TEP 138 Kv Poles

WHY MUST TEP UNDERGROUND THEIR POLES?
See UNDERGROUND ARIZONA - For a detailed analysis:
https://undergroundarizona.org/tep-midtown-reliability-project

May 22, 2025 - Underground Coalition supports zoning examiner's Denial

April 3, 2025

Coalition urges Mayor and Council to uphold the original Zoning Examiner's ruling

Argument Supporting the Zoning Examiner’s Denial of TEP’s Application for a Special Zoning Exception for Its Midtown Reliability Project Submitted by the Steering Committee of the Tucson Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition*
We write regarding TEP’s appeal of the Zoning Examiner’s denial of its application for special zoning exceptions. It should be said at the outset that every advantage of the Midtown Reliability Project (MRP) involving the needed technical upgrading and modernizing in the delivery of electrical service for Tucson and its citizens will be met whether the project is constructed above ground or underground in the required areas.
We ask the Mayor and City Council to deny TEP’s appeal for a special exception to construct the project overhead. The appeal fails right from the start. To be granted a special exception, an application for such exception must meet each of the provisions in UDC 3.4.5.A. That same bottom-line requirement is also repeated twice in the gateway and scenic routes section of the UDC.
The Zoning Examiner (ZE) denied TEP’s request, appropriately, since TEP’s application did not meet each of the provisions of UDC 3.4.5.A. As a result, even were TEP to have met the extra criteria contained in the gateway and scenic route section of the UDC, which it assuredly did not, the ZE would still have been required to deny TEP because its application for the special zoning exceptions conflicts with UDC 3.4.5.A.
One provision of UDC 3.4.5.A states that to grant any special exception, the ZE must find that the exception: “Complies with the General Plan and any applicable sub-regional, area, or neighborhood plan.” (our italics) TEP’s request fails to do so.
Guideline 28.1.2 of Plan Tucson, a general plan which covers special exceptions encompassing the whole city, calls for cabling to be installed underground wherever possible. In addition, there is an applicable area plan, the University Area Plan (UAP). It covers the entire northern half of the Broadway/Euclid intersection, which is the only intersection that TEP’s appeal to Mayor and Council contests at great length.
Section 6, Guideline 6 of the UAP states to the effect that utilities within the University Area Plan should be placed underground wherever possible. Given the application’s direct conflict with Guideline 28.1.2 of Plan Tucson and also with Section 6, Guideline 6 an applicable area plan—and therefore with UDC 3.4.5.A—the ZE had little choice but to deny the application unless TEP could show that there were special reasons that would still warrant an exception.
TEP gave two such reasons to try to avert an otherwise required denial from the ZE. First, TEP argued that undergrounding of the project is not feasible. Second, it argued that its project, even though above ground, complies with the spirit, goal, and intent of the undergrounding requirements. *The Tucson Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition Steering Committee consisting of fourteen neighborhoods and organizations representing nearly 25,000 Tucsonans. The neighborhoods and organizations are: Catalina Vista, Feldman’s, Iron Horse, Jefferson Park, Mountain/1st, Pie Allen, Rincon Heights, Rillito Bend, Sam Hughes, Samos, and West University plus the Historic Fourth Avenue Coalition, the Grant Road Coalition, and the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation.
The Coalition’s Steering Committee is comprised of John E. Schwarz, Colleen Nichols, and William Craig.
1. As regards the first line of argument, feasibility, TEP acknowledges the technological feasibility of installing the project underground but argues that it is not financially feasible to do so. TEP provided no financial support in its appeal to support this claim. Instead, TEP defended its position regarding financial infeasibility by referring to the decision of the Siting Committee of the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC), which determined that the project constructed underground is financially unfeasible. The Siting Committee’s conclusion, however, was not that the project was actually financially unfeasible. Rather, based upon the ACC’s policy that discourages undergrounding of utilities, the Siting Committee’s determination was that the project is unfeasible financially unless a source other than TEP finances the project. According to the Siting Committee, requiring TEP to finance all or even any part of undergrounding the project, no matter how small, renders the project financially unfeasible. That is not what words “wherever possible” or their equivalent mean in Plan Tucson, in the UAP, or in the gateway and scenic routes section of the UDC. To interpret the words that way would make it impossible to require TEP to underground at all, even just paying a part of it, anywhere within the jurisdiction of Plan Tucson, the UAP, or the gateway and scenic route ordinance, in effect nullifying Plan Tucson, the UAP, and the ordinance as regards their undergrounding intentions. Perhaps TEP offered no supporting evidence of financial infeasibility because the financial evidence it has provided elsewhere can quickly be shown to lead to the very opposite conclusion.
TEP has testified that undergrounding the required sections of its project will add $60 million to the cost of the project, or about $30 million per mile. Let’s accept that this amount is true even though every other project that has undergrounded transmission lines within urban areas during the past few years in Arizona has cost half as much, or less, per mile. Nonetheless, even $60 million for two miles when amortized and divided among all customers would cost less than one dime per $100 in customer payments to TEP, which clearly is not an unfeasible cost Undergrounding the MRP where required is, in fact, clearly both technologically and financially feasible.
The ZE was correct in his determination.
2. TEP’s second line of argument is that the project installed above ground over the Broadway/Euclid intersection complies with the spirit, goal, and intent of undergrounding requirements. TEP argues that the intersection will look better with the construction of the project above ground than the intersection either presently looks or would look if the project is constructed underground. TEP’s main support for this argument is that when built above ground, the project will remove several poles presently at the intersection. And, if the project is constructed underground, TEP will have to erect riser poles to accommodate the undergrounding that are just as tall and, it has said, bulkier than poles needed for above-ground construction.
As the ZE determined, removing several poles while simultaneously erecting two poles that are substantially taller—up to 40 feet taller— plus the addition of overhead transmission lines across the intersection that are far more visible than at present, does not meet the intent, goal, or spirit of Plan Tucson, the UAP, or the gateway and scenic routes ordinance. In addition, the ZE left unsaid that if the project beyond the intersection within the UAP is installed underground, as the UAP requires, then only one riser will be needed and not two risers. If the UAP is followed, that is, undergrounding will actually necessitate only one far taller riser pole at the intersection and overhead lines that are less visible across the intersection, clearly preferable to two far taller poles plus more visible transmission lines overhead across the intersection that above-ground installation will require.
3. The remaining arguments that TEP advances all concern whether its project meets various other criteria within the gateway and scenic routes section of the UDC. We demonstrate the weakness of each of their arguments in an Appendix to this document. They all fail. But, even had they succeeded, the ZE would still have been required to deny the application because it clearly violates UDC 3.4.5.A with which all applications must comply in order for the ZE to grant a special exception. We ask Mayor and Council to enforce its own general plan, area plan, and ordinance and deny TEP’s appeal. 4. One final note. Were the Mayor and Council to reverse the ZE, it will result in constructing transmission lines high overhead, instead of below ground, in an area that is economically disadvantaged. TEP’s application to the Planning and Development Services Department pointed out that the area immediately surrounding the intersections is comprised of lower-income Tucsonans. We believe that every neighborhood should be equally protected from such an overhead project. Until that occurs, however, Mayor and Council should not allow protected neighborhoods, including those of lower income, to be desecrated just because there is not yet equal protection for all neighborhoods. We close by respectfully asking Mayor and Council to reject TEP’s appeal.

