? Utah law is clear. Utilities must provide uh direct mail notice to every affected landowner and conduct a public workshop before seeking approval of high voltage transmission lines. Um in just 3 hours last Sunday night, our coalition gathered 40 declarations from affected landowners, each uh signed under penalty of perjury stating that they never received required notice. We expect uh the full 59 land owners who were left in the dark to submit their declarations in the coming days. When pressed on this failure, Rocky Mountain Power claimed they had satisfied it by uh by get this, a radio ad and a newspaper posting um that is not in compliance with Utah code 5418301 and 302. It is a willful dis display display of corporate power that disregards the rights of land owners. And when asked why they didn't mail direct notices as the law requires, they could provide us no evidence. Um there's been no goodfaith effort uh to notify affected land owners. And I know this because when I found out about the project a week ago Sunday, I sounded the alarm on Monday morning at 8:00 a.m. and by 9:00 a.m. almost the entire neighborhood was aware. Um if one or two individuals can accomplish this in an hour, surely a a company worth 69 billion can do better. So, this is not just sloppy, it's unlawful. And here's the key point. This commission has the authority to withhold the permit until the proper notice is given. Uh, Utah code 5418304 uh 2 makes this explicitly clear. This authority exists to protect fairness, due process, and lawful participation of every affected landowner standing here

beside behind me. And and it it's short, so let's just read it. Um, if a public utility does not satisfy the notice of intent requirements in accordance with this section, the land use authority may withhold on a a decision on a public utility land use permit until the public utility satisfies the notification and public workshop requirements. Let me be very direct. You may have been told that this meeting was just a formality. Uh you may have been told that you're required to sign off on this permit. That is absolutely not the case. With Rocky Mountain's willful negligence, the law specifically instructs you to withhold approval until proper notice is given. Beyond the notice failures, this is this impacts on the community are devastating. families stand to lose 70 to $140,000 in home equity per household amounting to nine uh to $18 million stolen from our neighborhood. This is legalized theft borne not by the utility but by these citizens. The SA also the Salem Park wetlands home to migratory birds including bald eagle will be disrupted threatening uh nesting and migration patterns protected under federal law. Rocky Mountain Power has already been fined millions of dollars, 13 million uh for bird deaths and from uh from its lines elsewhere. Our cherished views of of Mount Tempino will be permanently marred by 100 to 150 foot towers, four to six times the size of our homes. Uh many of us move there for the rural lifestyle and the views, both of which would be gone forever. Residents uh additionally, residents face additional risks. EML, EMF health concerns, increased wildfire danger, and studies show uh at least a 65% greater chance of childhood leukemia for

children living near high voltage transmission lines. And we have at least 35 children under the age of six living directly next to the proposed line. You'll hear more about this uh with with some of these other members that are going to come up. Uh we're and we're not here just to oppose. We have uh other solutions. The coalition has identified several alternative routes that would greatly reduce the harm to land owners, property values, and children's health. the sensitive habitats. We've also proposed undergrounding for the lines where it runs adjacent to neighborhoods and wetlands. When approached about undergrounding, I I you're probably not surprised. Rocky Mountain's response has always been that would cost more money. Then we would have to increase electricity rates. The irony could not be sharper because yes, it would cost more. And that is exactly what the law intends it to be. What they're really saying is following the law and minimizing harm costs too much. So we'll take millions of dollars out of your citizens property values instead. This is unacceptable. Instead of forcing hundreds of families to absorb catastrophic personal losses, the cost should be shared among all those who benefit from the project. Those who profit benefit from the power should bear the cost of building the the line lawfully and responsibly. Not the residents of Salem Park. We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are simply asking for a fair process and a chance to be heard. Until Rocky Power fulfills its legal duty to notify affected land owners and seriously consider less harmful

alternatives, the commission must withhold the permit. And again, this is not optional. It is explicitly authorized under Utah code 54183042, which I noticed was lacking in your your council that you were just given. This was not even a mentioned to you. Um, our coalition represents more than 10,000 re residents who have signed our petition and we are engaged, organized, and committed. And make no mistake, this decision will not go unnoticed. On behalf of the Salem Park community, we urge you withhold approval, require proper notice, and insist on fair, lawful alternatives to protect families, neighborhoods, and the environment. Thank you. [Applause] Okay. So, can we ask some questions?

Sure. So, my thank you for that u uh presentation. My first question is with respect to the lack of notice. Yeah. Uh it seems to me that every a lot of folks are here so they do know about it and if you get another chance what happens do we do again in 6 months and well okay so it's it's a great question. So actually after looking into it their notice that they were supposed to have sent and you're going to hear about this in just a minute with actual evidence sorry uh does not even qual it does not satisfy the original statue anyways. Okay so that's not my point. My point is what are you going to do about

what do you do after actual if assuming you're correct what are you going to do about actual legal notice? It's okay. Well, legal notice or or moving the lines because because once once they get legal notice then what I just mentioned about you guys withholding the the permission wouldn't necessarily apply. You're right about that. Is that what you're saying? Yes. I mean my my point is okay let's assume the notice was improper and I don't know whether it was or wasn't. Okay. Sure. So if it was improper Yeah. What what's next? What's next? Because the the power company still has the authority to condemn the land and take it. You're right. You're right. You are right about that. And and it it has tremendous power. It's a hard pill to swallow.

Absolutely. And it's big. It's a big pill. Now Now here's the thing is that we are still in the process of submitting grammar requests. There may be other improprieties that have happened along this path. There are other avenues, but we were only notified a week ago. Okay? And so we have not had any ability to actually understand the law. Like this is a week that we came and got all of this evidence for you guys. Um and so yeah, give me another month and we'll see what we can do in terms of actually solving that problem. But I don't know. I don't know what's next necessarily. Is anybody in Salem Park losing any of their land?

Uh not that I'm aware. Does anybody in Salem Park have a restrictive covenant on the land to the north where this is going to go that disallows any improvements going in that would obstruct your view of Tempenogus? Uh I again I I I don't know. I'm just a neighbor. We're not entitled to a view. Sure. I we buy property because it's beautiful and we have a view, but we don't own a view unless we pay for it. And you can do a restrictive covenant that prevents people from blocking your view. Right. So that's that's the point of my question, whether or not anybody has. Yeah, we can research that.

Well, I've talked to the land owner and uh I don't Anyway, um Okay, I'll I'll withhold my other question, but thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Thank you. I just one quick I just help me understand how you folks missed all of these uh public meetings. Well, if we weren't when we weren't notified, how how how on earth are we supposed to go to a public meeting when we don't receive notification?

Okay. You don't Well, obviously you don't read the newspaper. Uh, your city your city your your city didn't didn't bother to notify you, right? I guess I I I Well, so so just to be clear, it's not on the city to notify us about this permit. It's not on you guys to not notify us about this permit. It is Rocky Mountain's uh uh responsibility to do so, which they failed. That's that that is the issue. And I don't know if you noticed there were like 22 people only in Salem that came when they were like

right. So I don't I I live in uh well I live between Salem and Woodland Hills. Yeah. And I knew about it. I knew what Hold on a second guys. Hold on. Hold on. I guess so. So So with all due respect though, I mean you are on the planning commission, right? I would assume you're fairly well politically connected. It makes a lot of sense that you would hear about something like this. Um, is that not fair to say? I mean, I'm just saying we didn't that is the that is the issue at hand, not whether or not someone else may have heard about it. Right.

As far as just being on the planning commission and knowing about this this, you know, when we got the uh notification and the agenda, that's the first time I was aware of it. So, yeah. I don't know how it works. I'm sorry. Thanks, Joseph. Uh, yeah. Are you do can you name the other the members of your group that you were speaking for? Um, may I respond to the question about the notification just real quick?

I have written emails back and sorry, my name is Kevin Cter. I'm I live across the street from the border of Salem Park. Um, I have been emailing with Rocky Mountain Power and they sent me the notification they had allegedly sent out to all of us and it was a very very clear document that showed what they were intending to do. If we anyone in our neighborhood had received that, we would have had the same reaction a year ago. So, I can guarantee you that no one received that. Right. It's it's sort of shocking to say that all of Salem, I think it was like 22 people on their slide showed up to a meeting. It's like

uh I mean obviously people didn't like that's that's evidence that they didn't receive notice obviously. But anyways, I'll I think we answered the question, but I So the next one is Matt Miller and then Kevin Mary. Did you already give them the two other names? Well, I have I have a list of Matt, Kevin, Mary, Garnett, Tasha, Devin, Rebecca, Aaron, another Kevin, and Chris Life. You spoke for for all those? No, no, no, no, no, no. Oh, so the ones that I spoke for, they're not. No. Do you know who? So, we can cross them off the list. So, the the three Yeah. Christine,

my name should be on there. Andrew's husband. Brandon Martin. I'm on the list. One of the on

Oh, if I take that list, I could get it for you really easily. Sorry, we can't give you the list. We need to go off of it. We just want to make sure we've um given the the three that you that you were speaking for for seven minutes. They are who? Jessicaine right here. Christine. Okay. Yeah. Um, are you speaking for Matt Miller? No. Okay. No, I'm sorry. Understanding your question, Mr. Chair. It might be helpful to ask if if there's any others that want to agree uh with that comment so we can kind of expedite this and if they feel comfortable that that was represented. It could be more than three. So, yeah,

suppose we can ask them to get to their name. They can indicate they've already been spoken for. Here's a Mary. Is that one that you No. on the paper. Yeah. You better not check off your wife. You're gonna have a bad night tonight. Is that all right to just They can indicate it when you get to him. Okay. Can you make sure how else we're going to So, I guess that list we've already gone through. Was there anyone else on on that list that had children that that wanted to speak? Christine should actually be on that list. Christine BL on the thing back there. The names need to be submitted prior to the start of the meeting. I think we did see Christine on that list with children.

Chris is on that list, but Christine, too. Yes. Do you have children? Because we agreed to let those that had children that wanted to speak first go. Go present here. I'm sorry. No, I do not. No, I did. I wasn't trying to Thank you. I did not understand. I'll let others go first. He's in our group. He's in your group. He's in our group. Keep that group together. I had three minutes. Okay. All I have is about 30 seconds because he covered everything except two things. But I can go later if you really want to. Matt and we'll go What's your name? My name is Matthew Miller. Matt. Matt Miller. Okay. I I'll be very quick. I think Joe did an excellent job. Thank you, Joe. I am just going to uh Can I go you guys? Yes.

Okay. This map shows those that are within the required reporting um notification distances within the proposed line of excuse me we have gone out like we've talked about and canvased every single home gotten responses from everyone only one person said that they have been notified that person does work I believe for the county for somewhere in the government he had been notified somewhere else no one else has been notified I think you guys have all received the uh sign affidavits that we have the testing the way I've been notified I think Joe made a good point. There is no way that if we knew a year ago and then all a sudden a year later we're all a sudden making a deal like this. Um in this neighborhood, nine out of 10 of these homes has little children. My concern is the um the attractive nuisance of those power lines and children being around them. Um but without the due process of of being notified, I don't see how this could progress. And that was all I wanted to share.

Thank you. Okay, we got uh Kevin Brixson. Hello. Thank you for taking my uh my words. Similar to Matt, Joe covered many of the points. So, I'll try and make this quick and brief. Um and it's regarding the decreased value of of our equity and how that is going to be addressed. Um, as Joe mentioned, you know, we're there are studies out there show anywhere between 20 and 30% reduction in equity when we try to sell our homes. And why is why is that millions of dollars coming back on the burdens of the citizens of Salem Park?

Thank you, Kevin. Mary Vera, I saw you here early with children on your lap.

I did. I had my little baby. Um, okay. Good ne good evening, commission members. My name's Mary Yubara and I want to speak as a parent of six who will be living directly next to these 135 foot poles. We have at least 35 children under the age of six living directly next to the proposed transmission corridor. These are toddlers, preschoolers, and babies who would grow up playing in backyards under 345,000 volt power lines. Although this doctor has shown you the studies that prove there is no impact on children, there are studies showing the opposite. This is a controversial issue. Some studies show that children living near the high voltage transmission lines face a 65% higher chance of childhood leukemia. As a parent, I can't hear that number and just shrug it off. These kids are not statistics. They're kids. They're my kids, my neighbors kids, and maybe your grandkids. Think about it. Would you raise your children under a 345 kilovolt tower? Would you tuck them in at night knowing there's a constant question mark about their safety hanging over their heads? This isn't just about property values or views. This is about protecting the most vulnerable members of our community. Children don't get to choose where they grow up. That's on us. And it's on you as a commission members to ensure that corporations like Rocky Mountain Power don't cut corners at the expense of our kids' health. We aren't asking for anything unreasonable. We are asking that the line be built lawfully, safely, and responsibly so our children aren't the ones paying the price. Thank you. [Applause] Thank you, Mary Garnett.

Okay. Good evening, commission members. Like you said, my name is Garnet Cter, and I want to speak to you about the event environmental cost of this project. This proposed route cuts directly through the Salem Park wetlands, a sanctuary for over a hundred different birds, including bald eagle and scentill cranes that migrate through the corridor each year. Um, I even took pictures this week just on my way on s Sunday to church how those um those cranes were just flying over the air. six hogs on on a post right there where they're going to build. It was beautiful, but sad, too. These wetlands aren't just local scenery. They are federal recognized habitat with protections that demand serious consideration. This is not speculation, but we already talked about it. In 2009, Pacific Cora um pleaded guilty in federal court for the death of golden eagles and other m migratory birds caused by its power poles in Wyoming. Those poles were much smaller distributing uh distri distribution lines carrying two to 60 kilowatts. Even at that scale, partic um Pacificico was fined over $9 million under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Now, compare that to what's proposed here. 345 kilo walls. Massive towers 9235 ft tall stretching heavy bundles of wires across hundreds of feet of sky directly in the middle of a migratory flyway. If Pacific Core small polls smaller polls killed enough birds to bring a federal guilt guilty plea, what do you

think will happen here with towers this size in one of Utah's most critical habitats? Unlike smaller lines, high voltage towers cannot be rerofitted into insul insulation or simple deterrence. At best, the utility can add flight markers. But even then, birds die, and in a flyway like ours, every loss multiplied. This isn't just about compliance with environmental law. It's about stewardship. Once these wetlands are damaged, once bird pop uh bird populations decline, there's no going back. There's a reasonable solution underground grounding along this corridor. It eliminates the danger to migratory birds, protects the wetlands, and prevents another federal case of neg negligence. We are asking you to not to gamble with protected wildlife or with the natural heritage of this community. Please rec require Rocky Mountain Power to take the responsible path before it's too late. Thank you, [Applause] Tash. Tasha Cox. Next up would be Davin Stevens. My name is Tasha Fox. Thank you for taking the time to listen tonight. I would just like Sorry, emotional. I would like to point out that my house is right right there on the corner. These power lines will surround my house. Um, I do have children and how can I sleep at night when they're upstairs so close to those parrot lanes? Um, I know that Rocky Mountain is trying their best. I want to believe that because I believe the bestell people. But my question, if I'm allowed to ask that to them, why can they not bury just this portion? I'm asking for them to

