CITY OF
RESOLUTION NO. 02-04
A RESOLUTION
DENYING THE APPLICATIONS OF XCEL ENERGY
FOR A CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT AND FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND
FOR A VARIANCE
RELATING TO REPLACING AN EXISTING SINGLE CIRCUIT
TRANSMISSION LINE
WITH A DOUBLE CIRCUIT TRANSMISSION LINE
WITHIN THE
EXISTING RIGHT-OF-WAY
Xcel Energy (Xcel) has applied under City Code, Sections 1201.06 and 1224.05 for a conditional use permit and for a site plan approval and for a variance relating to replacing Xcel’s existing single circuit transmission line with a double circuit transmission line.
The record before the Council comprises the testimony, reports, studies, investigations, meetings and proceedings listed on the attached Exhibit A.
Based on the record, the City Council of Sunfish Lake makes the following Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Decision.
1.) The applications of Xcel Energy (Xcel)
were filed with the City on
2.) The applications of Xcel for a double
circuit 115kV line were considered at public hearings by the Sunfish Lake
Planning Commission on
3.) Xcel’s applications were considered at a
public hearing by the City Council on
4.) Both the Planning Commission and the City Council conducted public hearings. Both hearings were preceded by published and requisite mailed notice. The record before the Council comprises the testimony, reports, studies, investigations, meetings and proceedings listed on the attached Exhibit A.
5.) Xcel currently owns and operates a single circuit above-ground 115 kV transmission line within a 50 foot wide easement running through Sunfish Lake (SFL) from the area of Highways 110 and 494 (where the line enters SFL from Inver Grove Heights) to Delaware Avenue (where the line exits SFL to Mendota Heights).
6.) The existing single circuit 115kV transmission line was originally constructed in 1923. The existing line is supported by wooden H-frame structures.
7.) The existing line within SFL is a
segment of Xcel’s 115kV transmission line system that runs from the substations
of Red Rock to Stockyards to
8.) The line segment in SFL from about
9.) The system as defined by Xcel runs from the Red Rock Substation to the Wilson Substation. The line segments within the system are:
Segment Approximate
Distance
(miles)
Red Rock to Stockyards 0.52
Stockyards to
Airport to
TOTAL 14.76
Miles
Xcel originally proposed to construct the system
upgrade in two construction phases. The
first phase would be from Red Rock to
The summer months are the time frame of peak energy demand. Therefore, construction will occur during the non-summer months.
The first construction phase would be during the non-summer months during the years 2002 and 2003 (so-called Construction Phase One).
Xcel
has withdrawn plans to build the section of the line from
10.) Xcel proposes to remove the existing single circuit line and H-frame towers and replace them with a double circuit 115 kV transmission line on single pole steel structures.
11.) The existing H-frame structures range from about 51 to 85 feet in height.
12.) The proposed single pole steel structures
will range in height from about 80 to 110 feet.
The taller height is necessary to fit the two circuits on the existing
right-of-way. In general, the new towers
will be about 25 feet higher than the existing towers. Xcel does not propose to change the width of
the utility easement. The width of the
transmission line easement in
13.) The existing transmission line was constructed before the City was incorporated and before the City’s zoning code became effective. The existing line was constructed before the residences adjoining the line were built.
14.) City Code, Section 1201.06
“grandfathers-in” the existing line. In
SECTION
1201.06 CONDITIONAL USES:
Any established use or building legally existing prior to the establishment of this Ordinance and which is herein classified as a conditional use may be continued in like fashion and activity and shall automatically be considered as having received conditional use permit approval. Any change to such a use, or any other subsequently approved conditional use, shall however, require a new conditional use permit be processed according to this Ordinance.
15.) Any change to the single circuit line, such as the proposed double circuit (with new substituted monopole structures), requires a conditional use permit and site approval under Section 1224.05. The criteria for granting or denying a conditional use permit are protection of the public health, safety and welfare as well as the criteria set forth in City Code, Sections 1204 and 1224. The criteria require an examination of health effects, impact on surrounding properties and need for the project.
16.) City Code, Section 1224.05 sets forth a dual procedural process to replace or reconstruct a transmission line. First, a conditional use permit has to be obtained for the project as a whole and the route. If approved, the conditional use permit would be for the type of transmission line, the type of poles and the route through the City. Once a conditional use permit is obtained, then a site and building plan approval has to be obtained. The site and building plan portion of the process addresses such matters as:
· Landscaping
· Exact location of towers within the right-of-way
· Color of the towers
· Vegetative restoration within the right-of-way
· Construction hours during which the replacement line will be constructed
· Access points along the right-of-way for construction vehicles
· The timeframe within which to complete construction.
If the conditional use permit for the project and route are denied, the site and building plan approval process is moot and accordingly denied as well.
Xcel has also applied for a variance from the City requirement (found in Section 1224.05 L3) that the poles be 60 feet from the homes and that the conductors be at least 37.5 feet from the homes. The variance request is heard at the time of the site and building plan review. If the conditional use permit for the project and route are denied, the variance request is moot and accordingly denied as well.
17.) Prior to consideration of the conditional use permit for the project and route, the Council is required by City Code, Sections 1224.05 (F) and (G) to determine the project and route alternates lying within the City boundaries and the options for consideration. On December 12, 2001, after a public hearing, the Council determined the following three options for consideration to be available:
1.) an above-ground double circuit 115kV transmission line;
2.) a below-ground double circuit 115 kV transmission line;
3.) denial of the project and the accompanying applications.
18.) The opposition to the project focuses primarily on three areas:
· Devaluation of adjoining properties
· Potential adverse health effects due to electric and magnetic field strengths (EMF)
· Lack of need for the project.
Objections have also been raised relating to negative aesthetics of the higher monopoles and inconsistencies with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The objections relating to aesthetics and Comprehensive Plan inconsistency largely stem from or have as their underlying rationale the three primary points of opposition, namely devaluation of adjoining properties, potential adverse health effects from EMF and lack of need for the project. These are the three major conditional use permit criteria that must be addressed.
19.) The impact of transmission lines on the value of single family homes was a topic addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Arrowhead-Weston Electric Transmission Line Project, filed in October 2000. This report is part of the record before the Council.
The report indicates:
· Concern or fear of possible health effects from electric or magnetic fields may decrease the market value (what a buyer will pay) of residential properties.
· A court has ruled that whether the danger of EMF is a scientifically genuine or verifiable fact should be irrelevant to the central issue of its market value impact.
· The potential reduction in sale price for a single family home caused by proximity to a transmission line ranges from 4% to 7% in the Midwest Area, including Minnesota.
· Effects on sale price are most often observed for property crossed by or immediately adjacent to a power line, but effects have also been observed for properties farther away from a line.
· Buyers’ concerns about EMF can influence their decisions related to the purchase of property.
20.) As more buyers become more concerned about EMF, there will be a greater decrease in the market value of homes near the transmission line. Greater knowledge and concern about EMF will occur because almost all government agencies that have studied EMF have concluded that the public needs more information and education about EMF.