4 Appendix The gateway and scenic route section of the UDC (UDC 4.9.11.A.13) states that any project crossing an intersection, therefore meeting the section’s criterion (d), must also meet at least one of the seven other criteria in the section as a condition to be granted a special exception. Pages 9- 11 of TEP’s appeal are devoted to this issue. Remember that this condition for granting a special exception is in addition to the requirement that the project meet the provisions of UDC 3.4.5.A, which we have demonstrated the project does not. So, even were the project to meet at least one of the other criteria of the gateway and scenic routes section of the UDC, besides criterion (d), the ZE would still have had to deny TEP’s applications. We agree that the application does satisfy criterion (d) of the section. On the other hand, it is with only with the most generous of interpretations possible that the project could possibly satisfy any of the other requirements as we show below. Moreover, section 4.9.11.A.13 also instructs the Zoning Examiner to give special consideration to a supplication’s impact when the zoning exception would involve an historic area. Special consideration presumably means that any request for a special exception in an historic area must meet at least one other criterion clearly and not just tangentially using generous interpretation.
Section III of TEP’s appeal says that the application meets four of the other individual requirements, (a), (c), (g), and (h). We disagree on all four and will now consider each in turn regarding especially the Broadway/Euclid intersection, which is the one TEP emphasizes in its Section III:
1. (Criterion a): The individual requirement here is that the proposed exception be contextually sensitive to adjacent and surrounding zoning and land uses. Examples of this may include a proposed location that is industrially zoned or result in less adverse impact. The proposed exception fails to meet any of this language. The zoning adjacent to and surrounding the entire area for which the exception is requested is comprised of registered historic zones to which the ZE is instructed to give special consideration, and it, itself, sits in the middle of the Sunshine Mile Historic District. The proposed 93.5-foot structures will be far higher than and have an industrial appearance beyond anything now located in the area. They will be enormous compared to what is there at present, dominating everything else. On top of this, there will also be new overhead lines crossing above the intersection whereas none exist there now. TEP answers that undergrounding will require two tall riser poles as high as the overhead ones. But, this is false. It is false because TEP is required by the University Area Plan to underground from the Broadway/Euclid intersection to Grant, meaning that if TEP starts undergrounding at the south end of the intersection, it will need a riser at the south end but will need no second riser at the north end. If it installs the project above ground, then, TEP would be constructing two giant poles that loom over everything else plus transmission wires crossing the intersection versus one giant pole with less visible overhead lines across the intersection if it installs the 5 project underground. That is, installing the project will require twice the number of giant poles plus transmission lines overhead stretching across the intersection that will be much more visible than now. Clearly, overhead installation will have a substantially greater visual impact on the intersection. In answer, TEP contends that it will also eliminate some shorter poles and lines. However, even if there are three or four fewer much smaller poles near the intersection, TEP cannot assure that their removal will come anywhere close to eliminating the impact of the two new giant structures plus more visible transmission lines crossing above the intersection. One would have to be very generous to conclude that TEP’s application clearly meets criterion (a), which is necessary to do whenever applications impact historic districts.
2. (Criterion c): Criterion (c) requires that the proposed exception have minimal impact on residential areas. The answer to criterion (a), which refutes TEP’s position, also applies here. The Planning and Development Services Department memo to the ZE, which in every other respect was so friendly to TEP’s application, itself says that TEP does not meet criterion (c).
3. (Criterion g): The requirement here is that the project provide electrical service to critical customers where overhead lines are strongly recommended. As an example of a critical customer, UDC section 4.9.11.A.13 offers Davis-Monthan Airforce Base and defense-related operations. It is questionable whether either the University of Arizona or Banner is at all comparable to David-Monthan Airforce Base as a critical customer. But even were it interpreted otherwise, constructing the project overhead is not necessary, or strongly recommended, to deliver electricity to said customers any more than undergrounding the project would be. In fact, Banner has actually testified under oath that it strongly prefers the electricity be delivered to it underground. We contend and can easily demonstrate if requested that underground construction will deliver electricity service to such customers just as effectively and reliably as overhead construction does.
4. (Criterion h): The requirement here is that the project not have a disparate impact on lowincome residents. TEP contends that because the project will cost more if installed underground, and because ratepayers will finance that cost, underground installation will have a disparate effect on low-income ratepayers. But, that cannot be what the words ‘disparate impact’ mean because then any extra expense however small, if divided among all ratepayers, involves a disparate impact. In the case of this project, we contend and can demonstrate if requested that the cost of undergrounding in the required areas to ratepayers, when amortized over the life of the project and divided among all ratepayers, will be small—less than ten cents per $100 in ratepayer payments, which is a fairly typical ratepayer monthly bill.