bury it between Highway 198 Arrowhead Trail Road. Also, um they have spoken to other um avenues that they have not been able that had problems. Right. I'm wondering why they cannot go north on Highway 198 and then down Arrowhead Trail Road where um they're going to meet those power lines anyway. That would miss our uh neighborhood altogether. Um I'm imagining that I have a view right outside my back door of the power lines where my house is. And I know that we're not guaranteed of you, but we should be guaranteed safety. I should be able to open my windows at night and let the breeze in without hearing the buzz of the power lines. Thank you so much, [Applause] Davin Stevens. And then Rebecca Frost. [Music] Good evening, commissioners. Um, my name is Davin Stevens. Um, and I want to focus on solutions. Um because there are many reasonable alternatives to what Rocky Mountain Power iso proposing. Um our commission our sorry our coalition has come up with multiple um multiple proposed um alternatives um that be significantly that significantly reduces harm to land owner land owners, children and sensitive habitats. These aren't abstract ideas and they're real workable options that avoid the most damaging parts of the current corridor. Um when where the line must pass near neighborhoods or wetlands, there's also uh the solution of undergrounding. Cities across the US require utilities to underground lines in sensitive areas. It protects property values, preserves community character, and safeguards wetlands and migratory bird habit habitats. Um, we've personally pressed Rocky Mountain Power on why they won't pursue

these options. Uh, it's come down to three three main points. Cost, rate pair impacts, and ecological concerns. Um, cost, Pacific Core is a multi-billion dollar utility company. And in other states when regulatory regulators, sorry, require it, Pacific Core absorbed far greater costs than what we're asking for. Um, it's not it's not the barrier. Um, it's just simply unwillingness in this in this situation. Rateayer impacts. Rocky Mountain Powers they might have to raise rates, but the law is clear. The cost of safe, responsible construction be should be shared by all who benefit, not dumped on a few hundred families. Um, and then the ecological concerns that Rocky Mountain has suggested um is um is impacted by underground eating. Um, we're more concerned with the overhead towers cut directly through wetlands and federally protected flyways, which we talked about. Um, what we hear them saying is it's cheaper for us to destroy your family's property values than to build responsibly. Uh, that's not how the law is supposed to work. Utah code 17-27A506 requires that conditional uses be approved only if detrimental effects are substantially mitigated. We believe that these overhead towers fail that test. Alternatives and undergrounding meet it. Um the maps that my neighbors here are holding uh make one thing clear. Solutions exist and Rocky Mountain Power simply doesn't want to bear the cost. We're asking that you use your authority to ensure that they do the right thing. Rebecca Frost and then Aaron Zar. Uh,

hi committee members commission members. My name is Rebecca Frost and I want to talk about the people in this room and the people beyond it. Our co our coalition represents over 1,000 residents who have signed the petition. That's not just names on paper. That's our neighbors, our parents, our grandparents, business owners, and families who care deeply about this community. What I want you to understand is this. Salem Park is organized, engaged, and determined. We've built a network in just a matter of days, and the momentum is only growing. This isn't a case where frustration will fade once tonight's meeting ends. We are here for the long haul, and we are not going away. We're not here to fight against you. We're asking for you to stand with us as commission members. You don't have to be just a rubber stamp for this billiondoll utility entity. You have the ability to insist on fairness, lawful notice, and responsible alternatives. Please join us in protecting our families, our wildlife, our neighborhood, and ensuring that the voices of these ordinary people are not drowned out by this corporate convenience. Thank you.

Aaron Zard and Chris.

Good evening, commission members. My name is Aaron Zart, and I'm a part of the Salem Park family and community. Um, I'm here to to touch on a few more points of the uh failing to notice. A couple key points are missing addresses to those. Uh, the law requires the utility mailing addresses and the contact person's mailing address. The letter provides phone numbers and emails but no mailing addresses. This is a statutory miss. And second point is a missing corridor map. The law requires not just a study area map but also the utilities proposed corridor within that study area. Letter includes general maps and alternatives but never identifies a single proposed corridor. That is another statutory miss. Uh these aren't minor oversightes. They are fundamental elements required by the law. without them the re in the record the notice is incomplete and non-compliant under uh statutory 5418301 and 302. Um that is all I have. Thank you. [Applause]

Kevin is coming up next. He's in between. I believe I was in between there.

I was a late ad. So my name is Kevin Cter. Um, I live in Salem Park, just yards away from the proposed towers and high voltage lines. Um, I'm going to address this from a little bit different twist. Um, are you familiar with the Pinto memo? Some of you who are a little older like I am are very familiar with this. The Ford Motor Company designed the Ford Pinto in the late 1960s and subsequently the Mercury Bobcat. The safety and design of the subcompact vehicle gas tank resulted in puncture and ignition of the tank and rollover and rearing collision causing injury and death. In 1973, based upon the incidents up to that point, the Ford Motor Company did a costbenefit analysis. They determined the following. The modification to the vehicles to mitigate this issue would cost $11 per vehicle. The total cost amounted to $137 million. The estimated benefit to society, meaning mitigation of injury and death, was determined to be 49.5 million. That's based on a value of of 200,000 placed on a human life. And you think about that, that's back in 1973 or so. Ford determined the benefit to the site was not great enough to warrant the fix and decided to leave the dangerous vehicles as is. Excuse me. In February 1978, in a related case of Grimshaw versus Ford Motor Company, Ford was found guilty, sorry, for the seriously burned 13-year-old passenger, Richard Grinshaw, and the death of the driver, Lily Gray. The verdict resulted in over 127 million in compensatory impunitive damages.

Over 117 lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rearend accidents in the Pinto. The majority of these were settled out of court. On June 9th, 1978, Ford issued the recall of over 1.5 million Pintos and Bobcats only after an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. just before the NHTSA issued a formal recall order. Now, how does this fit to what we're talking about tonight? We're talking about the safety. We're talking about the health. We're talking about our environment. And what we're asking is that you be better than the Ford company by placing value on human human life, the integrity of our environment and wildlife, and the value of our homes and property is above the cost profits that Rocky Mountain Power and Pacific Cor will get through this this entity. Thank you, [Music] Chris Ble. Commissioners, thank you so much for hearing us out. We really appreciate this. I uh I've been in passion tonight and so I want to apologize for that. I'm a I'm Dr. Chris Ble. I hold a PhD in folklore and religion. I study tangible and intangible culture. We're talking a lot about tangible culture tonight, which is like our birds. They're really, really important. It's like our property value. And and I point out, guys, 20, sorry, I shouldn't talk to them. 2024, they were asked the question about what are you going to do for property value? And they evaded it. And now tonight, you guys asked it and they didn't answer. They jumped straight to farmland. They didn't talk about personal home values at all. They wanted to skirt that around. Salem Park is a special community. I want to talk about its intangible culture. That means things you can't touch, right? Um, you've seen my people tonight. These are these are people that are in passion that want to protect their land. And of course, lots of Utons would do that. We don't like big business coming in to tell us how we should operate and to cut down on our

American rights. Not a big fan of that, right? Um, our community depends on lots of kids. They spend their time just in their phones. They hang out inside. Our kids don't just do that. They go outside. They play. I go on walks every day. And I walk by all the other people walking their dogs. And the talk this week has been people wanting to move because they move to this place for the sole purpose of having a real community. the sort of thing that they, you know, sometimes you just see on TV. That's what Salem's like, guys. Provost does a little bit, but Salem's like that. And we, we went out there to experience that. And this is imperiled. We have to talk about tangible things that are being impacted. Absolutely. But we can't leave out. You notice there's no sociologist over here. There's no anthropologist to talk about the actual impacts on rural communities. When you put in infrastructure to this level, these are not normal power poles, guys. This is insane. These are huge. Um, my community will not be able to survive this. If these polls go in, you are destroying something that was made. It's not just individual families. Our families will survive, but the community that we've built together will not. We'll stick together for a few years. We'll be in court cases. We'll we'll fight you guys. You'll know us by name. I'm concerned about that community. I I want to say you got a lot of emails this week and people in Salem Park did think you guys were callous. They thought people in Salem were callous. They pushed it, made sure it didn't go in their city lines, so it went to Spanish for so went to our backyards. They didn't represent us. I felt like you gave us a chance to talk tonight and it turns out you guys actually aren't stone cold monsters. You're actually willing to listen to me. I've seen it, but I've also seen the big business in the side of the room. I've seen little smiles on their faces since Salem Park community has been speaking and that doesn't sit right with me. It doesn't sit right with

me at all. And so I already trust you guys to be fleshy human beings that aren't going to allow this nonsense to go forward. And so I appreciate your time. [Applause] Okay, I think we've we've got through this list. Uh we'll start on the uh the attendance roller. Steve Steve Wilson. Forgive me. I'm not a public speaker and my nerves are going to hit me hard. I first want to say I know a few of you. I recognize a few of you and I appreciate the time you guys spend to look over our county and I know you're concerned about what's going on. I am an owner of 85 acres in the river bottoms. I feel like I have the most beautiful piece of property in the entire state. A lot of these people will will argue with me and and I understand that. Um we've been we've been working toward a a development for seven years now. Um and I was I also was one that was never notified. Being a developer, I pay strict attention to something when I get that because I know the importance to be part of that process. I was not notified. I was notified when the county sent me a letter and says this meeting's happening about a week ago, 10 days ago, like so many of these other people. And I don't think I can't say that it was willful on their part, but I did not get notified. and they are proposing to come down the mountain, jump across the river and split my property in half and then cross the river and split my neighbors

145 acres in half, therefore ruining it for any future development which I bought my property for. And I think I have, you know, I'm entitled to the highest and best use for it. I don't want um small acres. I want 5 acre lots and a beautiful subdivision of 15 lots and I can't do that now. I was lucky enough to contact two of the gentlemen from the power company and they honored my desire to meet very quickly and they met me the next day down on my property and they saw a sign sometimes being destroyed by others that's been there for seven years about our 5acre lots. It said it was renewed about two two months ago. we're down this process and I don't know where to go. I've never had a threat of somebody taking my property from me. And so, um, I would request knowing the process that you either table this for another some more time or deny it until we can get proper notice like everybody else has described and have a better discussion on their routes. I don't I don't understand why they're not going down powerhouse road. They talked to a couple of big power builders that I believe made their minds change that they mentioned on their chart and that's not fair. There's already power lines down those roads and you're destroying the river bottoms. We have the same kind of wildlife down there and again I appreciate your time and and uh this is this is a tough issue and a lot of emotions but thank you Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson Mr. Wilson. Excuse me, Steve. Steve, quick question. Your piece is on the north side of the Spanish Fwork River. Uh um are you are you in the county still?

We're in the county. I border the river and Popular Lane. Used to be called Popular Lane. Yeah. So, thank you, Steve. Um Reese maybe or Steve Reed. Sorry, I see it now. And then Paula Prior. Paula Prior after that. Well,

thanks for listening to everybody. I represent Steve Reed um or Red, sorry. Um he owns the other side of the river on Powerhouse Road and we own about 163 acres and with the spacing of their towers, we're talking probably four or five, six towers through that area. that cut Steve's property right in half just like the last gentleman. And we have not been notified at all till maybe last week we found out about this and Steve couldn't make it so he had me I manage his property. Um I feel the same way because of Dr. Horton and the power they have and then they have they they decided to move this because it's going to affect their their pockets and we're little and they can move us. They're they're going to come in. There's we're not going to stop it but we should be involved and they're they're they went down and talked to Dr. for Horton, but they didn't come and talk to the land owners that have big property and it will we don't know what we're trying to run cattle. But someday he might leave it to his kids and they might want to develop it. It's not going to be worth anything. And that's really what Steve wants to hear. We would like to talk to you. We wish you guys would have come and talked to us, but we don't know where to go because we feel like the decisions already been made and like you've said, they can just come in and take our property. And we're talking the river bottom. So now your towers are going to go bigger cuz we're in the water. The water tables at 12 ft, you know, so you're going to go deal bigger footings and everything for your

towers. So now we're we're probably in that area of 135 ft you guys talked about. So appreciate listening to us and we hope you'll come and talk to us. Thank you Paula. [Applause]

We take the microphone again there. be interesting. Thank you. Oh, Paul, sorry. Paul Prior own 177 acres in in Utah County.

Uh I appreciate and this is my my daughter-in-law. Okay. I appreciate the rock and the hard spot you guys are between. I have nine kids. They need to have beautiful homes. Okay. This is my daughter-in-law. You're between a rock and a hard spot. There's a famous quote, a place for everything and everything in its place. That is key. Uh, number one, before you do other stuff, paint the power poles that be degrading east west of of town. Mark, they're rusted. They need to be improved. So, take care of what you already have before you want more. Secondly, uh I love trees. The beautiful thing about a tree, it only takes a few square feet, but you have all that shade, all that benefit. Power poles are the same way. They have shared along uh west of town square. They've shared I15 right away. They've shared a shopping mall. If you'll go along on the other side, there's dog panels in the homes that were there. But they built those homes after the power poles. They had that choice. The people in Salem said, "No, you're coming and wrecking our community." Now, also uh a few other items they mentioned about flood plane. All of Spanish Fork River bottoms has you got a plateau from Lake Bonavville, a plate flow. All of Probo River bottoms, all of Spanish Fork was eroded away because of flash floods. Uh what happened in Texas? What is that? Gualupi river 30 ft. It's not 2 feet in a flood plane. It needs to be mitigated. You have a 30ft wave of water coming

down. It'll take those power poles out just like like grass. Okay? It needs to be high and dry. You don't give your wife a power pole. Not a power pole. You don't have her dry her hair in the tub. Water and electricity don't mix. You've got to have high and dry for electricity. Stay out of that river bottoms on the north end. They talked about the gas line. I farmed that Larry for 30 years. That power line is in a wetland. You go there, you'll see cattails right there. They don't want to mess with it on Highway 6. And yet they'll mess with it over there in a wet land above there. I vote for Highway six. You got the railroad 50 feet. You have I15. You only need six feet of a P power pull, but you share the benefit over. Share the rideways. Don't eat up new land. It's already an infrastructure. Then go through the industrial parkway on the north. I'm done. Thank you, Paul. [Applause] Next. Next we'll have Neil Lindell and then Bruce Jensen.

Oh. Oh, Bruce didn't mark whether he wanted to speak or not. So, I will. You will.

I just got a few comments. Uh, my property's down on 8000 South and the county's proposed a four eventually a four-lane highway down there. Plus, they're going to impact me with this power line, which it impacts where I farm. Uh, I've got hay barns, cattle sheds, uh, graineries, and my understanding is it's going to take everything out. Uh if that happens, I'm going to be out of the cow business unless I can be compensated some way to keep in the cow business. And by taking 3 acres of ground is not going to give me enough to keep in the cow business. And uh I would just like to know how Rocky Mount Power is going to compensate me for what I'm going to lose in this whole deal besides having to make my changes. I would prefer they route it somewhere else. It make my life a lot simpler. But, uh, it also you got a big long corridor 8,000 south that's going to impact a lot of frontage there and there's a lot of frontage from West Mountain clear up to uh, Vorhees that's going to be impacted and it's going to degrade the value of all that property down the road. And that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you, Neil. [Applause] My name is Bruce Jensen. So, just to be clear, if you approve the easement and you put new restrictions upon it, the county has to come up with extra money to cover that those those new uh requirements. To your point, Councilman, a small portion of the county is going to pay the huge price for this. So let the county pay the extra money to take make it and be done properly. If that means portion of it is buried and portions above ground if they move portions if there's extra cost the whole county can share those costs to have this functionality and this benefit instead of everybody else losing $18 million in property values and quality of life and the concerns of their well-being. We don't have to burden it all. And if that means someone else is going to pay more money somewhere else, that's fine because I do it. I know that right now there's 10 million square ft of data center in Eagle Mountain. 10 million square feet and it's only growing.

