August 3, 2015 Dear San Juan County Planning & Zoning Commissioners, ‘The undersigned landowners in San Juan County respectfully request that the commission act in compliance with the San Juan County Zoning Ordinance (Amended Sept. 2011) Sections 6-9 and 6-10 and revoke and/or confirm the expiration of the Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) approved on October 4, 2012 in favor of Latigo Wind Park, LLC ("Latigo”) The basis of this request is threefold. ‘The CUP has expired Section 6-9 Substantial Action Required “Unless there is a substantial action under a conditional use permit with one (1) year of its issuance, the permit shall expire. The Planning Commission may grant one extension up to six (6) months, when itis, deemed in the public interest.” Mr. Greg Adams confirmed by email on June 15, 2015 thata six-month extension had been granted and that “if no substantial action was taken it (Latigo CUP] would have expired on April 4, 2014”. He further stated in subsequent emails that no evidence had been provided of substantial action by the developer prior to the expiration date or by the date of his email. Similar opinions from elected officials have been recorded. (The only in-timeframe work of any nature at the Latigo site was some minor road grading that is estimated to be less than .00044 of project costs or the equivalent of $66 if compared to the medium area home.) While San Juan County officials have wide latitude to make P&Z decisions that is not license for arbitrary, capricious governance. We request the CUP be confirmed as expired on April 4, 2014 and the Latigo Building Permit be revoked. Conditions of the CUP have not been met The San Juan Planning and Zoning amended the CUP on Oct. 4, 2012 requiring “as much flicker, light, sound, mitigation as possible...and mitigation to the affected landowners" and all must be met by current or a future developer PRIOR to any building permit being issued. It is very clear what must be done reading the text or listening to minutes of the Oct. 4, 2012 meeting, There must be mitigation or the building permit is invali ‘The original developer offered about two thirds the Comparable Market Analysis price per acre to landowners but then negotiated a purchase option agreement to about the Comparable Market Analysis price. sPower, rather than comply with mitigation terms, only offered 1/3 the Comparable Market Analysis price to landowners. Despite not wanting to sell or leave their properties, landowners reduced its sale price 14% to resolve mitigation with sPower. sPower missed the offer deadline. In good faith that offer was again extended to sPower. To date sPower has failed to recognize 1) the landowners’ risk / development of wateraccess, 2) proximity of the properties to BLM land, city services, and recreation, 3) availability of like acreage for sale and 4) the new San County road improvements to our properties that Commissioner Bruce Adams is on record as saying has noting to do with the wind project. Rather than mitigate, sPower moved turbines sites towards landowners. At least one 500’ tall wind tower shown in the CUP application to be was 2100’ away from landowners is now only 1,000’ from an adjacent property owner. Rather than mitigate, this greatly increases the flicker, light and sound and poses a material hazard due to ice throw and potential blade failure that is “detrimental to the health, safety or general ware of persons or working in the vicinity”. It is also “injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity” and not “harmonious with the neighboring uses in the zoning district”. The proposed project therefore no longer meets the Determination Criteria outlined in section 6-4. Furthermore, the red flashing lights at the top of turbines are a major disturbance to the night sky. The condition of providing as much light mitigation as possible would require the use of “dark sky technology” such as OCAS that uses radar to only turn on the flashing lights when an airplane is in the immediate vicinity. This technology is commercially available and has been deployed on similar sized wind farms sPower now refuses to comply with the mitigation agreement that enabled the CUP and are trying to benefit from the CUP while shirking the responsibility of the mitigation. As the conditions of the CUP have not been met, we request the CUP and Building Permit be revoked, inal developer even though requested by Greg Adams, purposely did not provide advanced notice of the CUP hearing to adjacent landowners whose property values would be completely destroyed so that the landowners would not be able to provide information that might balance their assertions, [see CUP Appeal letter dated August 3, 2012] + While a committee member requested it, there was no investigation of appropriate standards to determine if the Determination Criteria would be met by the proposed project and therefore relied completely on woefully inadequate studies by the developer without any independent analysis. + Landowners who were purposely not notified of the CUP hearing were also not allowed to make a presentation at the appeal and their written information submitted was not distributed to commission members even as information from the developer submitted at the same time was distributed, Based on the above criteria, we respectfully request your timely consideration of whether the Commission's responsibilities would best be met by revoking Latigo’s Conditional Use Permit and Building Permit.San Juan County, Utah Landowner: Name and Signature: Daniel W. Bingham Managing Director Northern Monticello Alliance, LLC (For self and 15 other landowners)