21.) Edina Realty and Coldwell Banker-Burnet are two leading real estate agencies in the Twin City area. Realtors from these agencies indicate that as buyers become more knowledgeable about EMF, there will be a negative impact on the values of homes adjoining a transmission line. That negative impact will be more pronounced when the poles are larger and there are more circuits.
22.) Xcel’s project will cause a reduction in the market value of the residential homes adjoining the line due to the fact that the prominent nature of the monopoles and circuits will acutely bring to the buying public’s attention the facts of how close the line is to the homes and what the field strength is of the magnetic field at the right-of-way edge.
HEALTH RISKS – EMF
23.) Electric fields are expressed in units of kilovolts per meter (kV/m) and magnetic fields are expressed in milliGauss (mG). The various inputs for calculations include voltage, load (amps), as well as conductor types and spacing and other specifics. Magnetic fields arise from the motion of electric charges, i.e. a current. The magnetic field emitted by a transmission line is a function of the amperage going through the line. In general, a magnetic field declines at the square of the distance from the source. Both vertical and horizontal distances from the line affect the mG value; the further one goes from the line, the less the mG value will be. Magnetic fields are not shielded by most common materials and pass easily through them.
24.) The new double-circuit structures will be single pole steel structures built within the existing 50 foot wide easement. The maximum voltage allowed for a 115kV system is 121kV, which is 115kV plus five percent. The 795 kcmil SSAC 26.7 conductor will be used throughout the length of the line. The mid-span minimal clearance from ground will be the same as for the existing circuit, about 25 feet. Normally the loading will be divided equally between the circuits. Using the 1999 Xcel reported loadings, the existing single circuit line had a “normal” load of about 567 amps and a “peak” load of about 658 amps. Assuming that the load was split between the two circuits and using the year 1999 loadings, each of the two circuits would carry about 284 to 329 amps. Each of the two new circuits is rated and designed to carry up to 1600 amps.
25.) The projections of Xcel’s electrical loadings on the double circuit transmission line for the 2001 to 2020 time period are set forth below. These projections were submitted by Xcel to the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) and were incorporated and attached to the MEQB’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions And Order dated November 18, 1999. The projections are also shown on Table 3-1 of the Independent Review of Double Circuiting Report, prepared by Commonwealth Associates, Inc., (hereafter the CAI Report).
Year Load Condition Circuit Circuit
No. 1 No.
2
2006 normal 532 amps 532 amps
peak 652 amps 652 amps
2010 normal 591 amps 591 amps
peak 724 amps 724 amps
2020 normal 756 amps 756 amps
peak 927 amps 927 amps
26.) Notwithstanding that Xcel itself provided to the MEQB the projected load data shown above, Xcel now claims that it cannot project loads more than five years into the future and that the projected loads (shown above) are too high. Nobody else has the information to forecast Xcel’s load. Nevertheless, for purposes of comparing mG levels, and taking into account the whole of the evidence as submitted, it is reasonable to examine, at a minimum, future peak loads at the 800 amp and 1000 amp levels. For calendar year 2000, Xcel’s peak loads on the line segment from the Stockyards Substation to the Rogers Lake Substation during the summer months (June, July and August) were frequently in the range of 500 amps to 700 amps with some upward spikes between 700 amps and 800 amps.
27.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report, for a 50 foot wide right-of-right, at a voltage of 121kV, at 800 amps for the existing single circuit, and at 400 amps for each of the proposed double circuits, the electric fields (kV/m) and the magnetic fields (mG) are:
Number
of Circuits Electric
Field Magnetic
Field
Single circuit 1.0kV/m 86.7mG
Double circuit 0.6kV/m 21.0mG
when measured at the edge of the easement right-of-way (i.e. 25 feet from centerline) at three feet above ground.
28.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report and given the same loading and voltage parameters as stated in Paragraph 27 above, the magnetic field at 25 feet from the center line and at 12 feet above-ground is:
Number
of Circuits Magnetic
Field
Single Circuit 132.5 mG
Double Circuit 35.4 mG
29.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report and given the same loading and voltage parameters as stated in Paragraph 27 above, the magnetic field at 75 feet from the centerline and at three feet above ground is:
Number
of Circuits Magnetic
Field
Single circuit 19.1mG
Double circuit 3.3mG
30.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report and given the same loading and voltage parameters as stated in Paragraph 27 above, the magnetic field at 100 feet from the centerline and three feet above-ground is:
Number
of Circuits Magnetic
Field
Single circuit 11.2mG
Double circuit 1.6mG
31.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report, for a 50 foot wide right-of-way, at a voltage of 121kV, at 1000 amps for the existing single circuit and at 500 amps for each of the proposed double circuits, the magnetic field is:
Number
of Circuits Magnetic
Field
Single Circuit 108.3 mG
Double Circuit 31.5 mG
when measured at the edge of the easement right-of-way (i.e. 25 feet from center line) at three feet above-ground.
32.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report, at a voltage of 121kV at 1000 amps for the existing single circuit and at 500 amps for each of the proposed double circuits, the magnetic field is:
Number
of Circuits Magnetic
Field
Single Circuit 23.8 mG
Double Circuit 4.1 mG
when measured at 75 feet from the centerline and at three feet above-ground.
33.) Based on the computer generated theoretical modeling contained in the CAI Report, at a voltage of 121kV at 1000 amps for the existing single circuit and at 500 amps for each of the proposed double circuits, the magnetic field is:
Number
of Circuits Magnetic
Field
Single Circuit 14.0 mG
Double Circuit 2.0 mG
when measured at 100 feet from the centerline and at three feet above-ground.
34.) The double circuit above-ground transmission line reduces the mG factor in comparison to the single circuit line.
35.) With respect to the possibility of burying the line, the underground segment would follow the existing right-of-way, starting with a pair of transition structures at a point immediately west of the interchange of Interstate 494 and Highway 110. The underground line would cross the City of Sunfish Lake a distance of about 7,000 feet on the existing right-of-way. At a point on the east side of Delaware Road at the intersection with Charlton Road, a pair of transition structures would be built and the line would continue onto the west as on overhead line. About 1,000 feet of the underground line would have to be moved off the existing right-of-way about 75 feet to the north to avoid passing through the edge of the lake.
36.) Above ground installation of the double circuit transmission line is estimated to cost $500,000.
37.) Xcel estimates that undergrounding the double circuit line will cost $6,500,000.
38.) Xcel estimates that undergrounding the existing single circuit only will cost $3,225,000.
39.) All the costs of above ground installation will be paid by Xcel and ultimately be spread throughout Xcel’s system-wide rate payers.
40.) Xcel has not agreed to pay the cost to bury one or both circuits. If Xcel continues with its decision to not pay for undergrounding, then the issue of who pays for underground installation will ultimately be determined by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC). The PUC will decide that such costs will be paid either by the system-wide rate payers or by the customers only in Sunfish Lake or by a subcategory of the customers in Sunfish Lake. The possibility that the PUC would order the costs to be paid only by customers in Sunfish Lake is an option that the record before the Council does not eliminate.