Do these three.

This power not for one customer is going to satisfy huge power consumption in Eagle Mountain and South Salt Lake County. That's where the huge growth is. It's not going to be for Salem who doesn't use Rocky Mountain Power. It's not going to be down for southern Utah County. It's all for the northern portion. That's where all the huge growth is going. So, let them share the burden by yes putting new restrictions or qualifications on it that make it less for us and they can pay more to make it so it's less for us. Thanks. [Applause] Okay, we're we've got um I see here um three or four that we would cover on this next page. I think we could try to cover those and then take a recess. That sound all right, commission.

Okay. The next is uh Jessica Zar. Or did we already hear from Jessica? She was included in the group. We did that one. Okay. Kevin. Oh, we already heard from Kevin Frost, right? Sorry. Hey, we're getting through this even quicker. Recess is coming soon. Uh, Mr. Edwards, I can't read the first name. Adam and Molina. Yes, Molina. That's it.

So, thank you so much for uh letting us speak. I know that that wasn't the intention of this whole meeting. And um I'm terrified of public speaking, but it's important enough for me to get up here and talk. Okay. So, I received notification of this project just last week. And again, it was not from Rocky Mountain Power. It was from the county letting us know about this meeting tonight. Okay. That's when I was notified. Now, we're not denying that the infrastructure needs to exist. It does. but not at the expense of people and the expense of community. We should be guaranteed justice. We should be guaranteed safety. And we should be guaranteed that a multi-billion dollar company is not stealing money from our pockets. Rocky Mountain Power profits from almost every single home and business along the entire Wasedge front in all of Utah County with few exceptions including Salem Park. Salem does not use Rocky Mountain Power and we're expected to bear the cost and the losses because they insist on putting their line right where it is or they don't want to bury the line. Why do potential homes have more priority over existing homes and communities? Homes that aren't even built yet. Yes, I know that there's planned communities and there there's big communities planned, but they don't exist yet. We exist. We're already here. All right. Salem Park does not directly benefit from Rocky Mountain power, and they never will. But we're again meant to bear that burden and have the destruction of our local habitats, our home values, and our

enjoyment of our community. I'm asking you to please have them consider other options. Reroute it down 8,000. Take it further south. Bury portions of it underground. That's all that we're really asking. We know that the infrastructure needs to exist. But we're asking for these accommodations so that you're so that the existing people here are not taken advantage of by a multi-billion dollar corporation who can afford it. We can't afford to lose that money out of our equity, but they can afford to pay for those modifications. Thank you. [Applause] All right. The I think we already heard from Chris Chris Ble, so I think we have actually got through page one and two and and the original list that we we had here. Um I looks like we have six.

There might have been this got this whole page here and then Yeah. So we probably have another 15 or more probably. It's my guess. But uh I I propose we take a 10-minute recess. Um second second. No. or I was proposing it and if someone wanted to agree with a second. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? We'll we'll uh recess for 10 That's

[Music] We had here, right? Where she was just here. Okay, I think um we'll continue with uh public comment and um just want to encourage if if anyone has already kind of had their sentiment spoken. Um you know, you're welcome to to bow out of your speaking time. Um but we we want to make sure everyone gets a chance to be heard. if you have a point to be made. Um, the next uh next up is Tom Patton and then Dwight Wagman.

Oh, I appreciate your listening this evening. I appreciated the presentation that was made. Conspicuous by its absence was a lot of explanation that people in the room are asking. One of the explanations they're asking is how can you stand here as a person? And that's all Rocky Mountain Power is is one person because they're a corporation. They're considered a person under Utah law. You can check with the Utah County Attorney's Office. But they say we sent notice and all these people, all those affidavits are lying to you. But see, you guys are the gatekeeper. You decide whether or not people have gotten adequate notice. Rocky Mountain Power doesn't. Your attorneys don't. You do. That's why you sit there. And if you're sitting there saying, you know, I am concerned after hearing from all these people, I'm concerned that people didn't get proper notice. You can say, send notice again. And if you ask yourself, there's what's the purpose of notice? So, so people get notice, actually get it, not so that someone jumps through a hoop so they can stand here and say, "We jumped through the legal loop." If you really want notice, make them go out and post along the route, not the preferred route, not one of the four routes they've been touting for the last three years. Okay? like maybe it's going to be one of these as opposed to the one they decided on years ago and say all along the route you post notice because this isn't going to affect people just for so many feet

on each side. It's actually going to affect whole communities which is why you've got a whole community showing up and you have the right to do that and there's not a significant cost to say we're going to knock this down 30 60 days. We want you to post notice along the route and we want you to send notice out again. You've got the county attorney's office. They're paid to do something. There was a lawsuit down in Jab County just 5 years ago from stockholders who had a power line going across the property saying it's affected our cattle. It's affected our milk production. It's affected the number of calves we're getting. I realize they brought their expert, but there were experts in that case who testified that those power lines were in fact affecting those cattle. And it's a nothing for the county attorney's office to track that case down. They can make one or two phone calls and track that case down. Get the names of their experts and copies of their expert testimony. I am so unimpressed with expert testimony. I practiced law for 20 years. I can hire an expert to say whatever I want him to say. And experts are the ones who told us, "Don't worry about above ground nuclear testing." Oh, Agent Orange doesn't affect anything but vegetation. Thank you, Mr. P. Mr. Patton, I I have a question for you. Since you you mentioned, you know, more notice, what what So, let's say the commission um wanted to allow for more notice. How much more notice time would you

suggest? You sir in your infinite wisdom and you as a commission, you have a right to say this is what's fair notice to the member to the people of Utah County. This is what's fair notice. And that's not a lot to require to make sure people get fair notice. That's why I'm saying yeah, you're not going to find it in the statute that you're going to say we consider fair notice also to po post it along the route. That's not in the statute, but it's a reasonable request. Well, and so for this meeting, we did notice and and and and it was 10 days is required, right? And look how many people you got here.

Utah County Land ordinance requires property notices 10 days out. 10 days. Yeah. So I I guess the point is so with 10 days we we got this this group that's here learned about this meeting with with that 10 days notice. So my question is if we postponed for 30 days is that enough not what would what would people do with that notice? That would be the question you would ask your attorneys? No, no, I'm asking you sir. What would you do with 30 days notice? No, I'm not part of Salem. I wouldn't do anything with the 30 days notice. I'd show back up here. Okay. But the people I've heard 30 days enough notice. And what would people do with 30 days notice? Their representative, not me. Statute says 60 days for the original statute. 60 days.

Talking to lawyers and and so on. I mean, this is going to be a whole process. Don't talk to me. You just signed up. Not me. Any any other questions for Mr. Patton? Thank you. Thank you.

I I skipped uh sorry, Dwight Wagman and then we'll go to Scott Blood. Thank you for being here tonight and you guys have a hard job. Uh, a couple of things I want to go ahead and mention. First of all, there's what's legal required and there's what's morally correct and those are the things that we have to consider. One of the things we have to also consider is that we're not doing this just for us. We're doing it for 5 10 generations down the road. How's that going to impact them? I mean it may be some of your children or grandchildren that may be impicted because of that. You as individuals and as elected representatives obviously you represent me. So that means that you put yourself in my position that you're living in one of those houses. I feel for the foxes where she's two sides of the power line. I mean, how is you as you as an elected official put yourself in her position and say, "What would I do if I was in that same position? What would be equitable and what would be right?" My children, when they were learning to drive, I would tell them, "You can be dead right. You can follow all the law and what is legally supposed to be doing. You go on green lights, but if somebody runs that red light, you're dead." even though you were right. And and so you gentlemen and and lady Karen, you guys are in a and I apologize, you're in a very difficult position, but that's what we have to look at. Nobody's disputing that there's not probably a need for electricity, but what's the impact and put yourself in the shoes of the people that live in Salem Park in the proposed line. That's all I have to say. Thank you. [Applause]

Scott Blood and then Tasha Fox. Thank you. Um I would dispute the the gentleman back there my property is the be most beautiful property and and uh I just I didn't know in this meeting that the the beauty and val view doesn't really count. It does matter uh to me as a fifth generation uh citizen of Benjamin. I didn't know about the three minute limit. So if you could be patient with me because I believe I represent the entire community of Benjamin. Please ask that they move the massive poles and wires away from my front yard. I believe the intended placement has been chosen because it is literally the path of lease resistance, a lazy decision, and most of all destroying an important symbol of our community and involves stealing the value of my property. I wrote to Warren Buffett asking that an alternate path be chosen. I spoke to his secretary but did not ask to speak to him. I know he's a voracious reader. he would tell his secretary to not withhold anything. So, I'm asking your CEO instead now to make this change. I believe Warren Buffett made a concession. I heard through Neil Lundelle that they were going to move the lines 100 ft further south. Uh, I am grateful for that concession, but ask you, does that restore my property value? What does it do to an important symbol of our community? Already, my neighbors are considering selling their property because they don't want to live under the power

lines. Blaine Evans, who's been there for a long time, uh, no one will be a taker on his property. It's been listed for a long time. This is a pioneer home on the historical reg register. Why does it have to be destroyed? I'm not. If this was somebody else's property, I would object just the same. It is a symbol of our I'm sorry, our pioneer heritage and is one of the last unpolluted properties in the county. Thousands of people visit this farm. My relatives risk their lives and some died for the right to own a property such as this. What would I tell the thousands of people, most of whom I don't even know, who will come and visit this property in the future? Just recently, 250 people had a reunion. Wedding pictures are taken here. Senior pictures, missionary farewells, and even livestock pictures. What am I to tell them when they come? What am I going to say to my grandmothers and grandfathers, aunts and uncles who gave their lives to dig the irrigation ditches, planted the trees, paid for and dug over a hundred wells? What do I tell the little kids who will now have to ride a pony under power lines? This historic property is a symbol of Benjamin. Why must it be destroyed? My grandfather, great great grandfather Andrew and his brother Benjamin, whom the town is named after. His home is under one of your buildings right here in Provo. His store is on

Center Street. Does it all have to be destroyed in the name of progress. I don't fault this company, but ask you not to bow to a handful of builders. It's the builders, let's be all all be honest, who bought the politicians who in turn dictate to the county, redefine water rights to suit the builders and steal property value rather than do the project the ethical way. If you can't build do the project without stealing, don't do the project. Now I say stealing. How is it stealing? Let me give a simple example. Please allow this. After we go after we're done here, I'm going to go home to your house and I'm going to arrange a contract to build a pig pin on your front lawn. The pig pin has to go somewhere. People want to eat bacon. I will rent 200 square feet of your front lawn for $100, which is 10 to 20 times the market rate we get for renting our farms based on acreage. Do you want to make that bargain? Neither do we. We don't want your fair market value. And I don't want the poles and wires in my front yard. In our agreement, I might one day remove the pig pin and you get your beautiful view back.

Mr. Blood, thank you. I'm almost done. When will you remove the poles from my front yard? So, what is really going on here? I think we all know they should build the power where they're using it. They shouldn't steal from us. There are 29 counties in Utah. Tell the builders to build in another county if they can't build power generation. I already said that when I Mr. Blood, thank you. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate it. Tasha Fox. Have we already heard from Tasha Fox?

You already went. Okay. Um I think we already heard from Christine Ble, right? Yes. Okay. I think we're done with that page. We got two more pages. Mary Mary Yerber. We are Did we hear from Mary? Wow. We're really screaming now. Okay. Kevin, we already heard from Kevin.

Okay. Jackie Larson. Okay. And then next we will have Rex Larson. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Jackie Larson. I am the owner of SevenBar Farming and the wife of a sixth generation farmer. My family owns land and farms in Spanish Fork, Salem, and unincorporated Utah County. I am also here speaking as an elected board member of the Utah County Farm Bureau where a part of my role is a grassroots advocacy on behalf of farmers and ranchers in our county. So because I'm here representing not only myself but also the broader agriculture community, I respectfully request possibly the seven minutes um to provide my comments that reflect the concerns of multiple land owners and stakeholders rather than the center three minutes. I do have my comments written down. I might go touch over three. Is it okay if I just read what I have? Okay, thanks.

Let's hit three and see how how you I can talk really fast too. whichever you you are talking fast.

I'm trying to go slow, too. All right. So, I'm asking that you not approve the Rocky Mountain Powers uh conditional use permit tonight and instead table it until critical issues are resolved. So, contrary to what was stated by RMP, I believe that R&P does not meet the applicable standards listed in county policy, state code, and federal code. And R&P has not adequately mitigated for direct, indirect, or cumulative impacts. The proposed R&P route conflicts directly with our vested rights and long-established agricultural drainage infrastructure with Benjamin Drainage District which is a federally conditioned agricultural drainage system located between Spanish Fork and ascending out to around West Mountain. So this isn't about one farmer operation. These systems serve thousands of acres of productive farmland in agricultural protected areas. R&P has not noticed or coordinated with the Bedin Drainage District, Spanish Fork South Irrigation Company or the Utah County Avisory Board. There's also no mention of these entities and boards in the R&P conditional use permit sections 3.1 or section 10. I also previously sent an email to RMP and RMP told me they would respond weeks ago. They still have not. That email I forwarded to the planning commission earlier this afternoon that gives a little bit further uh description of any of my concerns. So in approving a permit without resolving these conflicts and those which I have mentioned in my email would risk long-term damage to agriculture in Utah County. And beyond the fiscal disruption, this R&P alignment risked the loss of ag Utah's green belt status for affected farms because R&P's proposed corridor is going to cause um a loss of productive acreage. Their assertion that there is no real impact to farming fails to account for the functional, economic, and operational harm caused by this intrusion. Even if farming is technically allowed, the equipment restrictions, crop tight limitations, and access difficulties render impractical. Because even if direct cultivation is prohibited the is not prohibited the physical presence of poles access roads and require vegetation controls results in de facto removal of productive farmland. Farmers are forced to avoid these areas due to impracticality or hazard and those who irrigate by sprinkler will now not be

able to. So in Utah, the rollback tax provision under the agreeab act requires that property continue to meet active agriculture production standards. If RMP project impacts reduce the productive acreage below the 5acre minimum or otherwise impair the ability to meet these qualifications, this can potentially trigger an assessment of up to 5 years of back taxes at market value and loss of agriculture property tax status for their full parcel beyond the RMP weight. I'm almost done. That's a heavy and unfair financial burden to place on farmers simply because or trying to stay in production and a burden which results directly from the transmission lines use of our unique and important farmland. In addition, I think it's important for you to know that the proposed R&P alignment lies in an area that by with violations currently under federal investigation by the Department of Defense raising further concerns that must be understood before approval is considered. So that being said, there is a better alternative that is less impactful and more costefficient. So if the route remains on the south side of SR 164 and south of Bear Creek and they ba bypass the drainage district boundaries, it would greatly reduce impacts to cultivating farmland drainage systems and great belt eligibility while still achieving R&P's transmission goals. So I request we ask that the commission table this permit require R&P to first consult with the affected districts entities and boards and seriously evaluate what I have suggested as an alternative route that avoids or lessens many of these harms. I would also like to request that the commission give myself and other board members with the Farm Bureau and Utah County a advisory board the opportunity to meet with you and discuss these issues in more detail and if possible to tour the area with me so you can see firsthand the impacts before you make your final decision. So, thank you for your time and considering the voice of agriculture in this process. Thank you. [Applause] We have Rex Larson.