2025.2.8 Final Argument for Undergrounding

Argument Opposing Special Zoning Exception to Overhead
Transmission Lines Across the Broadway/Euclid Intersection(Case # TP-ENT-1024-00023)

Submitted by the Steering Committee of the Tucson Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition*

The following is an argument based upon the legal requirements of Tucson’s Unified Development Code (UDC) opposing TEP’s proposed overhead construction of the Midtown Reliability Project’s 138 kV transmission lines (Case # TP-ENT-1024-00023) anywhere within the area covered by the University Area Plan and the Sunshine Mile Historic District, both of which involve the Broadway and Euclid intersection.

Tucson’s Unified Development Code (UDC) 3.4.5.A.5 states: “To grant a special exception the PDSD Director and the Zoning Examiner must find that the requested special exception: Complies with the General Plan and any applicable sub-regional, area, or neighborhood plan.” A special exception for the north side of the Broadway/Euclid intersection conflicts with this requirement. The entire north side of the Broadway intersection lies within the territory of the University Area Plan (UAP), which contains a provision (Section 6, Guideline 6) stating that utilities should be constructed underground wherever possible. Further, Section 2, Policy 2 of the same Plan calls for using the city’s adopted ordinances and plans to prevent “the intrusion of noncompatible uses”. The proposed 83.5-foot industrial appearing structures and lines are noncompatible: they are taller than anything else near them and will loom twice as high or more than any buildings in the surrounding area (see, also, our response to Planning and Development Services memo on page 3, below, at I.1.[a]). As the Zoning Examiner determined in his decision, SE-20-16 of May 16, 2021, “The UAP specifically directs that utility lines be placed underground where possible to mitigate impacts on adjacent uses.”

The same section of the UDC on which TEP bases its request for a special exception, section 4.9.11.A.13, singles out at its outset: “…in considering any request for a special exception, the Zoning Examiner shall take into consideration the impact of providing such an exception in historic areas (as defined by or listed in the National Register of Historic Places, properties or districts, City of Tucson Historic Preservation Zones, City of Tucson Historic Landmarks, or Neighborhood Preservation Zones), located within the specific Gateway Corridor Zone or Scenic Corridor Zone in which the special exception is being requested.” Apart from ‘historic areas’, no other condition is singled out for the Zoning Examiner to give special consideration. The entire south side of the Broadway/Euclid intersection as well as the interior of the intersection itself lies within an historic district (the Sunshine Mile Historic District and Barrio San Antonio plus the iconic Miles neighborhood, with many residences and a school dating back to the early 1920’s). On the entire north side of the intersection, Rincon Heights, Pie Allen, and Iron Horse are also National Register historic neighborhoods.

*The Tucson Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition Steering Committee consisting of fourteen neighborhoods and organizations representing nearly 25,000 Tucsonans. The neighborhoods and organizations are: Catalina Vista, Feldman’s, Iron Horse, Jefferson Park, Mountain/1st, Pie Allen, Rincon Heights, Rillito Bend, Sam Hughes, Samos, and West University plus the Historic Fourth Avenue Coalition, the Grant Road Coalition, and the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation. The Coalition’s Steering Committee is comprised of John E. Schwarz, Colleen Nichols, and William Craig.