41.) There are only 192 rate payers in Sunfish Lake. If they were the only payers of the estimated $6,000,000 difference between the above-ground and below-ground costs, the amount per rate payer could be extremely burdensome on many of the Sunfish Lake rate payers.
42.) In or about March, 2000, the City sent a questionnaire to its residents concerning the proposed project. The March 2000 questionnaire asked whether residents would be willing to assume an annual financial commitment to actively work to oppose or change Xcel’s transmission line proposal. Of the 103 respondents, 57 stated they would be willing to make a commitment of five years; of these, 34 would agree to an annual commitment of more than $500.
43.) Xcel indicates that the vegetative disturbance and tree removal associated with undergrounding will be significantly greater than that associated with above ground installation. According to Xcel, undergrounding requires up to a 50 foot wide area to be disturbed along the construction path. No trees can be planted within the area above the underground line.
44.) The below ground double circuit transmission line would have approximately a 1.0 mG factor at the edge of the 50 foot wide right-of-way.
45.) Burying one or both circuits is judged to be excessively costly; most of the rate payers in Sunfish Lake are not willing to totally assume such costs and are not willing to be subjected to the risk of totaling paying such costs.
46.) If Xcel’s project is constructed, the replacement above ground double circuit transmission line will last far into the foreseeable future, perhaps another 75 years or more (just as the single circuit line has lasted 75 years or more). If constructed, NSP has no plans in the future to remove the proposed double circuit line or abandon it.
47.) If the double circuit project is denied, Xcel’s stated position is that it will not remove the single circuit line.
48.) If the conditional use permit for the double circuit line is denied by the City, Xcel claims that in the foreseeable future it will never remove the existing single circuit 115kV line. Foreseeability is a difficult task. Xcel obviously did not foresee in the 1920’s that it would propose a double circuit line in the year 2002. The issue is whether to add another circuit within a 50 foot wide easement and thereby insure that the new substituted line will never be removed or to leave only the single circuit with the possibility that future deficiencies in the single circuit line could reasonably cause the utility to relocate the old line. This issue is identical to every land-use case involving the elimination of a non-conforming, grandfathered-in use.
49.) The only reason Xcel chooses to place the double circuit in the 50 foot right-of-way is because Xcel already owns the easement; it is cheap to double-up. Xcel only focuses on cost. Xcel will not even acknowledge that it might be beneficial to examine locations within highway rights-of-way. This unwillingness to look at alternate highway routes is unreasonable in light of the Minnesota Department of Transportations statement that under certain conditions transmission lines may be routed within freeway rights-of-way. The Minnesota Department of Transportation has stated:
This is to follow up on your request at the January 8,
2002, meeting to clarify Mr. Joseph Pignato’s letter
of October 17, 2000. Mn/DOT
has a strict rule of not allowing utilities on interstate highway right-of-way
based on historic precedence and in consideration of critical safety factors
and substantial relocation costs. The
exception to the rule is in Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8810.3300, Subpart 4,
which states “There may be extreme cases where, under strictly controlled
conditions, a utility may be permitted inside the control-of-access lines along
an interstate highway.” Conditions are
then stated that must be addressed by the utility.
In Mn/DOTS’s Utility
Accommodation Policy, Section VI, Subpart D, it refers to how the department
may allow utilities on freeways longitudinally if the proposed occupancy
conforms to the AASHTO policy, “A Policy on the Accommodation of Utilities
Within Freeway Right-of-Way”. In this
policy a description is made for strictly controlled conditions that must be
met. The utility must, in each case,
show to the State highway agency’s satisfaction how those conditions will be
satisfied. In rare cases if all the
conditions are met, the Department may then allow the facility to be
constructed inside the control-of-access along an interstate highway.
Whether siting within highway right-of-way could be accomplished is a point that Xcel ignores; Xcel’s choice and singular objective is to cut costs by using a 1920s right-of-way for a year 2002 project, irrespective of the quantum gain in scientific knowledge about EMF since 1920.
50.) If Xcel’s project is not constructed, the “grandfathered-in” single circuit transmission line may remain and may be protected from elimination as a non-conforming use under City Code, Section 1201.06. In such an instance, however, Xcel will have to examine other electrical system designs to meet the double contingency objective which it seeks. The possibility of the single circuit being removed would continue as a possibility because the future electrical system designs constructed elsewhere could make the single circuit obsolete.
51.) The central question raised by Xcel’s applications is whether it is reasonable to approve a project that essentially will last forever when the project has a mG factor at the existing right-of-way edge that is less than the existing line.
52.) The mG factor is better but the critical focus is whether the mG factor has been lessened enough to protect the residences along the line. If the mG factor under the double circuit approach is still potentially harmful, then the permanency of the replacement line will do nothing but perpetuate forever a harmful condition whereas the possibility of the utility removing at some future date the 75 year old single circuit line retains the reasonable objective that at some point in time the potentially harmful effects of EMF may be removed.
53.) The mG factor is important because the transmission line runs through residential areas only in Sunfish Lake. At least three homes are within 50 feet of the centerline of the transmission line. Those homes are respectively 33.77 feet, 45.61 feet and 40.49 feet from the centerline.
There are 208 housing units (including apartments) in 45 structures within 50 feet of the centerline between Concord Street in South St. Paul and the Minnesota River. This situation is truly unique.
54.) As the demand for energy increases (both under normal and peak conditions), the amps will increase and the EMF will increase.
55.) High electric fields and high magnetic fields have adverse health effects based on studies of residential exposure and childhood leukemia as well as studies relating to miscarriages.
56.) Magnetic fields above 2.5mG are critical for children under the age of 14. Magnetic fields at 12mG are critical for adults with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer.
57.) The scientific evidence indicates that electromagnetic fields do seem to promote cancer in those already susceptible.
58.) The recent medical history of persons living near the existing line reveals adverse health problems similar to what the scientific literature identifies as being associated with EMF. Persons at the following addresses have had the following health problems:
Address Health Problem
3 Sunfish Lane Lou Gehrig Disease
2 Sunfish Lane Breast Cancer
2 Sunfish Lane Parkinson Disease
1 Sunfish Lane Breast Cancer
2154 Charlton Road Bladder Cancer
2158 Charlton Road Pan Vasculitis
2184 Charlton Road Breast Cancer
59.) Constant and cumulative exposure of residents to EMF above 4mG poses an unjustified health risk. Such a health risk may even exist at 2mG.
60.) Electromagnetic fields are linked with leukemia, lymphomas, nervous system tumors and breast cancer as well as with various reproductive abnormalities. Although the scientific community has not yet demonstrated a casual relationship, the linkage and association are significant enough to require avoidance of EMF at levels above 4mG.
61.) The 50 foot wide right-of-way (25 feet from the towers) is too short a distance to adequately protect adjoining residences in light of the permanent nature of the project. Only at 75 to 100 feet from the centerline of the double circuit line does the mG factor drop to a level below 4mG. Levels of EMF that pose unjustifiable risks must not exceed the right-of-way boundaries of the utility’s easement; the utility does not have property rights outside of its easement.