No. And then uh Randy. It's got to be another Yara. It's another Yara. Young. Young. Young. Young. Okay. It could be young.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to do this. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. Uh Rex Larson, uh our farm one, well, the part of the farm that's affected by this is located on 8 South 8000 South and east of I-15 off of exit 253. We currently have a thriving business there, Glen Ray Corn Maze and Pumpkin Patch. Um we've been operating there for eight years. Our family has been farming this land for 156 years. So, our roots are pretty deep there. As uh we had the opportunity and asked for the opportunity to have Rocky Mountain representatives come on site to review what uh their plans would do to our our property and the effects it would have now and in the future. Uh the first thing is they said, "Well, this this shed that you have here in the front with cement walls and a metal roof, that's the roof's got to go." And I, "Okay, what gives a shed without a roof?" But uh we have have acquired an antique uh windmill that we're putting out front on the corn maze to advertise and to to be something that'll be eye-catching. That's got to go. Um there's a lot of things that have been talked about. This corridor along 8000 South is uh both Spanish Fork and Salem's next commercial zone. They've they've stated that that's in their master plans. Uh that big power line just doesn't seem to be conducive. My the other thing that that caught my attention, they said, "Well, if if this board denies this and or requires extra things, it's going to cost more and you got to pay for it." That kind of sounds like blackmail to me. But, uh,

so that bothers me a little bit. I've got a few other points I'll hurry and get through so we can you guys can get home. Um, we're not ready to locate now, but in the future, this could greatly impact what what we do with our land. Uh, we've had numerous large box stores want to to build there. And when they do, they build off the back and they put their then they put the pad sites right by the highway. Well, who's going to want to put a pad site and they can't put a pad site or building under this big line? Other other uh points, we currently use drones to spray our corn for our corn maze. Power lines could affect how we operate the drones and spray the field. We already can't do planes or helicopters because of other problems. It would devalue our property. Are they going to compensate us for the future use and and value? Currently, historic drain lines run under it. That's was touched on by Jackie. They function. They've been there for a hundred years, but they still work and we we want to keep them working. Two more things. Uh if a utility easement is granted, then there's a greater possibility that other utilities will want to use that easement. They say no, that won't happen, but I I've seen it happen before. So, uh, and then that the last point that gives us less usable ground for our business, for parking, for activities, for our corn maze. Please take all these things in consideration. It's and I I don't envy your decision, but let's look at this and and make sure that we're doing the right thing and putting it in the right place. As was mentioned by Jackie, there's other alternatives that we haven't touched on. I think this is by far their cheapest

alternative because half of their rideway is already on a road that the state owns. So consider that and thank you for your time. Thank you, [Applause] Randy. And then Davin Stevens. Great commission. It's good to stand before you. I I got to hats off to Rex. what he had to say is exactly right. He doesn't know that I know him, but I know of this property. It's absolutely beautiful.

I-15 in your mind, Benjamin X is the only exit that's not developed off of I-15 from all the way up to up in Utah County, excuse me, Davis County on down here. That's the only development that is not exit that is not developed. And as he stated, 80th South is the main corridor for Hed two cities. Salem on the south on the east side of the road, Spanish Fork to the north, Spanish Fork to the north on the west side of the road, which I'm involved with. And on the south side of the road, on the west side of the road is PAC. There's three cities. I'm involved in about 900 acre development there. Between me and several other developments, there's going to be about 17,000 home sites over the next 10 to 12 years. Uh that's going to go in that along this corridor. This is the prime thing where they talked about taxes and use of taxes. Um they talk about feasibility. What about the feasibility of the of the cities? I've got an ear of the of all three mayors. Mayor Mayor Gright whom we've submitted to you for annexation. By the way, that property of 450 acres into PAY. You're probably familiar with that. That's me. And then Salem got property in Salem. And then uh of course Spanish Fork to the north on the west side. So, I just throw that out. Feasibility, 17,000 home sites, prime property, prime exit, the only exit that can be truly developed. And I'm between two railroad tracks there on the west. Not that you care, but that's kind of the division. Yeah. And on the two cities, it's a big project. Anyway, thanks very much. Give us some thought. At least these guys need to they need to bring power perhaps, but let's look at an area or a corridor line that doesn't affect millions of dollars and cities and residents that are already there. Thanks.

[Applause] We got Devin and then Rachel Ricks. I already spoke. Deon did. Okay. Rachel, Mr. Mr. Chair, can we ask people to state their name when they because we have to record this and we have to state their name and sometimes we can't hear the name when you when they're clapping. Thank you.

Yes. Um my name is Rachel Ricks. Thank you so much for your guys' time tonight. Um the questions come up a lot. What will you do if you're given the proper 60 days notice that none of us have been given? Um as been was mentioned at the earlier presentation today. Um when people were given the notice, they had community meetings. They said, as was stated before, they were able to realize things that happened on these properties they didn't know about. They found out about wells. They found out about just a bunch of different things. I believe that if we were given this proper notice that the same things would be found as has been talked about with all these farmers, which has been talked about with my community. Um, I think the long-term effects here haven't been properly studied. And so we're just asking for the 60 days to feel like we have a voice and feel like we've been able to do our part to protect our community and where we come from. Um maybe it results in the same thing here in 60 days. But I think that uh with with all the information you've been presented, we just ask that we're given that right that um is in the law so that we can um potentially find a better solution. And I think that's what anyone's asking for is as as a citizen, I get I see my my point of view as a property owner, as a business owner myself, I I feel for the people here that this is a really really hard thing. People got to get power. Everyone in this room wants power in their houses. Um like has been stated before, I I do believe that there are better solutions and with what we've been able to do in a week, um we really feel like we can work with the company to come up with a better solution and some other things that that may be more costly but um impact less people. And so, um, that's what we're asking for tonight. And I appreciate your time. Thank you. [Applause]

Okay. I think uh after Rachel, we'll go to uh Joy Cochran. If you're here, Joy. There we go. And then on uh on standby is Allan Steel. Hi. Uh, thanks for for letting us talk today. Um, I live just right here on this road. Um, and this is the proposed power that they're um line that they're trying to do. I I feel for a lot of the farmers. Um, I have I have several people in my family who farm in Colorado and in Oregon. Um, and it's it's really tough, but I just feel like they they said they tried to find alternate routes. This is like cutting straight in to our neighborhood, right along our neighborhood and then straight in. Like, there's got to be other ways. I mean, they they showed examples of like major reroutes. This is not like a major reroute. Like, I'd like to ask that they bury this or push it out to like the main road and just come down. There's got to be another way because this is like this is so intrusive and invasive for our neighborhood and we've been there for about 3 years. Uh before we moved in, we we visited the neighborhood at least 10 times, probably dozens of times. Um we went to the church uh to see what it was like. And specifically what we were looking for was the kids. We I have three boys um actually one on the way. Surprise everybody. So, um, and I want them to be in a community with other kids. And this neighborhood has just hundreds of kids. I think the last time I heard there were 250 kids under the age of two in our ward, which is just like insane. Like, there's so many kids and I love it. Um, and that's

a huge reason why we're here. That's why we moved here. Um, and ever since like a week ago when we got the notice from the county that these power lines are potentially going in, everyone is talking about like how they're gonna have to move and that sucks. Like this is this is so unnecessary to come this way and it's destroying our neighborhood. So I'd like to ask I mean not just for the 60 days but like let's do something about it. let's fix let's fix this issue at least this one issue and there's other issues that need to be fixed for the farmers and everyone else but like this one seems so easy at least in my mind because it's like it just it it's going along and then it cuts right into our backyards. Um, one more point is the scientist guy which I don't know like all his slides said like under normal use the EMF doesn't really cause any damage but this isn't normal use. This is like 100 feet from our backyard and that's constant EMF exposure day in day out like that's not normal use. So any studies that say like normal EMF like this is not normal and it's it's directly above us. Um, yeah. I guess that's all. So,

I have a quick question. Yeah. So, if if they move the power line out to the road, which is Arrowhead, if they move it out there, it seems to me some people are going to lose their houses. There's no houses up here. This land is actually I guess there's a house right here. This is all fields. There's two houses along that road across from Vorhees Circle V. Across here, there's a house here and there's a house here. Why can't you just run it along this line right here? That's not near any of the houses. So, yeah, that's the question. Is it going to impact their houses? And do they have to move? Are they going to lose their house or Well, that's a good question. It's okay to impact their house.

Sure, but that's also not like 100 ft from their house. I'm I'm proposing it going along this road or even on Well, the Circle V's right here, but like or even bury them or or come so it's not like cut a different way. Like there's got to be another solution to this. like for them to cut directly this way impacting like all this these houses like we're going to impact two houses where they might from those houses is the line going to be which house is these? Yeah, I think they said what was it 135 ft or something? No, not even close. It's it's like 20 ft. 20 ft.

Well, it's it's 125 ft easement. How can it be 20 ft? So, I think the the poll is 125, but then they actually I wrote it down on my phone. Um, and that's probably a better question for Rocky Mountain Power. Sure. 62 feet away from the property is what they had posed. Like the the bars should be 62 feet from the property line. Okay. That's what they had said. Maybe maybe they can correct me, but that's what was I wrote it down when they said it. Thank you, Mr. Cochran.

Yeah. Uh, Alan Steel. [Applause] My name is Alan Steel. Thanks for Thanks for your time. I'm a private land owner in Gan Bay. My property is right, according to the little map you guys sent me. That yellow line goes right across the very south end of my property, which is wetlands, which is part of the Pac Pacific flyway. That's the very tip of our flyway. And if that line goes in there, it's going to restrict the the flight patterns of a lot of the migratory birds. That line has got to be pushed back to the south about a quarter mile so them birds can get their altitude as they come off that south end. If they if you leave it right there, there's there's no way they can get over them high power lines. And that's mainly that's my concern is a Pacific Flyway because we've had that property since I was a young boy and and I've seen the thousands and thousands of birds that exit right there. And if that comes if that's where I think it is right on my property line, it's got to go south about a quarter mile and it's all government property. So, it could be pushed south and and that's I just want to bring that to everybody's attention that uh it'll affect that flyway and then and then and when as that lake raises, it comes up into there and them birds follow that cuz that's where all that new feeds at. So, a lot of times there's just thousands of birds right there in that south end. One other point is the hunters. Them hunters come in there. That's probably some of the best duck hunting on Utah Lake. and they come in there and of course you know how duck hunters are. They're hunting in blizzards and fog and everything else. If they're shooting in there and they hit them power lines, it's going to cause uh quite a safety hazard for for

the hunters. So I it's my suggestion that they push it back south. Anyway, thanks for your time. Thank you. I I believe we've uh got through all the those that wanted to speak. Is there I was on the back of the page. Oh, you are on the back. Well, okay. Oh, yes. Here they are. Chamberlain. Miss Chamberlain. Cynthia. Sorry, I can see it now. And then uh Miss Ortega after after you. No, for the next one.

Oh, for the next topic. Okay, got it. Oh, yes. I see. Okay, thank you.

All right. So, I'm Cynthia Chamberlain. Um, so I live all the way on West Mountain, 8,000 South, as you hit the dead end where it hits the canal with my whole row of people here. Um, but I have issues that aren't just with my little onelane road that isn't wide enough for even the base of these towers. Um, again, we did not get notice until we received it from Utah County last week. Um, we have pressurized irrigation lines that run all over up there and that hasn't been mentioned yet, but if they're going to set footings, what happens to these pressurized irrigation lines? They run right up my lane. I don't understand how that works. Um, EMF has been proven to affect the growth of plants. Um, we have our orchard and our grape uh vineyard right on the side of our lane. Um, how's that going to be impacting? Um, the noise levels can impact those of us with neurological conditions. That has been proven. Um, future homes were given priority over existing. They spoke to developers but not to home and property owners. So they talked to the developers and they said, "Oh, we talked to these developers. We talked to these cities when we when they had the little thing where, oh, these might be the places that we go." A year ago, they said, "Oh, we're going to talk to you if we decide to go down this route. We're going to talk to every property owner." That didn't happen. They talked to developers of futures, but not the existing. um splitting the parcels right down the middle. I've got several of our neighbors, their parcels get split right down the middle

and that doesn't make sense. There's roads, there's existing ways to do this. Um the zoning laws, they said, "Oh, we haven't broken any zoning laws." Well, perhaps the zoning laws as they exist with no height restrictions and with no uh side restrictions, maybe that's possibly outdated. Maybe that was presented when we didn't have 125 ft poles. Um I'm not sure how long ago that was made, but perhaps that was um outdated. And um yeah, there's a lot of concerns and I don't think that they've been mitigated with their lack of communication. Thank you. Is there anyone else that we missed?

Sorry. Thanks for letting me take a little bit of time. Um, most things that I had concerns with have been David Miller. David Miller.

Um, I own a couple hundred acres out in West Mountain. Just recently had built um, a big equin facility that this runs right behind. I have another friend who's just built when I say big equin facilities these are multi-million dollar facilities. So there is some impact there. But the thing that I wanted to bring up um was the you you asked the question about 60 days. What would you do with the 60 days? The thing I would like to know more about is the cost impact between these other options. I'm failing to understand why we would let somebody do land grabs. We already have a couple of these corridors that are in place. They have smaller lines on them. I understand there's some issues with I-15 and what's going on there, but I'd like to understand the cost associated with those things where there is no impact beyond what's already there and and maybe there is some impact that I'm not aware of, but the 60 days I would hope we would understand the cost difference on the other options. Thank you. [Applause] Okay. It seems like uh unless Is there anyone else?

I I was standing in line drawer and I didn't get to uh

Okay. Yeah. Let's Let's hear from you. My name is Clark R. Fleming, United States Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, retired. In 1982, in February, I left my wife and my newly born daughter in the Utah Valley Hospital and went off to Officer Canada School. After 21 years in the Marine Corps, I signed on with the Drug Enforcement Administration. Worked for them for 20 years. Came back to Utah Valley in 2022 and were drawn to this wonderful community in southern Utah County. Yeah. I was shocked to learn about this border, this this line of polls coming into my community. One of the things I learned as a young young lieutenant I had a very very wonderful commanding officer who pulled me aside said look the mission always comes first but once you take care of the mission take care of your people if I understand correctly you were provided a recommendation to approve this as it is written I'm asking you to consider if there's a way to execute this mission and take care of the people. Maybe you can move that boundary. Maybe they'll be able to do that. Simpify. Thank you, gentlemen. Anyone else? Thank Thank you. Uh I would like to um go back to the applicant uh for some time to rebut maybe some of the comments you've heard if if you if you care to do so. Um I can probably just address a few items and then a few items that you might address as well. Um so I just wanted to provide some clarification. Um someone had mentioned that we had stated that we had only provided radio

and newspaper notifications which was actually that's just there's a misunderstanding there. Um, we actually provided letters and I did state earlier when I was up here that I can provide the commission with a copy of our mailing list list that came from the county um, records. Um, but this is the letter that was sent out. This is a copy of what was sent out. It has the openhouse lists on it and it does have our mailing address on it and it does provide um contact information with an email as well as the website that does have all of our information. We really did want to make sure that we were reaching everybody within that study area. So I, you know, I I'm happy to talk with individuals one-on-one. We are working on some responses um regarding letters that were emailed to us. So, you know, we will, you know, look to address everybody that has submitted some comments. Yes.