The special consideration that UDC 4.9.11.A.13 instructs the Zoning Examiner to accord historic areas presumably means that the end goal of the proposed exception within the historic area ought to also be relevant to determining the exception’s impact and whether to grant the special exception. The only compelling reason for the Broadway and Euclid intersection to be overhead is that the remainder of the project linking the intersection to the Vine substation is overhead, as TEP itself acknowledges (see page 4 in the Appendix at I.1.[a], final paragraph). That is, overheading the intersection is for the purpose of placing towering poles and overhead transmission lines across the entire University Area Plan, now conflicting wholesale,

first, with the University Area Plan’s provision that utilities be placed underground wherever possible;
second, also with UDC 3.4.5.A.2, which states that the Zoning Examiner cannot grant a special exception that does not comport with an area plan;
third, with 4.9.11.A.13 of the UDC providing that the Zoning Examiner give special consideration to the effects of a special exemption in historic areas; and,
fourth, with the requirement for Historic Preservation Zones (HPZ) in UDC 5.8.9.3 specifying that “New construction … within an HPZ shall reflect the architectural style of, and be compatible with, the Contributing Properties located within its development zone.” The route for the high overhead structures and lines goes straight through the middle of West University neighborhood, which is an HPZ, as well as other historic areas such as Jefferson Park neighborhood. The photos at the bottom of the document indicate their impact. TEP’s request for a special exception for the Broadway/Euclid intersection, therefore, is to facilitate an end purpose that conflicts wholesale with the UDC within the entire University Area and not just one intersection.

Further, the very section of the UDC (4.9.11.A.13) upon which TEP bases its request contains eight criteria for granting an exception, labeled (a) through (h). The subsection specifies: “A special exception request to relieve the requirement to underground transmission lines that meets the findings established by UDC section 3.4.5, Findings and which also meets criteria a, d, or f of this subsection may only require one criterion for approval when no other criteria apply to the project.” (our italics) The request from TEP does meet criterion (d). However, the project fails to meet any of the other criteria, as demonstrated at length in the Appendix, below, containing our response to Planning and Development Services memo. Therefore, since the proposed exception meets no other criteria, it fails to meet this UDC requirement as well as all the others cited above and cannot be granted a special exception.

TEP’s assertion that it is actually complying with the UAP’s undergrounding provision by removing more distribution poles than the transmission poles it erects ignores that it will be substituting noncompatible industrial-appearing structures instead that loom over and dominate everything else whereas there are no such structures located within the UAP now. On top of this, it is highly debatable how many fewer poles, if any fewer, there will end up being. TEP testified under oath that it has no control over whether the current joint-use pole attachers will erect new poles. Also, the City testified under oath that TEP has a history of leaving topped poles in place for joint users. And, importantly, distribution poles (including an indeterminate number of new poles) will be needed to connect each individual home to TEP’s undergrounded distribution electricity source unless homeowners pay the price to finance the delivery of electricity underground from the source to their particular home. The area could easily end up having more poles than currently exist plus the tall noncompatible structures. TEP has no way of assuring otherwise.
Finally, of obvious concern both to implementers of the UDC and property owners, by TEP’s own admission under oath the project if constructed overhead will limit future development possibilities and potential in the affected areas in a number of ways, regardless of current or future zoning. Constructing the project underground would not.

TEP’s request for a special exception fails, on multiple grounds, to meet requirements of the UDC as well as the UDC’s subsidiary area and historic preservation plans. Because TEP’s request does conflict with multiple legal requirements under the UDC, each necessary to grant a special exception, we respectfully ask the Zoning Examiner to deny TEP’s request.

                                                               Appendix

What follows is a response opposing the finding of Planning and Development Services (PDSD) memo of January 28, 2025, regarding case # TP-ENT-1024-00023, based upon the legal requirements of the Tucson’s Unified Development Code (UDC) and policies covered under the UDC. The finding of the PDSD memo supports granting a zoning exception for TEP’s Midtown Reliability Project to construct utilities overhead on the Broadway/Euclid intersection. We wholly disagree with the PDSD’s memo findings for the following reasons:

According to UDC 3.4.5.A.5, an exception granted by the Zoning Examiner must comply with provisions of ordinances and plans under the UDC. A zoning exception for case # TP-ENT-1024-00023 will conflict, first, with UDC section 4.9.11.A.13 regarding provisions for gateway and scenic routes and, second, with provisions for undergrounding of utilities in the University Area Plan, an applicable area plan under the UDC. For these reasons, we request the Zoning Examiner to deny the proposed exception.