62.) The only way of limiting the unjustified health risk is to assure the setback from the centerline of the proposed project’s transmission line is at least 75 to 100 feet so that the mG factor at edge of the right-of-way is at about 4mG at the predicted peak operating point of the transmission line. Xcel, on the other hand, proposes to install the replacement line in a 50 foot wide easement acquired in the 1920s. At that time, there was little knowledge about EMF. Now, in the year 2002 when Xcel does not have a pre-existing easement available, Xcel places 115kV lines in wider rights-of-way than 50 feet.
63.) Thus far, the State of Minnesota has not chosen to establish a uniform state-wide requirement for setbacks or for the mG factor. This is understandable in light of the wide range of land uses throughout the state that may adjoin a transmission line route. However, in Sunfish Lake, where the adjoining land uses are only residential and where the applications seek to expand a non-conforming use more than 75 years old, it is appropriate that the local government address the protection of the residents by examining what future mG factor will reduce the unjustified risks of constant and cumulative exposure to EMF.
64.) The authority of the City to make such an examination for this transmission line rests in the police powers and zoning powers of the City and in its authority under Minnesota Statute § 216B.36. The City has the authority to evaluate the health and safety risks of Xcel’s project. No state agency has precluded the City from making a determination as to what mG level may be appropriate to eliminate unjustified risks of EMF.
65.) Communications from the Minnesota Department of Health (dated March 27, 2001; July 27, 2001; and December 20, 2001) have repeatedly stressed that local units of government (i.e. cities) must themselves examine the health risks of EMF in the particularized land use settings of each city so as to determine what might be an appropriate regulatory response in a given geographic area taking into account the surrounding land uses.
66.) Jan Malcom, the Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH), has stated:
From a public health standpoint,
I am concerned about the level of magnetic field exposure to which certain
residents are now and will continue to be subject.
***
The SE Metro
Line Project is projected to generate exposure levels 4-24 times as high as
those in the studies on which the EQB staff is basing its recommendation.
***
However, the
evidence suggests to me that regulatory bodies should examine precautionary
measures that will minimize exposure to EMF, especially in those situations
where exposure would otherwise be particularly high.
67.) The Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (MEQB) acknowledged that cities will have the primary role of examining the health and safety issues relating to Xcel’s project. In the MEQB’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions and Order dated November 18, 1999, relating to the project, the MEQB in Finding of Fact No. 34 and in Conclusion No. 6 noted:
MEQB Finding 34:
34. The project is subject to local control, including conditional use permits. In addition, the project is subject to federal, state, or local permits, as described in the EAW. These permits will also help make certain that the project is constructed and operated in accordance with the project description provided to the MEQB for the EAW.
MEQB Conclusion 6:
6. … Five of the six municipalities crossed have authority to approve the project with a Conditional Use Permit, and can include mitigation provisions in permits if they approve the project.
68.) The Minnesota Court of Appeals in the two year old decision of Power Line Task Force, Inc. vs. Public Utilities Commission indicated that the then current state of scientific knowledge and the record before the Public Utilities Commission did not justify that the existing transmission line be shut down. This is understandable in light of the competing property rights of Xcel with respect to the existing line’s protected non-conforming use status.
69.) The City is not examining whether to shut the line down. The City is examining whether it is reasonable to perpetuate forever the unjustifiable risks associated with EMF in the setting of a 50 foot wide right-of-way in a residential area.
70.) The Minnesota Environmental Quality Commission (MEQB) declined to order an environmental impact statement (EIS) for Xcel’s project. The MEQB recognized that each city along the line would have to independently evaluate the health and safety risks of the project in order to protect its residents. Further, since the MEQB’s refusal to order an EIS, the following studies have been added to the scientific literature indicating the adverse health effects of EMF:
a.) September 2000 British Journal of Cancer
b.) California EMF Project on Childhood Leukemia
c.) UK Government Study on Childhood Leukemia
d.) California EMF Project on Effect of Bias
e.) Washington State Health on Childhood Leukemia Peak
f.) German Environmental Ministry on Childhood Leukemia
g.) California EMF Project on Miscarriages (2 Studies)
h.) California EMF on Breast Cancer
i.) Canada’s National Research Council on EMF
j.) Document titled “An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) from Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupation and Appliances” produced by the California EMF Program.
71.) It is the written policy of the City to examine all land-use proposals within the context of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The intrusion of a double circuit line with 80 to 110 foot high towers within a narrow easement that does not limit the EMF to the right-of-way is contrary to the following goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan:
a.) To protect and maintain the natural environmental resources throughout the community.
b.) To protect residential development from adverse environmental impacts.
c.) To insure that new development adheres to the highest possible standards for planning, design and construction.
d.) To insure that land uses do not impair the quality of the air.
e.) All new utility services shall be placed underground and when economically feasible, the conversion of existing overhead systems to underground locations is encouraged.
f.) To insure coordination among all utility programs to constantly monitor and maintain all utility systems at a safe and high quality standard of service.
LACK OF NEED FOR THE PROJECT
72.) With respect to the need for the system upgrade, the Minnesota Legislature during the 2001 Regular Legislative Session made a number of changes as to which entity (PUC or City) is to ultimately determine need. The changes are found in Chapter 212 of the 2001 Regular Session Laws. Prior to August 1, 2001, a “large energy facility” meant, among other things, any high voltage transmission line with a capacity of 200 kilovolts or more and with more than 50 miles of its length in Minnesota or any high voltage transmission line with a capacity of 300 kilovolts or more with more than 25 miles of its length in Minnesota.
73.) With the change effective August 1, 2001, Minnesota Statute § 216B.2421, subd. 2, now defines a “large energy facility” to include, among other things, a high voltage transmission line with a capacity of 100 kilovolts or more with more than ten miles of its length in Minnesota.
74.) Xcel’s system upgrade is a double circuit 115kV line from the Red Rock Substation to the Wilson Substation with construction originally planned in two phases.
75.) Xcel’s system upgrade is 14.76 miles long in the State of Minnesota.
76.) Minnesota Statute § 216B.2421, subd. 1 states that the definitions found in subdivision 2 of Minn. Stat. § 216B.2421 apply for the purpose of Minn. Stat. § 216B.243.
77.) Minnesota Statute § 216B.243 states that no large energy facility shall be sited or constructed without the issuance of a certificate of need from the Public Utilities Commission.
78.) Xcel’s system upgrade of its 14.76 mile line from Red Rock to Wilson appears to be a large energy facility that requires a certificate of need from the Public Utilities Commission before Xcel may commence siting or construction.
79.) Xcel does not have a certificate of need from the Public Utilities Commission.