I'm just wondering when was that letter sent? Uh this one was uh for a a uh open house that we added at the end, which was July 1st. The other ones went out April of 2024. Yes. Of 2024. And the other ones went out, I believe it was April 24th. I have those. I think they're just over there. So, and these these letters were about the open houses. And at the open houses, you still had several alternatives

being we had our preferred route, but we showed all of the alternatives so that we could let everybody know why those alternatives um were not the preferred option.

Okay. Um, additionally, um, I just wanted to clarify there was a misunderstanding that the rates would only go to the individuals here in Utah County. The rate, you know, if there's a rate increase that goes to all customers, that doesn't just go to anyone in Utah County. That is if there is a request for a major adjustment that doesn't fall within the project alignment. And so that is where the uh cost would fall on the county. Um and then there was some Oh yes.

So the cost if if there's is if there's an adjustment from this preferred route that costs more money that cost does not fall on Utah County. That does if it if it falls out of that that project cost. It's just that the so the cost of an over go to everybody that that is serviced by Rocky Mountain. Yes. Okay. Um and then there were some uh questions and comments about migratory birds. And so I did just want to turn some time over to Patty Peterson to address some of those concerns.

Maybe before you go I have a quick question if that's okay. Uh two questions. one is what who is an affected land owner? I know that's got to be a defined term.

I did want to touch on that. So if you look at Utah State code, it does not give a distance. It says affect affected land owners within the route. So our the study area, so our study area is 500 ft, which is 250 ft on each side of the center line. So 500 feet is not laid out in Utah state code. It just talks about um the codeed land owners within that corridor. And our corridor, our study corridor is 500 ft of the you know so the center line and then the number that you guys sorry that Rocky Mountain came up with.

Yes. Our study corridor the code says affected land owners within the corridor. So our corridor is 500 ft. So you're saying you would have notified the land owners where the the power lines were directly sitting. Power lines are sitting here. Whichever land is right here and 200 either side, not adjacent parcels, but just along that corridor. Correct.

And then we did notify each of the land use authorities who could also share that information. We did, I mean, a couple of um the local jurisdictions asked um for pieces that could actually that were created that could go out on their social media posts. So, you know, we we also provided ways for them to push out that information. A lot of them just posted our notice and our letters on their web pages and their social media pages as well. Did you really in good faith try to reach everybody along the route? So,

so, so would I just want to maybe between you and and and the county notification that it so you went 250 250 ft and and all those addresses, but we went on the county notification. It was it was adjacent to the ride the proposed ride ofway adjacent. So, any so if it was touching their property or proposed rightway. Yeah. They have they had a defined ride ofway proposed rideway the 125 ft wide the 125 they were adjacent to that boundary they received a notice from us. So, so, so it it it sounds like that that was a smaller Yes. range than what they

potentially that what they've said that they used. In the situation where we're talking about this neighborhood,

ours were ours technically were just the the boundary between the county and the city. We went a little beyond and and did two houses in, I think. Do you think do you think um let me just conjecture here but like when I see a notice from the county u you know my eyes are going to fly open like what is this right but if I see a notice from uh you know Rocky Mountain Power I'm like uh you know maybe I am not as concerned about uh something from Rocky Mountain Power. That's just my you know like I'm thinking junk mail probably when I see Rocky Mountain Power but when I see something from the county I'm going to like pay attention to it. Is there is there a chance maybe people just missed it in their mail,

especially if they're not Rocky Mountain Power customers? Yeah, I am I'm not sure. Um but but we have two different standards here. It sounds like we have a county standard with our ordinance and we have a state standard. And what you're saying is the state standard does not define affected property owners. Correct. Well, it defines within the study. Well, within the corridor which is what's the corridor then? So we take that as our corridor which is the 500 ft 200 and 50 ft on each side. But the 500 ft isn't defined in the statute. No, there is no distance defined in state statute.

Who decides the affected corridor? So I would assume that everybody that is, you know, has a project that they're noticing um defines they know what their corridor is. So, we know what our study corridor is, which is the 500 ft.

Okay. I I think it's just difficult for you folks to kind of define that if there's no guidance by the statute and you know, it's a subjective decision that's made and Okay. Was this was Salem Park addresses in your list? Um the snowy egret addresses on that north side they are on our mailing list and so that is what is confusing to us as well but we can provide those mailing lists to the commission. Okay. Okay. The other question the other question I have. Oh yes. And on the east side right where that road is those so that L

Okay. The other the other question I have is just to confirm, we've got 125 foot wide easement and does that easement abut the property line of Salem Park or is there a gap between the property line of Salem Park and the south edge of the easement? That is the Yeah, I'm going to let Rita answer. I'm trying to get a feel for could be because the line is it is it one single line that's running through these poles or we got four or five lines? I'm trying to get a figure how far from a line is a home. And are you talking a single line of poles or double wides? I've got double wides by me.

They are not double. If you're mean if by double wide you mean two poles. It's not there. They're single monopole structure. Where's the clicker? Um based on monopoles the whole line based on a measurement from their picture. Let's start with the right ofway. Let us talk to them. Okay, I know you guys want to talk so bad. It's okay. Sorry, we do want to answer questions and but let's Okay, they This is what they look like. They're single monopol, not

side by side like that. That's showing the difference between a single circuit and two different configurations of a single circuit. So the pole on the left is one where it's like a Richard, tell me if I'm wrong here, but it's where it would the circuits would overhang one side of the ride ofway. The the pole on the right shows how the circuits are on both sides of the of the pole. The the ride ofway is 125 ft in entirety. So that means it's six 62 1/2 ft from the center line to each side. The it's this is hard to paint the picture, but so in the case of the property that is on the north side of Salem Park, the the rightway would start at the edge of the property on the north side of Salem Park and go north to the pole at 62 1/2 ft and then north to the edge of the ride ofway on the north. So, it's not I'm trying what I'm trying to say is that the the southern edge of the ride ofway on that north side of Salem Park, the edge of the ride ofway is at the edge of the property owner on the north side. It's not it doesn't start at the houses in in Salem Park. It doesn't start at the fence line. It starts at the edge of the property. It would be surveyed to be at the edge of the property on the land owner on the

house area will abut the south the north line of the Salem Park subdivision the property line. Yeah. Okay. And with this picture north is up. Right. Not the house not the house but the property line. Correct. So it' be the property line then 62 and 1/2 ft and then there would be a Yeah. a pole there. Correct. So on that corner that had it it looked like there were two poles possibly or two dots there. That's a conceptual design. We're not Yeah, that's very important to point out. We have not

completed design of this transmission lines. So it's really important to note that we don't know exactly where polls are going but we did you know we know that there has been some literature put out that shows you know a pole at every house and that's not accurate. We can we can space them as I mentioned in our presentation 600 800 ft even more in some cases to make larger spans. Um they are not they're not placed there won't be a there will not be a transmission line pole at every home along that north side. Yeah. You said like 400 feet maybe between poles 600 to 800. Yeah. 600. Yeah. Okay. Typical. Um what uh

click. So I I understand that burying lines is 20x in expense, right? Like like that. So the under yeah as I as I showed in the in the presentation the the challenges around undergrounding are not limited to cost. Um Oh yeah. But sorry continue with your question. The question is uh h has did was it considered portions being underground and and other portions being above ground?

So again that that doesn't make it less cost or impact prohibitive. One thing I'd really want everybody in the room to look at right now is the picture on the right that if you so say you have a stretch of, you know, the transmission line where even in a world where you could conceivably put it for a mile or a half a mile, you would have to have one of those substations at the entry point and the exit point. Okay.

And how far apart is that? That would just depend on, you know, where where you exit, where you drop down, where you pop back up. Um, you know, we've stated in the presentation that undergrounding this the this voltage, the 345 KV isn't something that Rocky Mountain Power has the capability to do. It isn't feasible for this project. Um, you know, we've we went over how it's not common at this high voltage for any utility. You know, where you will see this type of infrastructure is underneath airport runways, that type of thing. Um, not in areas where there where an over overhead transmission line is more feasible.

Isn't that where they're going to put the Salem airport right there? No, but it's Can you help me understand what feasible looks like? What is your criteria for determining the feasibility of one choice over another in this instance?

Yeah, so it's a good question. So, what we when we're trying to evaluate the feasibility of a proposed route to bring to a um you know body such as yourselves, we we look at you know first we design a study area, right? which is basically a big circle around point A and point B and we're looking at opportunities and constraints and we do a whole analysis of opportunities and constraints of each route and then we compare them against each other. um when as we get dig into the data and learn more about constraints and you know constraints are existing homes proximity to existing homes um you know constraints are like what I talked about along Highway 6 where there's just not enough physical space um constraints are things that are you know protected areas um constraints can be for you know wildlife and other like protected areas that are in the data that we can refer to and know about. Um so those are the those are examples of things that we consider constraints that we would then move away from that route and look for routes that have more opportunities. opportunities are existing linear features which are things like roads um edges of fields um highways railroad rightways existing linear features opportunities can be are I know that there are folks in the room who don't agree and this is always a tough topic but you know when you're designing when you're routing a transmission line things like agricultural land are considered an opportunity because there is so much opportunity to work with the land owner on pole placement and to pro, you know, to minimize impact to existing um farming operations. Um other

opportunities are, you know, areas where there hasn't been developed development and um so we look at all of those, compare them to each other, and the routes that present more opportunities and less constraints are the ones that are more feasible, meaning that they're defensible in a room such as this. So we can defend the the route as the proposed and the route that you know we do want to construct. They're feasible because they meet the um requirements of the you know the company as far as cost and constructibility goes. Um you don't want to have a a line with too many you know jagged turns or cutting across too many field. you know, we don't you can't do you can't build a line as a as the crow flies, right? Cuz it would if we did that, we'd be too impactful. So feasibility means all a a combination of all those things. How how would how did the route reveal itself in the in the or perform in the routing study? Does it meet the the design and constructibility requirements of the company? Does it meet the costs as set out and required by the PUC? you know, when they obtain their their approval from them and is it defend is it defensible in a in a room like this?

Okay. And you may not have the data and the information to answer this question, but can you speak to the specifics of what was asked here of can the line be moved to the two roads that are I guess it would be north I don't know of the development. So yeah, anywhere closer to those roads? Do you have enough information to answer that? Um, I think I do. So, if we go north to Arrowhead and then back down, that's a that's a a structure that's too much of an angle to come down. Like, it's too much of a triangle.

Okay. The um, additionally, there are homes up there and we would be within, you know, on people's property impacting direct impact to property with a home on it. that I'm not trying to minimize the concerns of folks in Salem Park that we would be on the north side of their property, but we we are in someone else's, you know, field property and there's more opportunity for, like I said, for us to micro sight with that property owner. Um, so those are those are sort of the reasons why that that route doesn't work. But that angle coming back down on Arrowhead is is problematic.

Does it work to move it like a 100 ft? That is something that would have to be discussed with the property owner on the north. But as far as your trajectories, your alignment is concerned. It's a conversation that could potentially happen.

I don't want to I can't, you know, that's a conversation that would have to happen with the the property owner on the north, but it is it's a conversation that we where we put poles on property is a conversation that we engage in all the time with land owners. That's that is something that I wanted to to clarify. There are I know that you know we're we're in one phase of this project right now trying to um get our permits so that we can move forward and the next immediate phase is going to be reaching out to land owners who are directly impacted and Rocky Mountain Power will negotiate with those land owners in good faith to obtain easements. That's a very important and lengthy part of the process. This is we don't get these permits you know and start building. We there's a whole lot of work that comes after this. There is, but we do recognize the power differential that occurs in that kind of a conversation negotiation where you're a utility that has abilities,

you know, things in your tool set that a land owner can't negotiate against. Yeah. I'm not I'm not trying to ignore the, you know, the the rights that Rocky Mountain Power has. I'm just saying that we do want to be clear that the intention is to reach out to any and every landowner that's directly impacted. We were giving out cards earlier um to discuss those easement negotiations with them individually. Thank you. Mhm. Uh you spoke to the one alternative to the north. Can you speak to the one that went south?

Yeah, in short it's there's too much development and it it's causing physical constraints. Um, you know, the Salem Park neighborhood is a new neighborhood. There's a lot of new neighborhoods coming up in that area. Um, the, you know, the I I don't know why I can't remember the name of it. I've only driven by it a h 100 times because it's 924 and you're tired. Yeah. Starts with a V. Um,

we we did meet with them because that was an opportunity to us. It was like, this is new. These homes aren't here yet. You have um linear areas where we could co-locate, but it didn't end up being feasible because they had already had their their master development plan approved. I know that, you know, I understand that they went through a lengthy process to do that where the where the homes are being built are too close to the road, which is over the canal, and we we physically couldn't go in there. We even looked at trying to go down the middle of the road, like literally down the middle of the road right there. And it's not the median.

Yeah, the median. It wasn't It didn't end up being a feasible option. So that to answer your question, it's it's the development in general that has caused, you know, this to be a difficult certainly one of the most difficult projects I've ever routed. Um, and then on the south side, that that was the those were the pinch points. The developments on that pink route south of the proposed route are the ones that were really just caused too many problems.

But but don't you have the ability through the Vidian project to take the land that you want. Just because it's master plan and platted doesn't prevent you from taking the land. I I mean it we're I guess we we could I I don't know how that that's a fair land somewhere and just because it's master plan seems to me not to be a reason not to take that land.

They said two days. Well, I would I would argue that that would be I guess you want So, you're suggesting that we would take the land from the developer and put a transmission line. So, well, it it isn't something that we explored. I I do think that that would take, you know, taxpaying homes away from Utah County. It would take the ability for new homes like those in Salem Park to be built. Um, so I'm I'm not sure that that that would be a a reasonable alternative. It is an alternative. I'm not sure that it would be reasonable than going on an open parcel, but it's open now. The Vidian development. Yeah,

they're they're breaking ground and digging dry utilities and putting structures up,

but there's lots of open ground there right now. Again, it's not it is it's a it's something that would be is potentially something that could be explored, but again, the parcel in question with the the Salem Park neighborhood is an open parcel with a willing land owner to negotiate it with us. So, taking land from Dr. Horton over that isn't necessarily a reasonable request. Again, and also that isn't the Dr. Horton development isn't the only pinch point on that south route. There's, as I said, numerous developments that have caused problems for, you know, us to physically fit on that route.

Okay. So, that raises the other question I had is you mentioned land owners who are directly affected by the project and and what's your definition of direct? Well, it would be a land owner with whom we would be impacting their property from whom we would need to find it to obtain an easement from. So, not neighboring land owners. It would just be the land owner through which the easement runs. That's correct. Okay. And and then um how far off the road 8,000 south is that line? And as I look at it, looks like it's going to go on the south side of 8000. Where sir? Where?

Just before you get on east side of the freeway. Is it going on the north side or south? Look like it was on the south side. Is it on the north side? It's on the north side. It's on the Spanish side. South side. It's on the It's on the Spanish fork side. It's on the north because it cross Christensen's property and then it crosses the road. Yeah. And then goes down. Yep. And how far into that property is that easement? Are you going to be 100t off the road, 50 ft off the road? Because that road's going to widen. We we're we're aware of that. We're working with the,

you know, the the road widening team. So meet with them regularly do then you got to work with UD do you got a state road right there Bryce? Yes, it's UD dot. We will be from So, it's a road widening project that's they're in the, you know, throws of planning it. So, you've got to push because that road's going to get really wide. It's got to get really wide.