I. Conflict with UDC 4.9.11.A.13

1. In the case of this project, UDC 4.9.11.A.13 calls for the project to meet its requirement (d) and at least one of its other requirements as a condition to be granted an exception. We agree that the project does satisfy requirement (d) of the section. On the other hand, it is only with only with the most generous of interpretations possible that the project could satisfy any of the other requirements, and even then, only tangentially, as we will show below. In addition, section 4.9.11.A.13 also states that the Zoning Examiner is to give special consideration to a request’s impact when the zoning exception would involve an historic area, which is involved regarding the current proposal. Special consideration presumably means that any request for exception in an historic area must meet the other requirements clearly and not just tangentially using generous interpretation. The present request fails this test. In addition, we show that the proposed exception does not meet may actually oppose one of the section’s requirements, requirement (c), which we treat at the very end of this section.
    The PDSD memo finds that the exception meets three of the other individual requirements, (a), (g), and (h). We disagree on all three and now consider each in turn. In addition, we show that the proposed exception does not meet requirement (c), either, in case TEP attempts to contend otherwise:

    ([a]--criterion a) The individual requirement here is that the proposed exception be contextually sensitive to adjacent and surrounding zoning and land uses. Examples of this may include a proposed location that is industrially zoned or result in less adverse impact. The proposed exception fails to meet any of this language. The zoning adjacent to and surrounding the area for which the exception is requested is comprised entirely of registered historic zones to which the Zoning Examiner is instructed to give special consideration. The proposed 83.5-foot structures will be higher than and have an industrial appearance beyond anything now located in the area. TEP contends it will eliminate some shorter poles and lines but can make no assurances that anything they do will remove the impact of the new structures, as we show on page 2, point 5.
     In defense of the proposed structure’s size and appearance, the PDSD memo quotes TEP as stating that the risers which undergrounding the project will cause are just as tall and both bulkier and more industrial looking and intrusive than the overhead transmission structures would be. Risers are needed only when an underground transmission line begins or ends. TEP must be presuming that the intersection, if undergrounded, will connect with overhead transmission lines north of the intersection, otherwise a riser on the north side would not be necessary. Here, then, TEP is explicitly linking this particular proposed exception to the larger TEP project to overhead 75–135-foot transmission lines north of the intersection that would involve a wholesale conflict with the University Area Plan under the UDC, stretching all the way from Broadway to Grant Road (see section II, below).

    ([b]-- criterion g) The individual requirement here is that the project provide electrical service to critical customers where overhead lines are strongly recommended. PDSD finds that the project constructed overhead meets this requirement, but makes no case that overhead construction is, in fact, strongly recommended. PDSD says only that the 138 kV project will deliver electrical service more reliably than the current 46 kV system will. This is the only reason PDSD gives.
         As an example of a critical customer, UDC section 4.9.11.A.13 offers Davis-Monthan Airforce Base and defense-related operations. It is questionable whether either the University of Arizona or Banner is at all comparable to David-Monthan Airforce Base as a critical customer. But even were it interpreted otherwise, constructing the project overhead is not necessary, or strongly recommended, to deliver electricity to said customers any more than undergrounding the project would be. We contend (and can easily demonstrate if permitted the time) that underground construction, otherwise required, would deliver electricity service to customers just as reliably as overhead construction does. (In fact, Banner has actually testified that it strongly prefers that the electricity be delivered to it underground. The University could also accept delivery underground.) Apart from this claim, the PDSD memo offers no other reason or evidence to justify its finding that the proposed exception meets requirement (g) that delivering electricity overhead to critical customers is, in fact, ‘strongly recommended’.

     ([c]-- criterion h) The requirement here is that the project not have a disparate impact on low-income residents. The PDSD memo finds that any added cost to underground the project will be shared by all customers and so will have a disparate effect on low-income residents. However, the memo itself disputes whether the project actually does run through a low-income locale. The memo states that the median income of the surrounding locale is similar to the two intersecting wards, though lower than Pima County as a whole, leaving it doubtful that it clearly is a low-income area-- at most, it can only be tangentially so. Moreover, if any added cost to all customers is an acceptable reason to meet requirement (h), it would render the entire section of the Code unenforceable as it regards intersections because every request for an exemption to construct a project overhead, if it involves a lesser expense, would then be found to have a disparate impact and meet this requirement as well as the intersection requirement. (In the case of constructing the Midtown Reliability Project project underground where required, Underground Arizona has demonstrated in sworn testimony before the ACC that the total added cost on an average customer’s bill, let alone a low-income customer’s bill, to finance the required undergrounding will be at most pennies per month during the life of the project, not even quarters let alone dollars or tens of dollars. This is not to mention that any cost to ratepayers in the area will be overwhelmed by the cumulative loss in property value that ratepayers nearby the transmission lines are likely to sustain if the lines are constructed overhead.)
          PDSD finds that there will also be a disparate impact on low-income residents from underground construction because of increased air pollution, noise, traffic congestion, and ground disturbance. Again, the memo itself disputes whether the project actually does run through a low-income locale. In addition, if there is a difference between the impacts of overhead and underground construction at all, the impacts are temporary, lasting at most less than two years and generally a matter of months on individual sections-- far less time than TEP is likely to take were it to underground its distribution lines, as it has committed to do, that will cause similar impacts (as we can demonstrate if permitted the time). If TEP meets its commitments, any disparate impacts from undergrounding and overheading the proposed project in this questionably low-income locale will not only be temporary but also reasonably similar.