80.) Xcel claims that it is not required to obtain a certificate of need for two reasons. First, it claims there is no requirement to obtain a certificate because Xcel had applied for conditional use permits from the neighboring cities of South St. Paul and Mendota Heights prior to August 1, 2001. The date of August 1, 2001, was the effective date of the amendments to Minnesota Statutes §§ 216B.2421, subd. 2 (definition of large energy facility) and 216B.243 (certificate of need statute). The law which created the changes (Minn. Law 2001, c.212, art. 7) does not, however, state that there are such exceptions to the changes. Xcel applied for a conditional use permit in Sunfish Lake on November 13, 2001. No construction on what Xcel now characterizes as Construction Phase One has yet begun.
81.) Xcel’s second claim is that since it is only now building what it now terms as Construction Phase One, there is no “large energy facility” because the so-called Construction Phase One is less than 10 miles. Construction Phase One from the Red Rock Substation to the Rogers Lake Substation is 6.36 miles long.
82.) The first time that Xcel made this claim was at the January 16, 2002, Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Hearing.
83.) The system upgrade is 14.76 miles long.
84.) Xcel has consistently claimed that the “system” or the “project” on the “line” was the upgrade from Red Rock to Wilson. Xcel expressed this position during preparation of the CAI Report and in its various presentations to the Transmission Line Steering Committee (comprising the mayors of Sunfish Lake, South St. Paul and Mendota Heights).
85.) Xcel is on record as stating that “the project” it proposes is a 14.7 mile 115kVtransmission line connecting its Red Rock, Rogers and Wilson substations. See, e.g., EQB November 18, 1999 Order, Finding No. 1 (summarizing Xcel’s description of the project contemplated in the EAW it submitted to the EQB). See also Power Line Task Force v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Northern States Power Company, Order, No. 62-C3-00-010952, August 24, 2000, p. 3(finding by District Court in supporting Memorandum that Xcel itself believes this “14.7 mile transmission line” is necessary to meet increased energy demands in the future); In the Matter of the Complaint Regarding the Safety of Northern States Power Company’s Transmission Lines in the Southeast Metro Area, Docket No. E-002/C-99-902, Order Denying Request for Rehearing as Untimely (Minn. P.U.C. April 12, 2000) (finding Xcel’s Southeast Metro “project” “is a 115kV single-circuit transmission line connecting NSP substations in Newport, South St. Paul, Mendota Heights, the Minneapolis/St. Paul International Airport, and Bloomington”).
86.) The PUC is charged with enforcing the certificate of need statute (Minn. Stat. § 216B.243). The PUC will ultimately have to decide if Xcel needs a certificate of need or if Xcel by its past applications to South St. Paul and Mendota Heights is exempt from the new law or if Xcel’s project or system is really the 6.36 mile length of so-called Construction Phase One instead of the 14.76 mile system from Red Rock to Wilson for purposes of the certificate of need statute.
87.) In any event, no construction can commence in Sunfish Lake until the PUC makes this important determination.
88.) Xcel is premature in applying for a conditional use in Sunfish Lake for a route designation when Xcel has not obtained a certificate of need from the PUC or a determination from the PUC that a certificate of need does not have to be obtained. The applications of Xcel to the City must be denied because Xcel lacks a necessary state agency determination.
89.) Xcel’s testimony with respect to “need” is disjointed, conflicting and unpersuasive. Xcel has not shown a demonstrated need.
· Table 3-1 of the CAI Report set forth a load forecast from 2001 to 2020.
· At the January 16, 2002, Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Meeting, representatives from Xcel stated that the forecast came from CAI, not from Xcel; and that Xcel does not plan beyond five years; and that forecasting for a 20-year period is not accurate.
· Xcel’s statements at the January 16, 2002, meeting were made even though it was pointed out to Xcel that the source for Table 3-1 was shown on Table 3-1 as coming from information that Xcel submitted to the MEQB.
· At the January 29, 2002, Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Meeting, it was pointed out to Xcel that the contents of Table 3-1 of the CAI Report came directly from the information Xcel presented to the MEQB and that, in fact, Xcel’s submission to the MEQB was attached to the MEQB November 18, 1999, Decision.
· At the January 29, 2002, Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Meeting, Xcel finally acknowledged it had submitted the information, but Xcel then stated the information was not a realistic forecast, but only a mere mathematical extrapolation that could not be relied upon.
· All of Xcel’s testimony relating to need (submitted to CAI, to the Mayors’ Transmission Line Steering Committee and to SFL) is based on system need for the project from the Red Rock Substation to the Wilson Substation.
· When asked at the January 16, 2002, Sunfish lake Planning Commission Meeting why Xcel had not yet obtained a Certificate of Need from the Public Utilities Commission for the 14.7 mile project, Xcel responded that the “project” was now only a 6.36 mile project and therefore did not meet the 10-mile requirement for obtaining a Certificate of Need.
· At the January 29, 2002, Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Meeting when asked to explain its position on need, Xcel stated that the Red Rock to Wilson system had a need to satisfy a double contingency objective when the system reached a 511 megawatt peak and that the peak in 2001 for the Red Rock to Wilson system was 505.70 megawatts.
· Xcel reinvented the project description once again and switched back to the Red Rock to Wilson definition of the project.
· If the “project” is Red Rock to Rogers Lake, then there is no evidence on the critical load level at which this segment will require a double contingency design.
· A single contingency condition is the failure of any single line, transformer or generator. The “critical load level” is the load level at which overloading can first occur due to a single contingency. Xcel claims the critical load level is when the system from Red Rock to Wilson reaches a peak demand of 511 megawatts.
· If the “project” is from Red Rock to Wilson, then it is unreasonable to use the 2001 peak as the starting point to predict when or if the Red Rock to Wilson system will reach the so-called critical peak point of 511 megawatts for implementation of a double contingency design. The five years prior to 2002 showed Xcel’s peak loads as follows:
Year Peak Load
2000 454.20 megawatts
1999 479.80 megawatts
1998 474.30 megawatts
1997 472.90 megawatts
1996 451.20 megawatts
The trend of peak loads for these years can best be described as flat or even decreasing. For Xcel to base an entire project and an entire forecast on one year (2001) is unreasonable. Similarly, if the forecast were just based on the year 2000 (454.20 megawatts), it may be unreasonable to predict that in the future there will be a decreasing peak energy demand.
· There is no identifiable trend at this time.
· Need has not been shown. Xcel’s statement of need is premature.
· Xcel’s unreasonable reliance on a single year (2001) to forecast the future year of the critical peak point (511 megawatts) is shown when one considers that for the time period from 1992 to 2000 the average annual percentage increase in peak load growth was only 1.66%.
Years Percentage
of Peak
Load Growth
1992 to 1993 (+) 1.13%
1993 to 1994 (-) 1.16%
1994 to 1995 (+) 19.03%
1995 to 1996 (-) 7.00%
1996 to 1997 (+) 4.80%
1997 to 1998 (+) 00.29%
1998 to 1999 (+) 1.16%
1999 to 2000 (-) 5.00%
Net positive percentage increase of 13.25 divided by eight (8) years equals 1.65625% (say 1.66%) as an average annual increase.
· If the 1.66% average annual growth is applied each year beginning in 1992 (the first year reported by Xcel), then the critical point of 511 megawatts is not reached until the year 2013, eleven years from now.