You've got to push that easement right now a long way off the road. the the easement will be, you know, from the edge of the end of the road after it's widened to at from 60 half and a feet 62 and 1/2 ft to the center line and then 62 and 1/2 ft to the north. So 125 ft. Is your project going to beat the road or is the road going to beat your project? Do we know we're going to beat the road? We're going to beat the road. Okay, that's what I would think. And so for a period of time that line is going to look like it's right through somebody's it's going to be deep off the existing road. That's correct.

That is immaterial but I thought it was cool question anyway. But I have a question for you. So what would you do with uh 60 days? Just just you know seems like there's a concern that there wasn't notice and whatever postponement seems like one of the options that is running through minds. I just I just wonder I mean I heard I heard from from some of these people they would do my answer is that 60 days isn't a part of our schedule. not part of your schedule and we you know we have been working at this since 2023 2023 late 2022

and aren't aren't we correct me but it seems to me the 60 days isn't 60 days from now it's 60 days from the application we have to have another hearing is that is that am I remembering that correctly statute gives us 60 days from the date that the application was filed to to make a decision yeah so it's not 60 days from today It's 60 days from the date the application was filed. Yes, sir. The chairman's talking about the 60 days. They are required to give notice to all affected land owners 60 days before filing the conditional use application. So, two different so the state 60 days versus the county 60 days. Well, I don't

So, so they need to know they need to notify 60 days before they file the application with the county. So the letter that they sent a year ago is what they're counting as the 60 days notice. Yep. That's how we met it's minimum of 60 days and we that's how we met state code and provided opportunity for open houses to have you know fit all of those. Yeah. The public open houses before we submitted our application.

Um let me get clarification too just to make doubly clear. Um, none of the Salem Park Salem Park homes are directly affected. So, none of them are in consideration at all for any kind of property. Um, they're not negotiate with any of them. They're not in the right of way. They wouldn't be negotiated withments. Um, they're defined as directly affected in the law. Um,

properties uh are considered in the uh study area. So within that 250 ft on each side of the route. So the properties along is that Woodland Hills Drive. Is that what that is? Woodland Hills Drive and then along Snowy Egret on the north side of that road. Those were the properties that were um included in our included in the study, but they wouldn't be included in any kind of deliberations. But uh yeah, like when we do the easements and rideway discussions with property owners, they will not they count as affected land owners.

Um I was going to ask another question. I spaced me. So the so from the time they file the application until we till this body makes a decision decision. Is there is there a requirement? Yes sir. What's that? 60 days from the date of and and how many days are we from the date of the application today? It was July 11th. July 11th. So we're at 30 something days business days or calendar days.

Just say days. Our our next scheduled planning commission meeting would be outside of that 60 days. would be outside of the 60 days. So essentially, if we don't decide today, we're outside of ordinance or state law unless we determine that proper notice wasn't given. But then we've got to defy we've got to define and fight that battle of whether proper notification was given.

That's correct. And that is a a may. It's not a shall. You do have that ability. If if you if you can make that finding, you may be able to have that um noticing requirement met. Let me just ask you guys. I know you guys did the things that were required to do proper notice based on the turnout that we have here tonight. Would you feel like you gave enough notice to enough people or do you think maybe Well, I mean obviously maybe next time we can do something different, but do you feel like people deserve more time?

I never want I would never say that people don't deserve more time. I you know any any project of this scale, we want people to feel like they were heard. That's why we have we had four, you know, five open houses um which isn't a requirement. That was that was extra in order to allow for people to to comment. We we want public engagement. So, I would never say that people don't deserve all the time in the world. Um we're working with what we have, right? We have the county records in order to send notifications. We have those addresses to send those notifications. We can't physically go make people open their mail. We can't go and say, "Hey, I know you're having a crazy day and you just might pitch this. Um, you need to look at this one. That's that's out of our abilities. Um, I've

You have made some on-site visits with some of these property owners." Yeah. When people ask us to come out onto their ground, we do do that. Okay. Are there more questions for the applicant? The home value still hasn't been addressed. I'm sorry. It It's not for this body to address home values. I just like to hear from Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, commissioners. Thank you for the time. Is there more discussion from the commission?

I have a question. Um, just to frame our our consideration here. The items that are listed in the the land use ordinance, they're pretty much laid out on pages 27, 28, probably 26 of the packet of uh the mitigations. Is that an exhaustive list of these this is the scope of what we consider as far as conditions that could be placed on an application is just these things or is it here's some examples?

No, we're we're we're we're limited to our ordinance. However, the first thing you do is identify an anticipated detrimental effect. You don't get to a condition until you until you identify the detrimental effect. Right? So once you identify an anticipated detrimental effect then we start considering okay what do we do to mitigate that if it can be mitigated if you'll just take that that process through each item then that's how you do your job tonight right are those detrimental effects only the ones that are listed in the land land use ordinance uh which I think I still have we can put conditions yes

1 through money. If you find a detrimental effect, put it in one of those boxes, put it in one of the pigeon hole it somewhere there and you can impose a condition. If you think that something is a detrimental effect, but it doesn't it's not called out here as you know to mitigate injury, loss of life, you know, that sort of thing, then it's not a detrimental effect that should be considered. The perfect example, as as Mr. Roberts pointed out, is value is not part of the ordinance. You cannot consider that. And and that was part of my my question. If I hadn't might be going there, that's a good example. Yes, it's probably a detrimental effect, but it's not one that we can condition in your in your conditional use permit.

And it's not an unconstitutional taking because the land has not been removed from the land owner just because the value's been changed. It's not unconstitutional to change the value of someone's land just to remove it from them without due compensation. Yeah, we're not taking land. We're not taking views. Yeah, it it's not a taking. No, don't don't go there. Just clarifying. Yeah. Okay, that was the extent of my questions.

Um maybe this is another question for Rocky Mountain Power really quick. I I know we kind of touched on this, but possibly talking to the land owner just north of Salem Park um if it were at all possible to move that easement. I don't know if that's a possibility at this point in this in the discussions or if they they have talked about it. Okay. Um so that gentleman isn't here tonight so we we don't know if he would want us to move the it into his property or not and that's a conversation we would have to have with him. All right. Is it is it something that you could discuss with them or

I said that earlier but that we would we with every easement with every land owner we talk about pole placement if it's feasible for the company and reasonable to the land owner we will do it but that's a again the conversation with that land owner because that's his property. Thank you. So, can can the commission uh come up with a detrimental impact?

We've heard from the community. Is there a detrimental impact that we need to identify? Well, my concern with this is just this notice issue and um it's been represented on both sides that well on the one side notice was given on the other side notice wasn't given and we have no evidence either way and we're not a a evidentiary body at any rate. Um, so we can't collect all that evidence and review it. I don't know if Bryce's team could, but um, I I I still am concerned that perhaps notice, statutory notice wasn't given. And with that issue out there, I I'm feeling like from my perspective, I'd like to push this and so that that issue can be reviewed and to see if proper notice was in fact given. The challenge of course is now with the county position is it's going to fall outside of our next meeting. So we'd have to have some kind of special meeting to come back and do that and and review this again at a special meeting which I guess we can have which means you got to spend sit a bunch of money to send more notices out. So, you kind of asked two questions as it relates to county planning commission meeting. You do have the ability to set a special meeting. We would not have to re send property notices out because this would be a continued item. So, we wouldn't have to remail our our property notices, but we would have to meet all state requirements for advertising a

public meeting outside of our approved regular agend uh schedule. But if if we postpone if we postpone because we believe that they weren't noticed properly, do we I mean, isn't the next regular meeting um then suitable?

I mean, we're It sounds like we're going to be required to keep the law. I mean, I guess we're going to require to stay on time because we've but it's kind of a chicken before chicken. We feel like maybe they haven't kept the time. It depends on what the finding is. If it if you feel like that hasn't been met, then yeah, if we feel like that hasn't been met, then we don't have to we don't have to have a special meeting right at, you know, day 59 in order to meet our deadline because we've we've determined that they haven't met their requirement. So we can push this to whatever date we we you know we deem appropriate and and and give the time to do the notices. Haven't met the the state statutory 60-day notice.

If we feel they haven't, then we can push our date because we feel like they didn't make meet their date. And now I'm not saying that that's what we need to decide. I don't I don't know. But I'm saying I appreciate that clarification. I don't I don't think that means we need to, you know, try and plan a a meeting 23 and a half hour, you know, days from now, you know, a certain hour so we can hit our deadline. No, but I appreciate the clarification. I think Mr. Heir may have some additional information related to this.

The only exception to the 60-day rule is if you as a planning commission may withhold a decision on a public utilities land use permit until the public utility satisfies the notification and public workshop requirements. So they could submit evidence tomorrow and we would have that satisfied. We would do a special meeting to hit the 60 days.

How so? I mean obviously they've you know posted and notified on some of these uh workshops and stuff like that. Is there a a um how broad does that have to be? I mean, obviously there's a lot of people that say they did not get any notification. So, how how do we define that they notified?

They have to prove to you that the public entity shall send notice to an affected land owner. They don't have to prove receipt or reading it, just sending it. So, back to what I heard earlier, if I heard correctly, the residents in Salem Park are not affected land owners because they don't lie in the easement. No, they still would have gotten the they would have had and Rocky Mountain Power said they were on their mailing list. It's it's that was a different that's later study area. Yeah. Yeah, the study area they all send out.

But if they're not considered an affected property, I think there's some separate that's a separate issue. Uh the affected land owner affected land according to the statute affected land owner means an owner of a property interest as reflected in the most recent county tax records as receiving a property tax notice whose property is located within a proposed corridor. Mhm. Proposed corridor is defined as the transmission line route within a target study area selected by the public utility as the public utilities proposed alignment for a high voltage power line. I could find no distance to or or the width of a corridor in the statute doesn't exist.

It does allude to that study area which they have defined as a 500 ft. They have study area. Yeah. So those technically in my elementary mind become affected properties target study area is not defined either. Yeah. As far as a distance. So we're kind of uh they said they sent out they have proof that they sent out but we have plenty of people who didn't get a notification. But are they within the study corridor?

Yes. That would be the determining factor of whether or not the notification requirements are met.

Well, so some let's let's exclude Salem Park. Okay. It seems to me they're not in the affected corridor. That's what it seems to me. But we did have some land owners that show up and said they didn't get the notice and they are clearly within the affected corridor because it's their land the easement goes through. Um Steve Wilson was one and um yeah there were a few that so Salem Park's a separate issue in my mind whether or not they're entitled to notice I am not convinced that they are but certainly the land owners who are going to lose some of their land are. And from my viewpoint, um, taking their testimony, it's not testimony, but taking their view, their experience, and what happened to them, they didn't get noticed. To me, that's enough evidence to me that sufficient notice wasn't given to the land owners. So my feeling is that yes, we don't make a decision tonight and we give these affected land owners the opportunity to be properly noticed and then we have to rehear it again. So, if we were to do that, um, if we were to make a finding that we're not confident that proper notice was given, if Rocky Mountain then submits to the county in the next couple days evidence that they did notify each of those, do we then have a duty to move forward or a meeting to

in my opinion, no, we don't because we can make a decision now based on what we've heard and then Rocky Mountain Power can bring forward our evidence and said, "Yes, we did." And then we'll hear that at the next hearing. I don't know. Uh, county attorney, is is that thinking off base? Are we within our statutory guidelines to move like that? if they submit evidence and we miss that that window because we wait till our next meeting. Have we but but what we're saying is the Utah statute wasn't complied with not the county ordinance but the Utah statute which means it's a whole new 60 days

at least. Yeah, I don't know about a whole new 60 days. Um it's an exception to the 60day rule. You're required to you are required to rule on the application within 60 days of it being filed. This is the only exception to that and it says you can just withhold the decision until you are satis until the public utility satisfies the notification and public workshop requirements. And that's my question is if they satisfy that by presenting evidence does that move us back into that 60 days? It might. we would react to it. Yeah. That comes in.

We can't consider whatever they would submit until the next meeting. I mean, that's that's the next time we meet, right? So, that's the next chance we would have to hear evidence. They could submit it right as soon as we adjourn and we wouldn't be able to talk about it until the next meeting. Right. Right. It just moves the date of that meeting.

True. Um and and I I also heard heard Dale say that that you know not not receiving it isn't isn't enough evidence to right. I mean like like this would just be to me it's the sheer volume of people like I understand there's a lot of people who don't check their mail. It just feels like there are a lot of people who came forward and have said they did not receive notice of any kind. And I don't know if there's a gremlin eating the mail, but it seems to me like there is a lot of residents who didn't get notified somehow.

And I don't Yeah. C could you read that statute again, that exception? The exception notwithstanding subsection one, which is the 60-day rule, if a public utility does not satisfy the notice of intent requirements in accordance with section 301, which is the notice and public workshop requirements in section 302, a land use authority, which is you, may withhold a decision on a public utilities land use permit until the public utility satisfies the notification and public workshop requirements. Okay. So, I would make a motion. Are we ready for a motion?

I'm ready for a motion. I would make a motion that we withhold our decision uh until the um public utility brings forth evidence of notice to the affected parties. I'll second that. Is that sufficient? Yeah, it is. I think okay we have a motion it's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion about the motion council? Maybe Mr. Roberts I would I would just refer to the statute also might be helpful 54 18304. Uh and that motion is made pursuant to 54 18 18

304 304. I accept that adjustment of the Utah State Utah State code annotated. Uhu squiggly line thing. Mr. share it. Yes, I don't want to interrupt, but

so in addition to the testimony, for lack of a better word, from the applicant that they mailed them out, um we do have a email, I believe that we received, our staff received last June 2024 indicating that the applicant had mailed out those affected property owner notices. So, I mean, that that's the evidence we have currently. Is that correct, Greg? You were the recipient of that,

right? Yeah. Um, just to read a portion, it said, um, our team is been in contact with you regarding the proposed Spanish pork to Mercer transmission line project. I am following up with you to let you know we have mailed property owner notification to land owners along the alternative routes under construction. Um, while we uh also sent uh you a mailed letter copy and see the attached electronic version for your records as part of our initial permitting process, we are hosting and then goes on to talk about public meetings and public input. And then they they did attach the the document that has the information and um also the map. Did they provide all of the addresses they emailed to or emailed to?

Did what? They did not. Did not. Mr. Chair, I have something material I would love to tell you about. No, no, thanks. Not right now. Sorry.

Um, so anyway, I sorry. I just wanted to make it clear that that was something that we had received. We want to make sure that you guys were aware of that. I I would like to continue with my motion and I appreciate that and I'm not doubting that but we've we do have affected land owners who stood before us tonight who have said I didn't get it and and this is a huge impact on the land owners. So, I I want to make sure that they got the statutory notice and if it means and I don't know what Rocky Mountain Power does after this, but if it was me, I'd bring in the certified mail receipt and say, "Yeah, they got it." And then

is is notification required to go out by certified mail? No, I don't believe so. No, sir. Well, then they can't bring that to us. Be kind of hard. I mean unless they did it on their own. It's just not required by statute. They they may have used some system just a mailing. Yeah. Yeah. They just have to mailing list but but yeah just a mailing address. But there so it's almost like a bankruptcy notice. You got a matrix of mailers and here's all the people we mail to. And which is what you're saying you have. Well, yeah. Let me explain how we handle this on our end. We we we hear this all the time. If you've been in some of our meetings, people will see

I was going to say we must have gone through a notice, concern, complaint, correct, once before in our lives. What we do is we prepare prepare a documented uh mailing list and a copy of the notice that was sent out, the date it was sent out um absend a certified letter. That's that's how we show that we met that requirement. Print off that list. And so that's probably about the most we would get. I would anticipate a a similar list from from the applicant.

