4 power poles 100 feet high

The Chaffee County Board of Adjustment reviewed a variance request from Xcel Energy to increase the height of a long run of poles, starting in Lake County and running into Chaffee County at its May 10 meeting.

County planning staff Christy Barton explained that Xcel has requested a height variance from 35 feet to between 66 and 106 feet, allowing for the replacement of transmission line structures.

The current/original structures were built in the 1960s with monopoles and associated conductors and wires to meet 115-kilovolt standards.

The portion to be rebuilt in Chaffee County extends from the northern Chaffee County line and runs past Clear Creek Reservoir and Granite to end just past the Otero Pumping Station.

Xcel, Barton said, is also working with the U.S. Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management on an environmental analysis as required by the National Environmental Policy Act. The county would also require a copy of the environmental analysis to be sent to the planning department upon completion and that no H-type poles be used in the rebuild as conditions of approval.

The new monopoles would be constructed out of weathered steel, replacing the existing H-type wooden poles. Jeff Walker, senior right of way and permitting agent with Xcel, said that of the 70 structures to be replaced, four will be over 100 feet, 24 will be between 90-100 feet, and the rest will be 90 feet or lower. The line also runs over the south end of Meadow Lakes development.

The need, Walker said, is based on wood pole decay, weathering or other physical damage that has occurred due to the age of the pole. Xcel also hopes the new poles will reduce wildfire risk. The new poles have staggered conductors and a static wire along the top to absorb lightning strikes.

"We’ve seen the damage that's been done in California," Walker said. "We anticipate that, if a wildfire were to occur, these would not need to be replaced like a wood pole would be. These would remain standing, and that would allow us to get service back quicker.

"Because these new structures exceed the height requirement, our staff, PSCo's staff (Public Service Company), Chaffee County staff discussed the situation and they determined that the major impact review applies to new construction, new facilities, not to rebuild an existing facility," Walker said. "The way to satisfy the code is to apply for a variance, so that's why we’re here."

The National Electrical Safety Code requires that the minimum distance between electrical conductors and any object below is 26 feet. Sag refers to the lowest point of a transmission line conductor between two structures.

The conductor, Walker said, will sag around 15 feet under normal loading and can sag an additional 20 feet, subject to structure spacing, when carrying close to its maximum load.

The shortest monopole transmission structure that can be built is approximately 66 feet, taking into consideration those minimum clearances and typical span lengths.

"The height of the pole is driven by what it has to cross," Walker said. "Typical span is 700 to 800 feet."

The lowest line through the development would be 75 feet, which would still yield enough height at its lowest point to meet the 26-foot requirement. Walker also said the planned line will be compatible with current zoning as it follows existing lines.

When Horne asked if they had a variance for the existing poles, Walker said he wasn't sure a variance had been required when the poles were built in the 1960s.

"We feel we do meet the standards because the action is not a self-imposed condition. It's put upon us by the federal government," he said. "The laws of physics require these be at least 60 feet high in this configuration, 40 feet high even with the old configuration."

About 2 years ago, Xcel explored a similar project on Poncha Pass due to new safety requirements. Walker said Xcel's attorneys felt applying for variances would be a better avenue than a text amendment for the projects.

"The same condition exists," Walker said. "A text amendment would have also had public involvement."

"The Planning Commission has been talking for a few years about trying to get ready for solar farms and additional solar capacity on the electric lines," Barton said. "I was wondering if this upgrade addresses that increased capacity."

Walker said that while he wasn't sure it was directly related, "any improvement in one part benefits the whole system," he said. He also explained that the useful life of a wooden pole is around 56 years, meaning the poles are nearing improvement regardless.

"We are doing rebuilds of several transmission lines between the San Luis Valley and up into Chaffee County. While that will add some capacity to the area to meet the demands and growth," said Ashley Valdez, Xcel's area manager for Chaffee County, "capacity for large utility-scale solar projects would have to be under separate projects. They are much larger transmission lines and would require a lot of planning. There are studies being done to look into what opportunities would be available for that kind of development, but that is not part of this particular project at this time."

Horne then opened the meeting to public comment. Residents of the Meadow Lakes subdivision, where 10 of the poles are located, came to the meeting virtually and in person to express their concerns and frustrations.

Tim Dearborn said the increased height seemed to be tied to using a monopole over H-pole configurations, and asked if they couldn't be replaced with the same structures.

Katy Welter of Watershed Ranch expressed that while the subdivision is a participant in the project and has granted Xcel easements to complete the work, she has been frustrated by the process.

"We’re not outright opposed to this work, but we do want to share that in the course of lengthy discussions with Xcel, despite asking about the nature of the work and scope of the work, the height of the polls was not shared with us at any time," she said. "I think that maybe Xcel has not met its burden to show that the project doesn't impact the views and values and open space that our neighborhood and community strives for. I would ask that Xcel be held to that, to meet that burden."

A common theme among commentators was the impact on views and property values.

"It will not be appealing to the eyes, thus ruining all of the homeowners’ chances of receiving full value for our homes when it comes time to sell and move on," said Jacob Ryan. "I find it appalling that Xcel Energy thought they could move forward with an unnecessary maintenance project without notifying any of the surrounding landowners because they didn't have a place to post their notice."

Barbara Jones, president of Meadow Lakes Mountain Estates Property Association, provided images made by a resident intended to show the difference in height and the impact on the view line.