· Xcel’s dropping of its plans to build the Rogers Lake to Bloomington segment of the line implies that Xcel itself does not have any compelling need for the total line.
· Xcel’s dropping of its plans to build the Rogers Lake to Bloomington segment of the line invalidates the analyses prepared by Commonwealth Associates for the environmental impact review, as these analyses assumed the existence of that segment of the line.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the Findings of Fact made above, the City Council makes the following Conclusions:
A.) The proposed replacement double circuit transmission line project of Xcel perpetuates the unjustified health risks of EMF in a narrow easement that adjoins residences.
B.) Expansion and upgrading of the “grandfathered-in” single circuit transmission line assures the permanent placement of the transmission line in Sunfish Lake without commensurate protections from the EMF emanating from the project.
C.) The 50 foot wide right-of-way is not sufficient for the project.
D.) Xcel has not shown an absence of adverse health effects relating to EMF.
E.) The studies indicating that adverse health effects are associated with EMF are credible.
F.) Xcel’s project will cause a reduction in the market value of the residential homes adjoining the replacement line due to the fact that the prominent nature of the monopoles will acutely bring to the buying public’s attention the facts of how close the line is to the homes and what the field strength is of the magnetic field at the right-of-way edge.
G.) Xcel is premature in applying for a conditional use in Sunfish Lake for a route designation when Xcel has not obtained a certificate of need from the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) or a determination from the PUC that a certificate of need does not have to be obtained. The applications of Xcel to the City must be denied because Xcel lacks a necessary state agency determination.
H.) Xcel has not demonstrated a need for the project.
I.) Because of the adverse health effects associated with the EMF emanating from Xcel’s replacement line, because of the negative impact on adjoining properties and because need for the project has not been demonstrated, Xcel has not met the criteria for approving a conditional use permit as contained in City Code, Sections 1224.05 (J1), (J3), (J4), (J5), (J8), (J9), (L3), (L6) and (L7) and as contained in City Code, Sections 1204.02 (F1) (F2), (F3), (F4) and (F5).
J.) Without a conditional use permit, the applications for a site plan approval and for a variance become moot and accordingly must be denied also.
DECISION
Based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions made above, the City Council makes the following Decision:
The applications of Xcel Energy for a conditional use permit and for site plan approval and for a variance relating to its proposed project to replace the single circuit transmission line with a double circuit transmission line under City Code Sections 1201.06 and 1224.05 are hereby denied.
Passed this 5th day of February, 2002, by the Sunfish Lake City Council.
__4__ Ayes
__1 _ Nays
__0__ Abstain
Frank Tiffany, Mayor
Attest:
Myra Hamper, Clerk
EXHIBIT A
LIST OF TESTIMONY,
REPORTS, STUDIES,
INVESTIGATIONS AND
MEETINGS CONSTITUTING
1.) Application submitted by Xcel Energy on 11/13/01, including the following:
A. Application Form
B. Transmittal Letter with Legal Analysis
D. Minor Variance Request
E. Section Map (Map 1)
F. Certified Mailing List
G. Ownership Map (Map 2)
H. Property Data (Exhibit A)
I. Real Estate Inquiries
J. Land Index Map (Exhibit C)
K. Easement and Condemnation Documents (Exhibit D)
L. Photo Imagery
M. Photo of H Structure
N. Proposed Structure Finish
O. Typical 115 kV Double Circuit Structure Drawing
P. NESC Minimum Clearance Standards
Q. MEQB Resolution (Exhibit E)
R. Patrick Cline’s June 12, 2000 letter (Exhibit F)
S. Resolution 00-07 (Exhibit G)
T. MNDOT letter to Mayor Tiffany
U. MDH letter to Roger Conant (Exhibit H)
V. EMF Health Effects Current Research Summary
W. Aerial Photography
X. NSP Community Information
Y. Sunfish Lake Questions
Z. Report from Commonwealth Associates, Inc. titled “Independent Review of Double-Circuiting,” January 3, 2001
AA. Specifications for Erosion Control
BB. PUC Letter dated June 22, 2001
CC. PUC Approval for Surcharge dated September 24, 2001
2.) Letter re: application requirements from David Callahan to Cynthia Putz-Yang and Stephen Grittman dated 11/30/01 with transmittal letter and revised aerial photography map enclosed
3.) Letter from Jack Perry to City Attorney dated 12/26/01 re: above ground and underground options with the following Exhibits:
Exhibit 1 Lists of significant trees to be removed, overhead and underground options
Exhibit 2 Photographs of existing H poles
Exhibit 3 Surcharge analysis
Exhibit 4 List of Xcel Energy transmission lines located underground
Exhibit 5 PUC ruling regarding surcharge for underground distribution lines
4.) Map submitted by David Callahan on 12/27/01 illustrating location of risers and a reroute for underground option
5.) 115 kV double circuit underground transmission line cross-section
6.) Photograph of a riser structure used for undergrounding transmission lines
7.) Document titled “Presentation to Transmission Line Steering Committee” dated March 22, 2001, from R. Gonzalez, Xcel Energy
8.) Letter re: length of route with attached map from Liz Van Zomeren to Cynthia Putz-Yang dated January 17, 2002
9.) Document titled “An Assessment of Health Effects Research on Electric and Magnetic Fields” from the Minnesota Department of Health dated January 2000
10.) Letter from Aggie Leitheiser, Minnesota Department of Health, to Roger Conant dated March 7, 2001
11.) Letter from Jan Malcolm , Minnesota Department of Health, to Roger Conant dated July 27, 2001
12.) Letter from Jan Malcolm, Minnesota Department of Health, to Roger Conant dated December 20, 2001
13.) Packet of information submitted 1/29/02 including the following:
A. Red Rock-Rogers Lake 115kV Rebuild to Double Circuit Analysis of “Need” and “Future Line Loading” issues, dated 1/28/02, prepared by Richard Gonzalez
B. Letter from David Callahan to Roger Conant dated 1/23/02
C. SE Metro Towle Colllier Study Analysis re: property values
D. SE Metro Transmission Line Project, EMF and Health Effects Research Analysis, prepared by Heidi Benedict
E. Graph of standard 3-phase distribution line
F. EMF environment charts
G. Epidemiologic Study of Electric Utility Workers Exposed to Magnetic Fields
H. Three alternatives for consideration, prepared by Jack Perry
I. Residences arguably affected by line upgrade in Sunfish Lake
J. Revised aerial photographs showing a 60’ and 75’ setback from centerline and homes that would be impacted
K. Excerpts from Findings of Fact, Minnesota Power Exemption Application for Arrowhead Project
L. Excerpts from Power Line Task Force, Inc. v. MPUC
M. Excerpts from Findings of Fact, Need for an Environmental Impact Statement for SE Metro Line