     ([d]-- criterion c) This requirement is that the proposed exception have minimal impact on
residential areas. The PDSD memo quotes TEP itself as stating that criterion (c) does not apply to its requested exception. Even were it otherwise, TEP has linked the proposed exception to the larger Midtown Reliability Project that runs alongside many residences. Building a 75–135-foot transmission line running adjacent to and towering over dozens of residential properties cannot be held to meet criterion (c).

2.   Conclusion: The Code stipulates that the Zoning Examiner give special consideration to the impacts of a requested exemption in historic areas. We contend that the project does not meet any of the three requirements that PDSD claims warrant granting the project an exemption, likely even given the benefit of the most generous of interpretations, but certainly not clearly enough to warrant such an exemption within an historic area.

II. Conflict with the University Area Plan

The University Area Plan (UAP) is an applicable area plan under the UDC and the PDSD memo refers to it as such (see PDSD memo, page 4), citing the UAP’s provision (Section 6.6 of UAP) that utilities be placed underground wherever possible. UDC 3.4.5.A.5 requires zoning to be in conformance with such area plans. PDSD entirely ignores this UDC requirement in its memo. Our main document (pages 1-2, points 1, 3, and 5) sets forth the argument, based upon the legal requirements of the UDC, for why constructing overhead on the Broadway/Euclid intersection fails to comply with the UAP and therefore calls for the Zoning Examiner to deny TEP’s request for a special exception.
          In the case of this particular proposal, and in the context of complying with the UAP, the impact on historic areas arising from the larger Midtown Reliability Project to which the proposed exception is linked deserves emphasis. As observed above, TEP itself uses the larger project in its defense in its statement regarding criterion (a) requesting an exception.
          In making a determination, UDC 4.9.11.A.13 instructs the Zoning Examiner to give special consideration to the project’s impact in historic areas. The impact in historic areas of the particular proposed exception increases by multiple orders of magnitude by its connection (and only reason for being) to the larger Midtown Reliability Project. The larger project stretches the reach of the impact to numerous historic areas that run through the entire territory of the UAP, from one side of the UAP to the other. The proposed exception is expected to link to the construction of overhead industrial appearing structures and transmission lines running for two miles straight through several historic areas within the UAP (see photos below). No such structures and no such lines exist there now.

III. Photo Simulations of the Visual Impact of Overhead Transmission Lines in the UAP

January 30, 2025 Upddate from Underground AZ letter to editor

Arizona Daily Star - 01/31/2025 Page : A04 January 31, 2025 8:19 am
The following is the opinion and analysis of the writer
            I recently heard someone claim that Tucson is “bad for business” because its laws limit how utilities can build — specifically referring to Tucson Electric Power’s (TEP) Midtown Reliability Project. The argument? Tucson should be more like Phoenix. Let’s examine that. Since the 1980s, various City of Tucson plans and ordinances (laws) have required the undergrounding of new electric lines. For TEP’s Midtown Reliability Project to comply with these laws, it would have to bury about two miles of new transmission lines through the city center.
            For comparison, Central Phoenix has 14 miles of underground transmission lines. Tempe — near Arizona State University — has eight miles, Chandler seven, and Scottsdale ten. Meanwhile, Tucson has zero. TEP claims that’s because Arizona law forbids it from incurring the higher upfront cost of underground lines. If that’s true, how have APS and SRP — utilities in the Phoenix metro — been doing it for decades?
            TEP will argue that undergrounding in Phoenix was paid for by third parties. That’s not accurate. Most Phoenix-area projects were, or still are, financed by APS and SRP through regular rates. Furthermore, as recently as last summer, Arizona courts reiterated to TEP that municipalities can require undergrounding at the utility’s expense.
            Next, TEP will claim that undergrounding raises rates. Yet, APS and SRP have equivalent or lower rates than TEP despite far more buried infrastructure. In fact, studies show that undergrounding lines can save ratepayers money in the long run, since lower operating costs help offset the higher upfront cost. Underground lines are safer, more reliable, and cheaper to maintain and insure because they’re better protected from weather and accidents.
            If anything, we should be requiring more undergrounding, not less. Upgrading TEP’s infrastructure is a once-in-a-century chance to harden our grid and improve our competitiveness with other regions.
            SRP recognized this value long ago. In 1965, it established what is now called the SRP Municipal Aesthetics Program, allocating a portion of its ratepayer funds— currently $18 million per year — to municipalities for visual improvements, including burying lines. TEP calls such investment “imprudent.” If it is imprudent, how has SRP managed to do it for 60 years without issue? SRP is also obligated to invest prudently.
            So, who is bad for business: the City of Tucson or TEP? If Phoenix is the gold standard, shouldn’t we require TEP to act more like APS and SRP, and invest in improving the aesthetics of Tucson’s neighborhoods and streets? Why do APS and SRP willingly protect or improve their service areas, but TEP does not — even when it’s required by law?
            At a July Arizona Corporation Commission hearing, representatives from UMC Banner testified that new overhead transmission lines would “interfere with the whole purpose of the amount of investment in UMC Banner’s patient areas and towers.”[8] It stated that it expects the City of Tucson to enforce its plans and ordinances that protect views. This sentiment is undoubtedly shared by all who live and invest in Tucson. We expect the city to consistently enforce the letter and spirit of its laws. Otherwise, what’s the point of even having laws?
            To the city’s credit, it has been doing an excellent job of recognizing and fixing the flawed processes that allowed TEP to get away with non-compliant projects in the past. City staff and leadership deserve praise for adjusting course and standing firm. Consistently enforcing the law is good governance — and good governance is good for business. It benefits you, me, and yes, even TEP.
Daniel Dempsey is a local investor, entrepreneur, and volunteer director of Underground Arizona, Inc. He participated in TEP’s Neighborhood Advisory Group and the July 2024 Arizona Corporation Commission hearing on TEP’s Midtown Reliability Project.