"Many years ago, the HOA paid a considerable sum to have varied power lines to our homes so that we would see the line stretching from home to home or along the streets," she said. "The increase in height would affect our views, as poles and lines that were once hidden by trees along the tree line just barely visible will now stretch across the skyline above the trees. It would impact the beauty and the serenity of our views and the property value as well.

"Potential Findings of Fact No. 9 states, ‘the variance, if granted, will not diminish the value, use or enjoyment of adjacent property nor curtail the desire the desirable light air and open space in the neighborhood.’ We disagree. It will diminish the value and the enjoyment of the adjacent and neighborhood properties."

According to Jones, pole 130 has an 86% increase, from 52 feet to 97 feet. Pole 131 would see a 63% increase, and 132 and 133 would have 27% increases. Pole 134 will be twice as tall, and pole 135 will be almost twice as tall, with a 94% increase. Pole 136 will be 33% higher.

"We realize that the height variance is needed to meet standards for everyone's safety and for preventing power outages down the line," she said. "But we ask the county to take our concerns into consideration for our scenic views and property values. It will be a huge change to see those lines stretched across the horizon in the blue sky compared to what it is now, and we also ask that Xcel take our concerns into consideration and rethink the plan that goes through our section to possibly keep it less intrusive visually."

John O’Brien argued the planned work was a "normal replacement cost associated with the infrastructure that has reached the end of its life cycle" rather than an extraordinary or exceptional case, as stated in the criteria.

"This is not an exceptional difficulty or hardship on Xcel to replace the poles in kind, because in their own application, they state, ‘Xcel Energy considers this to be a true maintenance project,’" he said. "I believe that the variance, if granted, will diminish the value of use or enjoyment of adjacent property and will curtail the desire for light, air and open space."

O’Brien also argued that the meeting was poorly and improperly posted, saying that there were only two signs around the size of a piece of paper, which Horne said county staff would address and discuss.

"Nobody even knew about it until about 5 days before the hearing," O’Brien told the Times. "You would think if there's something like this going to happen in a subdivision, and these lines go right on the edge of our subdivision and right through our subdivision, that they would notify all the property owners, put a big sign up. … You couldn't even see what it was for. They put an 8.5 by 11 (inch) piece of paper on this side of the road, where you couldn't even park, and look at what it was. It looked like somebody put out a sign for their lost dog."

Josh Blake owns the lot containing pole 130. He said he's already had issues with "Xcel Energy people using the property as they will," and asked Xcel to consider other wildfire mitigation options. He also expressed concerns about the wildlife impact.

"At least at my lot, we’re at the end of an elk migration corridor and elk wintering site, so I’m curious how that is going to affect any environmental impact," he said.

Walker, in his response to the comments made and questions proposed, said that they didn't disclose the exact height in order to avoid future changes or confusion.

"When we started this project, we had a rough idea of what we think would be installed so we can design for 30%," he said. "It's not that we didn't disclose it, we got as close as we could and disclosed as much as we could without having to backtrack."

He acknowledged that Xcel could have sent direct mail, and said he believed they met the requirements of the land use code. Walker also said the images provided by Jones were not accurate.

"Doing everything you can is not the same as meeting the burden of the law," Horne said, adding that he and board member Katy Lady trust the assessment of the staff in matters of meeting those requirements.

"Are your proposed heights the lowest height that they can safely and effectively be while still accomplishing the goals of a more durable system that is more resistant to the challenges of living in Colorado, wildfires, weather, wind and those sorts of things?" Horne asked. "That's the meat of this request and our concern about it."

Walker said that reducing the height of the poles would mean more poles would be put in, arguing that they’d be "removing just about half" of the existing poles. Horne said it would be the same number of structures, so saying they’d be "removing half the poles" would be "a little disingenuous."

In response to Dearborn's question about using the H-pole structures currently in place, Walker didn't have enough information to determine the potential consequences if the variance is denied and they replace the existing structures with new H-poles, but he did say that monopoles within 10% of the existing heights or of similar variation would still be exceeding the county's 40-foot cap and would require a variance. Horne reminded him that the residents didn't express a problem with existing poles, but with the large increase in height.

"I think it would be disingenuous to deny that there's a difference between a 50-foot pole and an 87-foot pole or 97-and-a-half-foot pole," Horne said.

Horne and Lady also asked Walker to bring additional information and other options to the next meeting.

"I think it would be appropriate to ask the engineers to come up with something," Lady said. "I can't imagine that they didn't originally even lay out that as an option."

"I feel like there might be some room for re-evaluation as to this contentious portion of the run," Horne said. "I think anything that can be done to mitigate the visual impact without compromising the effectiveness of the operation is at a minimum worth taking a look at and seeing what our options might be."

Anderson and Walker agreed that a month would be enough time to work on the suggested questions, and the Board of Adjustment will continue discussing the variance application at their June 14 meeting.

Horne said that they had closed public comment portion, so the meeting would be a listening opportunity.

"Hopefully by that time we will have additional information that will allow us to make a decision," he said.

The meeting will be held at 5 p.m. in the Commissioner's Meeting Room at 104 Crestone Ave., in Salida.

Log In

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,racist or sexually-oriented language.PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Don't Threaten. Threats of harming anotherperson will not be tolerated.Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyoneor anything.Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ismthat is degrading to another person.Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link oneach comment to let us know of abusive posts.Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitnessaccounts, the history behind an article.

Sorry, there are no recent results for popular videos.