N. Excerpts from Power Line Task Force v. MEQU and NSP
O. Excerpts from Power Line Task Force v. MEQB
P. Excerpts from MDH’s Health Effects Research on 2000 Assessment of EMF and its January Letters
14.) Letter from David Callahan to Roger Conant dated 1/29/02 with
maps and tables for examples of distribution lines
15.) Transmission System Upgrade Slide Presentation by David Callahan, January 29, 2002
16.) EMF Information, Summary – January 29, 2002
17.) Comparison of Power Line Task Force Comments to Actual Document References
18.) IEEE Questions and Answers Regarding the National
Electric Safety Code
19.) Letter from Jack Perry to Cliff Greene dated 1/29/02 re: Certificate of Need
20.) Memo from Jack Perry to David Callahan dated 2/1/02 re:
Response to Sunfish Lake Planning Commission’s Recommended Denial
21.) Memo from Liz Van Zomeren to David Callahan dated 2/1/02 re: Objections to Findings in Planning Commission’s Resolution for Denial
22.) Red Rock-Rogers Lake 115kV Rebuild to Double Circuit Analysis of “Need” and “Future Line Loading” issues, dated 2/1/02, prepared by Richard Gonzalez
23.) Aerial photograph map showing Xcel easement, setbacks, and property addresses
24.) Northern States Power Metro Area Transmission Map
Section
2: Materials Submitted by the Power Line Task Force (Roger Conant)
25.) Document titled “Alternatives to
Xcel’s Proposal” dated 12/12/01 submitted by the Power Line Task Force
26.) Document titled “Steering Committee and Related Papers” submitted 1/16/02, including the following:
A. Charts showing exposure to EMF at 50 feet and 200 feet
B. Testimony of Dr. Martin Blank
C. Background of Dr. Martin Blank
D. Testimony of Dr. Magda Havas
E. Background of Dr. Magda Havas
F. Testimony of Dr. Peter Valberg
G. Background of Dr. Peter Valberg
H. Request and Response for Citations for Dr. Valberg’s Testimony
I. Response of Dr. Blank to Testimony of Dr. Valberg
J. Response of Dr. Havas to Testimony of Dr. Valberg
K. Reports from MSB Energy Associates dated March 15, 2001, and April 5, 2001
L. Letter from Appraiser
M. FHA Rules regarding Transmission Power Lines
N. Transcript of the Steering Committee Hearing on the Proposed Line, March 22, 2001
27.) Document titled “Recent Government-Sponsored Studies Conducted on EMF” submitted 1/16/02, including an introduction and the following:
Tab 1 California EMF Project on Childhood Leukemia
Tab 2 UK Government Study on Childhood Leukemia
Tab 3 California EMF Project on Effect of Bias
Tab 4 Washington State Health on Childhood Leukemia Peak
Tab 5 German Environmental Ministry on Childhood Leukemia
Tab 6 California EMF Project on Miscarriages (2 Studies)
Tab 7 California EMF on Breast Cancer
Tab 8 Canada’s National Research Council on EMF
28.) Document submitted 1/16/02 titled “An Evaluation of the Possible Risks from Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMFs) from Power Lines, Internal Wiring, Electrical Occupation and Appliances” produced by the California EMF Program, including the following:
Tab 1 Introduction
Tab 2 The Initial or “Prior” Degree of Confidence of a Possible EMF Hazard
Tab 3 The EMF Mixture
Tab 4 Biophysical Issues
Tab 5 In Vitro Mechanistic Studies
Tab 6 Animal Pathology and Physiology
Tab 7 Generic Issues on Epidemiological Evidence
Tab 8 Epidemiology of the Leukemias
Tab 9 Epidemiology of Adult Brain Cancer
Tab 10 Childhood Brain Cancer
Tab 11 Breast Cancer
Tab 12 All Cancers
Tab 13 Miscarriage
Tab 14 Other Reproductive and Developmental Studies
Tab 15 Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS)
Tab 16 Alzheimer’s Disease
Tab 17 Heart Disease and EMF Exposure: Evidence
Tab 18 Suicide
Tab 19 Other Adverse Non-Cancer Health Outcomes
Tab 20 Dose Response Relationship
Tab 21 Conclusions
Tab 22 Bibliography
Tab 23 Appendix Three: Prevalence and Risk Factors of Self-Perceived Hypersensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields in California
Appendix Four: Study Review of Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure
Tab 24 Appendix Five: A Nested Case-Control Study of Residential and Personal Magnetic Fields Measures and Miscarriages
Appendix Six: A Population-Based Prospective Study of Personal Exposure to Magnetic Fields During Pregnancy and the Risk of Spontaneous Abortion
29.) Table 3-1, Projected Electrical Loadings, from CAI report
30.) List of recent illnesses along the line in Sunfish Lake
31.) Memo from Roger Conant to Sunfish Lake and Mendota Heights City
Council and Planning Commission Members re: legal issues and new information
32.) Notice, Xcel Energy requests certificates of need for four transmission line projects in southwestern Minnesota
33.) Letter from David Shoengold, MSB Energy Associates, to Roger Conant re: EMF levels
34.) Property values, pages 212-215 from “Final Environmental Impact Statement, Arrowhead – Western Electric Transsion Line Project, Volume 1”
35.) Letter from James Johnson, Xcel Energy, to Burl Haar, Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, re: surcharge
rider and miscellaneous tariff changes
36.) Article from Saint Paul Pioneer Press dated 11/8/01 re: power line in St. Croix Falls, Wisconsin
37.) Bloomington City Council meeting minutes from December 3, 2001
38.) Bloomington Planning Commission meeting minutes from November 8, 2001
39.) Affidavit of Heidi Benedict in Power Line Task Force v. Minnesota Environmental Quality Board and Northern States Power Company
40.) Power Line Task Force document titled “The California Evaluation’s Response to Critics”
41.) City Pages article dated 1/17/01 titled “Live Wires”
42.) Sun Current article dated 9/15/99 titled “NSP Calls on Experts to Answer Critics”
43.) World Health Organization Fact Sheet 205 re: extremely low frequency (ELF) field exposure
44.) World Health Organization Fact Sheet 263 re: extremely low frequency fields and cancer
45.) Summary of papers submitted to City Council and Planning Commission
46.) Letter from Jan Malcolm, Minnesota Department of Health Commissioner, to Gene Hugoson, Environmental Quality Board Chairman, dated September 13, 1999
47.) Letter from John Hynes, Minnesota Planning EQB staff, to EQB members and technical representatives, dated August 12, 1999, re: electric and magnetic fields of power frequency transmission lines
48.) Minnesota Environmental Quality Board findings of fact, conclusions, and order re: need for an EIS
49.) Letter from Roger Conant to Patrick Cline requesting information dated 1/17/02
50.) Tape of the testimony of Magda Havas before the Mendota Heights Planning Commission
51.) Document presented to Mendota Heights Planning Commission from Magda Havas
52.) Document titled “The California EMF Project Findings”
53.) Large packet submitted 1/29/02 including a document titled “Issues Raised During the Mendota Heights Planning Commission Hearings” and the following:
Exhibit 1 Letter and documents from Xcel to MPUC dated 12/31/01
Exhibit 2 a) Xcel notice regarding four transmission line projects in southwestern Minn.