Okay. Uh is there more discussion on the motion at hand? If there's no more discussion, we have a a motion and a second to postpone decision until I think we want to use the word continue. Continue. Yeah, continue is the right word. Yeah. So that that kind of helps us satisfy our notification. So right now it I think the statutory phrase was move to withhold. Right. Yep. Move to withhold. Move to withhold our decision. Does that does that mean we re reddis it on the next meeting or just

it's on just on hold for indefinitely until something we would a condition. When that conditions met, then decisions are made to take the next step.

Wait, we have a motion, a second. A motion and a second. We got a vote. All in favor say I. I. I. Those opposed? Nay. I'm still deciding. I I think at this point you probably need to take a um a roll call. Take a roll call. Start down here. I I nay I I So sounds like uh we are on hold for this decision. I I guess to be clear so so everyone in the room understands that this there will be an agenda item with this item on next month's meeting. Oh, it will be back on the agenda.

Will be listed on the agenda and then we'll give you the update. It it has to be you can't use this statute to withhold the That's what I was going to say. That's why you know continue is probably what what I would have thought. And if we determine it has to be heard before then we'll set up a special meeting. Okay. Okay. That's the end of that discussion. Thank you. Next item on the agenda is quicks solar. No, I maybe give us a couple minutes. Couple minutes. Okay.

South Mall. Make sure we're on the next notice. Meanwhile,

for a new conditional use. We could Okay. Um this condition uses is similar to previous approvals. They are looking to um include 750 acres um that from additional parcels located next to their existing approvals. These parcels are not contiguous to each other but are contiguous to um previously approved uh conditional use applications for sim this similar use. The s it's made up of six parcels. Um the facility is anticipated to beund at 170 megawatts. Um it's anticipated to be unmanned. Um it's in the MG1 zone. The there is um five of the parcels include a restrictive covenant that prohibits the use of use or prohibits uses other than agricultural uses um until such time as they can be made legal. There is the um there are possibilities for that to happen. Um the applicant can meet those requirements um outside of this approval. they they they have the ability to um make those corrections or make make those adjustments to the to the parcels to be able to make to allow other uses besides agricultural uses. The top parcel is the only parcel that is um identified as been being legal. That parcel is also within both the Fairfield annexation policy plan and also the Eagle Mountain policy plan. Um both jurisdictions did receive

notices um regarding this application. Um the conditions set are similar to um are the same conditions used um for the previous approvals that they have received. They are requesting uh an extension. Um the extension as as you were aware from the last application are the approval of a conditional use now um defaults to three years and then there is the possibility of asking for one except extension of up to five years. the three-year approval can be extended based on findings from a planning commission that show that that that reasonable um what's that justifi I can't remember substantial justice be done. So, the applicant has asked um for that uh the conditional use to be extended um and I will will let them speak to the um to the reasons for that so that they can um explain to why they might need that extension for that initial approval and then um based on that it would be up to the planning commission to decide whether or not to grant that extension. And if that was decided to be granted, we would need findings um based on their their comments to uh show the reason for that extension to be granted. Um other than that, the the application appears to meet all requirements of our land use ordinance and um and if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer those questions. and staff recommendation is to to approve then meet meets all the requirements you

correct. Okay. Thank you. Um the applicant let's hear from you. Thanks me members of the commission. Um we uh and make sure you state your name. Just My name is Greg Propst

and I I work with Quils Quicksilver and um I'm just in view of the hour. I'm going to make a very expedited um uh presentation and basically uh focus in on the the question of the extended period of time, the five-year rather than the three-year period under the uh newly adopted ordinance. Um we're primarily asking for the additional time because we feel that that three-year period is not going to be sufficient to get us through two critical steps. The first one is a uh and and both of these steps are out totally outside of our control. The the timing is controlled by the utility essentially. The first is a what they call a cluster study process that involves not only our project but several other projects and it's going to take an extended period of time to finish and we know it that's already the case. The second is the construction time for uh facilities, power facilities, power lines and uh breakers and so on and so forth. All the system upgrades that are required to accommodate our project. So once they get through the cluster study process, they make their findings, they determine the uh facilities that are going to be required, then we're going to have to acquire, you know, pay for do do the design and installation. All of that takes time. And so we're just we are very painfully aware that that one is going to take an extended period of time. And so rather than sort of having us in the position of of having to know that we're going to have to come back on this project, we're basically asking for a little bit of additional time uh right away. Give us out to uh 2030 to get through this study process with the utility. Uh aside from that, I would

just uh observe that um this is a uh approved use uh conditional use. The uh commission does have the authority to approve that. Um we believe that uh our project does meet the standards uh under the uh 16 uh.94 uh C.1 of through C20 of the uh Utah County land uh use ordinance. And we'd uh second the the recommendations from the staff which has reviewed our application and I think has been uh proper and succinct in in what they've asked for in terms of of conditions that we'd have to apply uh or uh comply with. And essentially what what we're doing is um adding a number of steps that we would have to meet and undertake and complete to the county satisfaction before we obtained a building permit. And so this would cover such things as uh fire safety and and and uh roads and you know a number of other things. All are uh detailed in the staff recommendations. And we certainly uh have no problem with complying with any of those. We think they're all entirely proper and we would intend to do so. So, um, on that basis, we'd be happy to submit and answer any, uh, questions that you may have.

Any questions for the applicant? Seems like we're all out of questions. Thank you.

Maybe if if I may, I this What's this power going to be used for? Maybe it's in here. I can't remember. I read it. We anticipate it's primarily going to be uh to service the various data centers that are currently being planned in the U Eagle Mountain area. So there are several potential uh large power customers that we're in the process of of negotiating with and working with to try and complete our project and provide their power. And you may recall from some of our past discussions that we originally started off as a smaller solar project. It then sort of evolved into a situation where it became clear that the Pacific Core was not going to be able to meet our uh timing needs not for us but for our power customers and they weren't going to be able to integrate our power into their system and provide the service to their customers until 2031. And so that's what has kind of led us to do several things. One is to expand the size of the solar. One is to add a battery backup and expand the size of the battery backup. And the third is to add gas generation so that we can provide uh ver firm roundthe-clock you know uh 24-hour 7-day a week 365 days a year power to our customers. And so we're working with those data center customers right now to conclude those arrangements. And

that gas was part of Sorry. The the gas that you just talked about that was part of the previous um permit that we did the last time around, right? Yep. Right.

So this is more just an extension of the same. Well, this is an extension really of the solar portion of the project, but it's really intended to be one integrated large project that will include the solar and the battery storage and the gas as needed to firm up that power for the customers because that gives us the ability to provide it around the clock. Not just when the sun is shining or when the you know the the battery has the uh uh stored sunlight if you will in the form of electric energy. But what we're doing is is even when you have an extended period of stormy or cloudy weather, we can turn on the gas combustion turbines and provide the firm power that these facilities need. They can't have their power going up and down. So yes, the the also to add to that, so there have been um five separate approvals um three for different areas for solar production and one for the um facility for natural gas. With that there have been other applications for the addition of fuel and then also um the height exception that they needed. So those those have been the applications that they've submitted for the this project for the surrounding area. Can you remind me why why weren't these included in a previous application?

The the applicant can speak to that, but I think it it has to do with property owners wanting to be included or additional properties that they've negotiated with that they wouldn't have before. We've concluded additional deals with the property owners and some of our supporting property owners were kind enough to stay through these lengthy hearings tonight and you know to indicate their support of the project and we certainly appreciate their being here to support us and they're the uh Carter family organization that's got five of these six parcels. So it's an important thing to their family. So I have a couple of questions. So will you be utilizing existing Rocky Mountain power infrastructure to deliver this power to the data centers?

It's our intent to start by being in a position to offer what they call behind the meter power and do a direct deal with the data center customers pending uh Rocky Mountain Powers being in a position to provide the services that are required. But this is a constantly moving target. Uh, Commissioner, I' I'd have to just say honestly, the utility is constantly looking at its circumstances and they're trying to figure out if there's not some way that they can accelerate forward this time because, you know, to them this is a huge opportunity as well to provide and it's a big reputation thing as well to them not being able to provide power to major commercial customers that need hundreds of megawws and provide, you know, massive tax incentives to the local uh jurisiction. rictions and many jobs during descript uh during construction so on and so forth. It's an extremely important matter to the local economy uh over you know on the far side of the county. So and and of course uh important to the county budget generally but you know we're uh confident that the situation is moving in the right direction but just to say that Pacific has a very difficult task. They're trying to do a lot of things and so we're hopeful that they can accelerate forward that timing and that maybe what we end up with is a little bit different of a commercial deal, but as we stand here right now, we don't know that. So we have to be in a position to provide firm power, not just solar power. And that's why we're doing a number of things. And if if that infrastructure comes into place, is there potential that your power generation, the power you've generated would go to other Rocky Mountain customers, Rocky Mountain Power customers besides the data data data centers? I guess that'd be I mean you'd measure that with meters and stuff like

that, but is there potential that that could go back into their grid? Yes. Um the way that it's uh measured actually if you're interconnected the power will flow everywhere everywhere on their system physically that cannot be uh uh prevented. It's not a different color is it? No no electrons freely wherever the uh system allows.

So that's that's just the fact of the matter. But what we're trying to do is to make those business opportunities uh possible for our customers and frankly I think it's a it's a situation and you know we're continuing discussions with Pacific or as well. So it's a complicated situation and the legislature has gotten involved in to try and uh push the situation along in a favorable fashion. It's not an easy subject uh on the part of anybody involved. But what we're trying to do is to do whatever is required in order to make those opportunities uh possible and feasible for these companies and with all the economic development that that implies. So

any further questions? Thank you. Were uh were all the adjacent property owners notified and everything? I mean like there's public comment on this. Yeah. Um, yeah, as conditional use. So, we we did that and have one, right? Yeah. So, we have a mailing list we could show you. Um, I can find it. Here it is. Mr. or Mrs. Ortega. Yeah, that's us. That's you guys. Yeah, we received a one. Okay. Come come up to the microphone if you can.

Sorry. I'm sure. Okay. So, um, we promise it'd be here too, but we can state your name as well. Ortega. Teddy. Shi. Yes. Okay.

Um, yeah, we received that. We're the property owner. Right below that last one, that's a property. You see the blue? Yes. Below it. Yes. With the property owner in there. Yes. Or locked in. You see what I mean? I am locked in by this project like this and then the other project by that. So I want to have a way to enter my my land. I just put up a a high tunnel greenhouse was going to do agriculture and I was doing there last week and then we ran into um someone I think is working for on your project probably doing survey or whatever. Um we're setting up the greenhouse. Someone just drive by us like on our property. This is on our property. Really quick and u usually in that area you rarely see other people. So when people see each other they wave or say hi. But this one didn't. They they just cames really aggressively feels like a pass and did not see anything and turn around and I don't know after that where they went. But the next time we were there to finish the project, they were he were flying the drones over our property and the second time he fly the drones just right above us. We're doing there setting up the um greenhouse just right looking at us. We're just looking at him. You know, what are you looking at us for? We're doing things on our property. But I was first time noticed by them uh last year or a year ago um um from a real estate agent probably is working with them. Um he told me that he was interested in our property. Um he wanted to see if we want to lease it. Um but the deal were the offer give us is

really really low really really low that um because I have another property just another part just next to it and I was giving on but I was just 20 23 I was in this situation cuz I was noticed because I was adjacent the property and uh I went came to a meeting like this in this same room that's when I learned oh somebody's putting solar farm there and I asked him, "What do I do then? You cuz cuz it borders my property." Uh he put us on the project. The deals much better than the we we were offered on this one. Um we uh they rented our the parts on the right. Okay. So that's why I'm seeing I'm locked in this way. But with this one, I'm locked this way. Now this street is right like that there's no access from the west. We've been going in from the east from the Saratoga Springs and going in. But when they um when these two project come in I won't be able to access from the east side. And then if uh you go to um there's another picture that shows well they approved. You see that they they have all the way to Fairfield from my land there. There's no way I can from going in from the east because they're going to fence up everything. And I noticed actually the fence is going to be right on the property line. Uh I think there's a setback because I learned from other company you should be doing setback so I can go through it. But this one seems like it's just right on. And on that picture, it's on my iPad. um it shows the setback or for example if the property line is here they put the panels here so that's a well they

put the fence here's a property line they put a fence here so there's space for their owner um but for me is right right on the property line and then um I don't have it's so clear yes that's the one that you can see there's a space between the property line and the fence. But on the lows on the bottom, my side there's right on. And uh so how do you currently access your property? Uh I do it from uh you want to talk about that? How would we access now?

Over I think it's Coyote Pass right now. So I don't know what that is. So So have they blocked your current access? Are you current in that? No. But once they put in the fast, it would be

Yeah. Um and but more worrisome than that is is looking at the setbacks, right? So I I' I've read through their paper that says where their setbacks are are going to be. It says 50 ft, which is 30 ft outside the fence, 20 ft for a road inside the fence, and then that's where their panels start. Um, and then there's outside the fence, there's supposed to be 12 ft that's um de that where they've taken all the all the vegetation off so that things don't burn. Um however like when we were looking through other things um the border with our land has a 10-ft setback which of course would mean that at a minimum they're 12 foot their 12ft vegetation is going to cross into our land at a minimum whereas on you know we've got all these other sides that have these larger setbacks and then you know of course that um my dealings with them up until this point have been very unpleasant through their various affiliates. Pardon me, I'm getting a little upset, but um their their um their agent was extremely rude to my wife. He was extremely pushy. The uh offers we got were they were like those ones you get in the mail for your house, the fake checks. They were about that level. um compared

I found I found a one in the anyway as a public much much much better.

So I guess where I'm going with this plus the whole drone incident is based on my previous experience when I saw the drawings not matching what was written. I got very concerned. I'm like well what are they going to do here? Are they going to push right up to the edge? Are they going to be pushing into my property because they think they can? They have not been they have not been respectful at all compared to other people who have talked to me. Like they're not the first, they're the last. Right? We've we've probably talked to half a dozen people because we're in a spot where everybody wants to land. So there's that. But I mean, I understand that sometimes you get boxed in. I don't like it. I would like to have other ways to access it, but that's a whole other issue that I'm sure isn't your problem necessarily. Um but that whole the the discrepancy there kind of bothers me. Um the claims that it's not going to affect my property my property values that's in their document. If it's not going to affect my property values, how come the agent felt um like he had the ability to lowball me on offers? Right? He's, you know, he

it's insulting significantly less than other people had offered already. So that's they're less than their own too. Yeah, I saw an example of their own uh deal with other parties. It's much much better.