Broadway and Euclid Intersectioin - undergrond argument
Feldman Neighborhood - January 30, 2025

The following is an argument based upon the legal requirements of Tucson’s Unified Development Code (UDC) opposing TEP’s proposed overhead construction of the Midtown Reliability Project’s 138 kV transmission lines anywhere within the area covered by the University Area Plan and the Sunshine Mile Historic District, both of which involve the Broadway and Euclid intersection.

Tucson’s Unified Development Code (UDC) 3.4.5.A.5 states: “To grant a special exception the PDSD Director and the Zoning Examiner must find that the requested special exception: Complies with the General Plan and any applicable sub-regional, area, or neighborhood plan.” A special exception for the north side of the Broadway/Euclid intersection conflicts with this requirement. The entire north side of the Broadway intersection lies within the territory of the University Area Plan (UAP), which contains a provision (Section 6, Guideline 6) stating that utilities should be constructed underground wherever possible. Further, Section 2, Policy 2 of the same Plan calls for using the city’s adopted ordinances and plans to prevent “the intrusion of noncompatible uses”. The proposed 75-to-135-foot industrial appearing structures and lines are noncompatible: they will loom twice as high or more than the buildings or anything else surrounding them. As the Zoning Examiner determined in his decision, SE-20-16 from May 16, 2021, “The UAP specifically directs that utility lines be placed underground where possible to mitigate impacts on adjacent uses.”

The same section of the UDC on which TEP bases its request for a special exception, section 4.9.11 A.13. singles out at its outset: “…in considering any request for a special exception, the Zoning Examiner shall take into consideration the impact of providing such an exception in historic areas (as defined by or listed in the National Register of Historic Places, properties or districts, City of Tucson Historic Preservation Zones, City of Tucson Historic Landmarks, or Neighborhood Preservation Zones), located within the specific Gateway Corridor Zone or Scenic Corridor Zone in which the special exception is being requested.” Apart from ‘historic areas’, no other condition is singled out for the Zoning Examiner to give special consideration. The entire south side of the Broadway/Euclid intersection as well as the interior of the intersection itself lies within an historic district (the Sunshine Mile Historic District and Barrio San Antonio plus the iconic Miles neighborhood, with many residences and a school dating back to the early 1920’s). On the entire north side of the intersection, Rincon Heights, Pie Allen, and Iron Horse are also National Register historic neighborhoods.

The request for an exemption must also be considered within the context of its main purpose. The only compelling reason for the Broadway and Euclid intersection to be overhead is that the remainder of the project linking it to the Vine substation is overhead. That is, overheading the intersection is for the purpose of placing towering poles and overhead lines throughout the entire University Area Plan where no such structures near their size exist today, conflicting wholesale now, first, with the University Area Plan’s provision that utilities be placed underground wherever possible; and, second, also with UDC 3.4.5.A.2, which states that the Zoning Examiner cannot grant a special exception that conflicts with an area plan; and, third, with 4.9.11A.13 of the UDC providing that the Zoning Examiner give special consideration to the effects of a special exemption in historic areas; and, fourth, with the requirement for Historic Preservation Zones (HPZ) in UDC 5.8.9.3 specifying that “New construction … within an HPZ shall reflect the architectural style of, and be compatible with, the Contributing Properties located within its development zone.” The route for the high overhead structures and lines goes straight through the middle of West University neighborhood, which is an HPZ. TEP’s request for a special exception for the Broadway/Euclid intersection, therefore, is to facilitate an end purpose that conflicts wholesale with the UDC within the entire University Area and not just one intersection.