b) Letter from David Callahan to Roger Conant dated 1/23/02
Exhibit 3 Letter from Jan Malcom, MDH, to Gene Hugoson, MEQB, dated 9/13/99
Exhibit 4 MEQB Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Order on the SE Metro Line
Exhibit 5 a) Residences within 50 feet of the SE Metro Line
b) Other homes in the Metro area within 50 feet of a transmission line
Exhibit 6 a) St. Paul Pioneer Press article re: Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls dated 9/8/00
b) Maps showing line in Taylors Falls and St. Croix Falls
Exhibit 8 Bloomington City Council Meeting Minutes dated 10/16/00
Exhibit 9 Letter from Capital Appraisals to Mayors of Mendota Heights, South St. Paul and Sunfish Lake
b) Selection from a Wisconsin EIS
Exhibit 11 Bloomington City Council meeting synopsis dated 12/3/01
Exhibit 12 Letter from Mn/DOT to Roger Conant dated 1/22/02
Exhibit 13 CAI Table 3-8
Exhibit 14 a) City Pages article titled “Live Wires” dated 1/17/01
b) Sun Current article titled “NSP Calls on Experts to Answer Critics” dated 9/15/99
Exhibit 15 a) Graphs of magnetic fields
b) Sunfish Lake residences within 200 feet of the line
Exhibit 16 Affidavit of Heidi Benedict
Exhibit 17 List of Sunfish Lake contributors to the Power Line Task Force
54.) Letter from MSB Energy Associates to Roger Conant re: EMF dated 1/15/02
55.) Letters from three realtors dated 1/28/02, 1/24/02, and 1/23/02 re: property values
56.) Sheet of photos of transmission lines near freeways
57.) Letter from Roger Conant to David Callahan dated 1/28/02
58.) Letter from Roger Conant to Planning Commission dated 1/28/02 re: EMF
59.) Letter from Roger Conant to City Council dated 2/1/02 re: Misstatements
60.) Letter from Roger Conant to City Council dated 2/3/02 re: Suggested revisions to the draft Findings of Fact with edited draft resolution attached
61.) Memo from Roger Conant to City Council dated 2/3/02 re: Comments on the Dave Shafer letter
62.) Memo from Roger Conant and Michael Black to City Council dated 1/30/02 re: legal environment
Section
3: Letters, Memos, and Reports from Northwest Associated Consultants (City
Planner)
63.) NAC memo to Mayor and City Council dated 3/9/00 re: survey results
64.) NAC memo to Mayor and City Council dated 3/14/00 re: survey results
65.) NAC memo to Liz Van Zomeren dated 9/19/01 re: application requirements
66.) NAC letter to David Callahan dated 11/21/01 re: application requirements
67.) NAC letter to David Callahan dated 12/10/01 re: application requirements
68.) NAC memo to Planning Commission and City Council re: notice of meeting on 12/27/01
69.) NAC memo to Planning Commission and City Council re: application review process
70.) NAC letter to David Callahan dated 12/14/01 re: application requirements
71.) NAC memo to David Callahan dated 12/20/01 re: extend review to 120 days
72.) NAC letter to David Callahan dated 1/2/02 re: application requirements
73.) NAC planning report dated 1/8/02 re: conditional use permit application
74.) NAC planning report addendum dated 1/9/02 re: conditional use permit application
75.) NAC memo to City Council dated 2/5/02 re: setbacks
Section
4: Minutes and Transcripts
76.) Minutes of City Council meeting on 12/12/01
77.) Minutes of joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting held 12/27/02
78.) Minutes of City Council meeting 1/3/02
79.) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting 1/16/02
80.) Minutes of Planning Commission meeting 1/29/02
81.) Minutes of City Council meeting 2/4/02
82.) Minutes of City Council meeting 2/5/02
83.) Transcript of City Council meeting, including a public hearing, on 12/12/01, including the testimony of David Callahan, Rick Gonzalez, John Guidinger, Roger Conant, and others
84.) Transcript of Planning Commission meeting, including a public hearing, on 1/16/02, including the testimony of David Callahan, Rick Gonzalez, Heidi Benedict, Roger Conant, and others
85.) Transcript of Planning Commission meeting, including a public hearing, on 1/29/02, including the testimony of David Callahan, Rick Gonzalez, Roger Conant, and others
86.) Transcript of City Council meeting, including a public hearing, on 2/4/02, including the testimony of David Callahan, Roger Conant, Chuck Stroebel, Phil Murray, Steve McCue, John Lamey, Arnulf Svendsen, Ingrid Conant, Mike Black, Mike Kampmeyer, and others
87.) Transcript of City Council meeting on 2/5/02
88.) Notice of public hearing to be held 12/12/01, published 12/2/01
89.) Notice of public hearing to be held 12/12/01, posted 12/4/01
90.) Notice of public hearing to be held 1/16/02, posted 1/3/02
91.) Notice of public hearing to be held 1/16/02, mailed to property owners 1/3/02
92.) Notice of public hearing to be held 1/16/02, published 1/6/02
93.) Notice of public hearing to be held 2/4/02, published 1/20/02
94.) Notice of public hearing to be held 2/4/02, posted 1/29/02
95.) Notice of public hearing to be held 2/4/02, mailed to property owners 1/22/02
96.) City of Sunfish Lake Zoning Code
97.) City of Sunfish Lake Comprehensive Plan
98.) Letter to Sunfish Lake Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission from Clifford Greene and William Hefner dated 12/27/01 re: local authority
99.) Table from Green Espel for use at 12/27/01 City Council/Planning Commission Meeting re: state approvals
100.) Survey with attached cover memo from Sunfish Lake Mayor and City Councilmembers to residents of Sunfish Lake dated February 21, 2000
101.) Letter from the Massachusetts Department of Health dated 10/29/01 re: EMF
102.) Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Findings of Fact and Recommendation, adopted 1/29/02
103.) Document titled “Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF)” from the Minn. Dept. of Health’s website submitted by Chuck Stroebel
104.) Letter from David Shafer, CAI, to Mayor Tiffany dated 2/2/02, response to questions
105.) List of state approvals applicable to 115kV transmission lines, prepared by Cliff Greene
106.) Memo from City Attorney to Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Members dated 1/10/02 re: applications of Xcel Energy, together with draft findings of fact relating to denial and draft findings of fact relating to approval
107.) Memo from City Attorney to Sunfish Lake Planning Commission Members dated 1/25/02 re: recessed public hearing and findings, conclusions and decision, together with draft findings of fact relating to denial, draft findings of fact relating to approval and draft letter to the Public Utilities Commission
108.) Memo from City Attorney to Sunfish Lake Mayor and Council dated 2/1/02 re: City Council Public Hearing – Monday, February 4, 2002, together with draft findings of fact relating to denial, draft findings of fact relating to approval and draft letter to the Public Utilities Commission
109.) To the extent the parties and witnesses referred to matters in the record of the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board proceedings, such excerpts are also part of the record before the City of Sunfish Lake
|
|
|