And I'm not like I'm not it's not like I'm looking to sell or looking to like, you know, make a ton of money or anything. I just But I also on the other hand, I don't care about billionaires building data centers to spy on me. I really don't. I just want to use my land for my thing. And I' I've just I've run into enough times already, not here, not in Utah County, but other places where people put the fence and then all of a sudden I got to spend a ton of money to get a tiny bit of land back. And I'm I'm worried, right? I I I I see uh a bunch of steps that to me look like a pattern that is going to get very expensive for me very quickly. And and it's those inconsistencies that bother me more than anything else. Um, and my wife has different concerns, but those are mine.

So, so the setback would be for for a structure, I think. Right. And and they but they could put a fence right right on the property line, right? Yes. Right. But outside the fence, they plan to put 12 ft of of beesman or whatever. Well, 12 set the fence back 12 feet from their property line. Well, so their their their document describes a situation where they have where their their panels start, right? And then after the panels, there's a 20 foot wide road and then there's a fence and then there's a 12

a 12 foot area where they've taken out the the vegetation. Um, they also describe though a 50-foot setback around so between the panels and the fence and the other properties that don't belong to them. That's in that's in a different spot, but it's but it they relate they they keep referring back to each other. So, I'm really confused. Okay. Are they going to make any improvements or touch your property at all? Um, that's what I'm worried about. Right. Well, they can't. Well, they So, their doc their document says one thing, their drawing says another thing, but they can't. Okay. Well, how do

I mean, if they do, then you call the cops and say they're trespassing. Okay. Well, then if I can do that, that would be great because it's your land and they can't use your land without your permission. That I would like that. And then I will remember that the next time they have their guys driving around me in pickup trucks and flying drones. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if you have I don't have know if you have a right to airspace, but Well, I mean, if they're flying them right over me, I guess I could just, you know, duck on them or something. I don't know. You know what they do in Alabama with those drones? Yeah. Documentation, though. Take pictures. Yeah. Okay. Um but yeah, they're just spinning around us and zipping back and forth on my property through my area.

But that's not something we can address here, right? Um, but I'm more worried about making sure that that document matches what they do. Which document? So, this thing, their application. Their application. Their application claims one thing description, but it doesn't match the the drawing. Yes. And that's and there was a there's a section in the drawing where they've got it right up on the end. Sir, we need you by the microphone so it's picked up for the record. If if the if they follow the description in the document, but they put the fence on the property line, then they won't be following the description in the document because at a minimum, they won't have that 12 ft.

Well, so so the approval is going to be based on the submission. Okay? And so if they do it different than the submission, then we have folks that can stop them from doing it that way. Okay? So that that's good to know because I we've dealt with this in a different place where they said, "Well, we'll approve it." But then really you can do what you want afterwards. So if that's how you guys do things here, that's way better than other places where I've been at planning commissions where they say, "Well, I think that's how we try."

Yeah. There will at at a point that they want to secure a building permit for the facility. They'll have to submit plans including a site plan. We'll check that site plan to make sure that it complies with any conditions of approval here. our our land use ordinance, our setback requirements they represent that they are, you know, utilizing property that they have control of. Yeah, that's not in front of us. We don't decide that, right? Correct. I mean, there might be a site the site plan associated with this application just to kind of show a layout, but Right. We're not approving setbacks. No, those are already set.

Yeah. Yeah. Even if their plans didn't meet the setback in a document, they they would have to meet they would have to meet those. So they'd have to amend that and show they meet the setback requirements.

So they they're proposing to exceed our minimum setback for a facility like this. They're the proposal includes the 50ft setback in the in the documentation that they submitted as um uh sorry as as stated they're they anticipate having a 12t wide buffer from their property line to the fence. inside the fence there the they describe a 20 foot wide perimeter uh fire access road that's the that's what he's talking about the site he uh so if you want to maintain that you can add a condition to maintain it as per their submitt if that because they are exceeding what our ordinance requires. So we just put that as a condition on the in addition to the staff recommendation that they stick to their proposal.

Yeah, you I mean you could just make sure that it's clear that it needs to be adjacent part or parcels that are not part of the the facility would have to meet that setback requirement or setback as per their submitt. We we can impose a stricter setback than the ordinance. you get if it if it's a detrimental effect that you want to but but they are volunteering that that's what they're going to do. Oh, okay.

Is there anything that requires them to maintain access to a a property that they surround or if they're cutting off the existing access to a property? No, I mean if there's if there's no occupied structure that that you know has rights associated with that that meet our requirements um generally access is a a private issue but I I think we have addressed that in the similar situations. It seems like it yeah I seem to remember that.

Correct. So we we have required access roads for the ones that are completely surrounded by the facility in previous approvals. However, as Bryce said that those access to individual properties are a private agreement between uh property owners to work out and we have not made requirements for that. Is it is the project that is there another project that's right adjacent? Is that is that the issue? And there there's not one immediately adjacent. There's one there's a similar or a solar site that's farther south, but that's there's still distance between those two. There's one right starting that starts right at Kitty Corner and then it heads south.

So, it's uh you see the blue one east the bottom blue square. So, so you'd have this quicks project to your north and there's another project to your east or to the west, sorry. Yeah. Frogtown starts a little bit to the east and then and it goes south and it's it's pretty big, too. All right. All right. Well, thank you. Um, is there any more questions? Yeah, I just want to make sure I understand that this you're not losing your access. Mhm. You can still get to your property. You're not landlocked yet. I would will be. Yeah. If they both go in, then we would be We would be landlocked. But they can't. See, that's why I'm confused. They touch on a corner.

But you're not prevented from accessing your land right now. I'm not. Even if both projects go in where do I get in? So well that's what I'm asking you. I don't know. I don't drive out there. I explain that when the president goes in that this project will be on my north side, right? I understand that. And then the other ones like that they would they can't they can't take a public road. So how do you get to your property? Well, we don't there's no roads out there like So you don't have a right now to access your property?

We do. We come in actually we do come in from a from um some trails. Are they I don't know if they they're they're on the map, but people been blocking them off, so I have no idea if they count or not. They're named They're named They're trails. They're not They're not maintained roads. That's what's typically out there. Can we pull up a satellite view of it? Yeah, go ahead.

And I'll I can I can point out Department of Defense. also that I I would hope that you can read the um their in their application the part they talk about in compliance with the ordinance they're talking about the setbacks it's very confusing to us I I my husband and I we discussed that what do they really mean here is the 12 feet on this side or this side I hope you I I I try to understand what they are ready to see. That's why I want be here today and to find out what their real plan is. Um for now we're basically uh landlocked from the west side. The only way to access is from the east but this project going in it'll be block the whole east side because there's other projects as well. I was, you know, I was looking into the offer they made, but it was the offer was, like I said, it's kind of ridiculous. And then they said, I must sell the land to them if I want to be part of the project.

So, you own the parcel directly ones. Yeah. Right in the south. They own two parcels. And those parcels are kitty corner to each other. Um, there the ones we own are the one if you go Okay, scroll up a little bit. to left or right. I mean, sorry, south. Go south. South down. South just a little bit. South. A little further. There you go. Okay. A little bit more. Okay. So, you see the you see the ones that are all four. Yeah. So, it's the one right underneath that that blue one in the middle. Sorry. Go west. West right there. Right. Yeah. And that one's yours. And

that one's mine. And then the one next to it is also ours. the one to the to uh to my right there. The big the big one. That one. So, both 162 acres. Yeah. And somebody's buying up all the other ones, and I think he's got similar plans for similar things, but we'll have to deal with that later. Um there used to be some access that would come in above that one that's striped, but that's been blocked. Somebody's like, you put up a fence and a bunch of big like railroad ties in it. There used to be another one further north. Probably the same guy has buried a car up there. Um there were old these were old ways in that we were using for years. I

there there are some on the west. Yeah. And so we've been coming in from the west which is a longer trip or from the those are from the west I'm sorry. So above that that stripey guy there the big one with the stripes. um we were coming in that way and then we'd go around the bottom um to get to ours. Now, now we come in from the other side from the state land. You know, if you go past the shooting range and just go south, you can go south until the road turns and then we come up over the top and just go straight in from there. Okay.

Um with so with Frogtown gobbling up all the bottom and them coming down from the top, that becomes a worry. And I think there's other people planning other things that haven't come to you yet. So, um, but it's, you know, that I don't like that. Well, I guess we'll just have to deal with it. But, um, I'm also just worried about things like when, in my experience, when documents have things in them that don't match each other, I usually get the short end of the stick. So I want to make sure that there's something that can at least be said ahead of time so that you know it's not as expensive as it has to be.

So just to summarize then it seems to me there are two concerns here. One is your access to your property. Correct. And your second is that they applicant comply with the setback standards of the county. Right. Okay. So we can require the applicant to comply with the setback requirements. I appreciate that. And and the county has the ability to enforce that. Okay. Okay. As far as access is concerned, you got to get your own access. And I'd be talking to my neighbors and buying an easement. Yeah. Okay.

And and setback would only be to the structure, not to a fence. So they could put a fence right on the edge of their property, right? could I know they've said they wouldn't or they give 12 feet to the fence or whatever, but but at any rate, the setback is only to a structure to to a building, right? Or to the solar panel structure, I guess, that you're going to build. So, I guess I guess at the end of the day, they could put a fence right right along their property line and Well, that's I mean, that's fine. They don't actually that'd be nice because then they wouldn't be driving like, you know, crazy, right? Alan Giddy. Well, we'll figure that out.

I think you're right. As far as the access, at least right now, you know, I think we've we've worried about properties up further north that are right in the middle of this project that are actually landlocked and they had agreed um uh back then that they would preserve a road access for them. And I I don't know if there was an access agreement or whatever, but but they've agreed to. So, you can see there's there's actually a little uh road or something on that property up in the middle of this project, but right now you're not landlocked. So, it's kind of on you to to get your access. Once they get this approved, they'll be doing this. I want to make sure that those thing

are addressed or we we're on the same page. I understand it. I suppose what we're saying is that we can't control private property usage as far as an access goes. We can protect access that's already there like an established road. Okay. Then the third question would be this would how how much would this really destroy the value of my properties? Right. I can't use it almost.

I can't hear you. I I said I I understand what you're saying but there's two concerns we have once they put in the project I would how much would my the value of my part will be dis um dropped I mean I know they did a study in this application but they said the conclusion say it won't affect it won't affect your value um they they said I think this yeah they said they won't affect the value but I cannot imagine how it would not infect my value. I can't even get there. I I

But the challenge that we the question before this commission is does this application comply with county ordinances. That that's the question we're answering. Right. So the valuation question is not something that we deal with. Yeah. In other words, we we heard it earlier today. A detrimental impact can't be the property value. Can be health. It can be hazard. It can be I don't know. I don't know what all the other things we've heard, but can't be that my property value got impacted.

I'm not saying it's not doesn't affect you. I'm not I'm not saying that at all. But that's not anything within our power. Yeah. From the last project, I heard something called what? Good neighborhood um agreement or something. That's means that good neighbor agreement. Yeah, good neighbor agreement. I think uh a good company would practice that. We were offered that with the last project. That's what I'm saying.

We were offered that. Anyway, um yeah, I was just mostly worried about that whole thing whether they were because they're Yeah. So, if you have questions about what what standards are imposed on the applicant, that's that's my question. Then I think you can meet with the staff. Okay. And then that would be who you talk to if you think they're not compliant with the okay with what they do. That's what I would like to know is if I if I come out there and the behavior that I've seen continues, there's no behavior. It's location of improvements and compliance with the Okay. with the approved site plan. Okay. So, behavior I go to somebody else. Yeah. Okay.

Who would you suggest that they talk to if they're land use disputes? Which department handles that kind of thing? I don't think we get into that. I don't think the county gets into I mean if if there's a zoning if there land use violation then we enforce those. If there's trespass or something then the sheriff would get involved but that's about it from what I've heard. So if they're saying that the the applicant isn't operating as they should then they can talk to you. Yeah. Yeah. More like you're driving across our land and then they should go to the sheriff's office.

Yeah. They need if they want to make sure ensure that their the proposal is is meeting applicable approved requirements, they can come to talk to us for sure. There you go. All right. For me, thank you for Thank you for coming and giving comment. It is helpful for us to hear this.

Well, we're very um frustrated because when I bought the land, I did not expect this to happen at all. It's happening. I only bought like a year before the other part of Canadian. So I feel worth destroying basically that but I I hope it's not approved but but I hope because it's so close to the city you know but the whole town going occupied by the solar panels.

Yeah. And and so so we're going to we're going to move on but and and the main thing is we're we're Our hands are tied on what we can can rule on. And right now we don't there's nothing in front of us that is a detrimental impact that we can use to change this applications request that I I've heard. So, okay. Is there uh is there any more question or discussion from the commission? Any questions for staff? So, if I if I understand this right, we we're we're adding some more parcels to your project and your permit for solar.

This this is a separate approval. This is a separate application from the other ones, but yes, it's adjacent to other the entire project. Three three additional properties, but then also extending the permit on the prior. So they're requesting that the ex the extension uh the allowed extension of three years be extended to uh to five years to to 2030 and the the on all the other on the prior oh just on this one on this one just on these three parcels that we're okay

so and and so the findings that you should make are based on the cluster study process and um the construction of u utility improvements is what they what they if you're inclined to grant that. Those are the findings you should include in your Thank you. Is there a motion to be made?

Yes. I'll make a motion. Uh, I move to approve the uh application for the con I move to approve the conditional use application CU2025-06 for the uh uh request for solar energy facility as electric power generation plant. Uh and move to with that motion adopt the eight or the nine findings of the staff that is found on page well section five of the staff recommendation and that would include number nine which is the U termination date be extended to August 19th 2030.

Second moved and seconded. Any any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose say nay. It's unanimous. Okay. We have do we do we is D an item or is something to decide on? What's the Agricultural Protection Area? Yep. Okay, this is probably the longest item of the night. So, I apologize, but it's what? This is going to be the longest item of the night. Okay. By by that I mean shortest. Thank you. Promises. Promises.

So, state code requires whenever an agricultural protection area is created, meaning the commission has approved it and recorded it, that that off that also needs to be recorded with the planning commission. And so the way we've handled that is to bring it as an agenda item. I'll read this information into our minutes so we have record of it. So on July 9th uh the the 2025 the Utah County Commission approved the creation of the relief mine company 2025 agricultural protection area 175 acres um east of Salem uh on along the the bench there. So that came before you for a recommendation if you recall several months ago. So, just uh wanted to read that in the record to officially notify you that's been created.

And so, that's all we need to just read it in the record and we don't we don't need to vote on anything or make a motion or anything. Okay, good. Um other business, we've decided to um continue that. Maybe have that discussion next month. Should we when we get to that just remember some of the experiences from tonight? I mean, I you know, that's kind of what we're trying to address. Well, we will be meeting again in a month. And would would we want these new this new resolution to be our guide or do we want the old guide again? Yeah. Anyway, just kind of kind of remember kind of some of some of the things I've experienced tonight and kind of what we're trying to accomplish with this to kind of make these uh

these meetings a little more efficient, productive for you. Yeah. So, so yeah, item number eight, does it require a public hearing? No. No, it's just a resolution. It's your own resolution. So, we can just go ahead and uh review that next month if that's Do we want to uh Does someone want to make a motion to continue this or do we want to decide on this? Do we want to talk about this further in the next meeting? I move that we continue it till the next meeting. Okay. been moved and seconded to continue item E again on the resolution uh to the next meeting. All those in favor say I.

I. Any oppose say nay. The meeting is adjourned. So,