Further, the very section of the UDC (4.9.11A.13) upon which TEP bases its request contains eight criteria for granting an exception, labeled (a) through (h). The subsection specifies: “A special exception request to relieve the requirement to underground transmission lines that meets the findings established by UDC section 3.4.5, Findings and which also meets criteria a, d, or f of this subsection may only require one criterion for approval when no other criteria apply to the project.” (our italics) The request from TEP does meet criterion (d). However, the project conflicts with several of the criteria that apply to the project [for example, it does not meet criterion (a), “The proposed overhead transmission lines are contextually sensitive to adjacent and surrounding zoning and land uses.” Nor does it meet criterion (c) that applies to it: “The proposed overhead transmission line will have minimal impact on residential areas.”] Therefore, since the project conflicts with criteria that apply to it, the requested exception must meet two or more of the listed criteria to be granted a special exception. The requested exception meets no other criterion than criterion (d).

TEP’s assertion that it is actually complying with the UAP’s undergrounding provision by removing more distribution poles than the transmission poles it erects ignores that it will be substituting noncompatible industrial-appearing structures instead, double the height, that loom over and dominate everything else whereas there are no such noncompatible structures located within the UAP now. On top of this, it is highly debatable how many fewer poles, if any fewer, there will end up being. TEP testified under oath that it has no control over whether the current joint-use pole attachers will erect new poles. Also, the City testified under oath that TEP has a history of leaving topped poles in place for joint users. And, importantly, distribution poles (including an indeterminate number of new poles) will be needed to connect each individual home to the overheaded electricity source unless homeowners pay the price to finance the delivery of electricity underground from the source to their particular home. The area could easily end up having more poles than currently exist plus the tall noncompatible structures. TEP has no way of assuring otherwise.

Finally, of obvious concern both to implementers of the UDC and property owners, by TEP’s own admission under oath the project if constructed overhead will limit future development possibilities and potential in the affected areas in a number of ways, regardless of current or future zoning. Constructing the project underground would not.

TEP’s request for a special exception fails, on multiple grounds, to meet requirements of the UDC as well as its subsidiary area and historic preservation plans. Because TEP’s request does clearly conflict with the legal requirements under the UDC necessary to grant a special exception, the Zoning Examiner should deny TEP’s request.

Fire Risk for Above Ground Lines
Letter to Planning and Development by neighbor

January 24, 2025
To: Planning and Development Services Attn:
John Beall, Entitlements Section
PO Box 27210 Tucson, AZ 85726-7210
From: Cindy Doklan Resident of JeƯerson Park Neighborhood
1514 E. Waverly Street Tucson, AZ 85719

With regard to: Oracle and Grant: TP-ENT-1024-00022 Broadway and Euclid: TP-ENT-1024-00023 36th and Campbell: TP-ENT-1024-00024
Dear Mr Beall,
Every day we hear about the devastation brought to California by uncontrollable wildfires. Above ground power lines can cause and/or contribute significantly to the spread of wildfires. A lightning strike at the wrong place sparks tremendous destruction. A tall tree or tree limb tumbling over is such a threat to above ground facilities that power companies cut them down at their own expense. Please consider the increase of fire risk brought to us by adding more above ground electrical facilities. Consider the chart below, recently published by the New York Times. Our safety and well-being depend on it. From the New York times, Jan 13, 2025 https://www.nytimes.com/by/jeremy-white “At least eight of California’s most destructive wildfires had either electrical or power line causes. Those fires are shown in bold.” Year Name Structures Destroyed Year Name Structures Destroyed Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Cindy Dokla

January 2, 2024 Upddate from Underground AZ

Dear Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition Members,

As TEP’s Midtown Reliability Project plan enters its fifth year, the Steering Committee of the Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition wants to share information with you about upcoming public meetings that will be important and background to them.  As many of you know, rather than placing this project underground, TEP proposes to erect pylons that are 75–85-foot tall and taller, up to 110-foot tall, from Kino and 36th street north straight through the heart of the city to Grant and Park on its way to Demoss-Petrie on the city’s west side.In order to accomplish its goal, TEP cannot proceed unless it obtains exceptions to the City’s zoning regulations. Right now, TEP is submitting applications to City Planning and Zoning for exceptions to the gateway and scenic routes ordinance regarding the project in order to permit them to construct overhead lines across three intersections, including Broadway and Euclid. The ordinance requires undergrounding the lines unless TEP can meet certain exceptions without offending other requirements in the ordinance. The public hearing will occur online before the City’s Zoning Examiner. It will be preceded by a review of the Design Review Board. The hearing is likely to be scheduled for some time in early 2025.
Soon thereafter TEP plans to apply for a second zoning exception to enable them to construct a new substation at Vine. The University Area Plan calls for the undergrounding of new utilities everywhere within the plan’s jurisdiction (Country Club to Stone and Broadway to Grant). This TEP application, too, will need to go before the Design Review Board and the Zoning Examiner.
The Zoning Examiner will hold public hearings on each exception before making his decision, and his decision is appealable to the Mayor and Council. We will keep you apprised as to when these hearings will take place, how to link into them, and effective ways to participate.
TEP should not construct the project above ground. Structures that are 75-85 feet high or taller will dominate the entire landscape all across the center of town. Its repellant effects cannot be overstated, and the effects will last a half century or more. We believe that TEP should be denied both of the exceptions based on the City’s own ordinances and plans as well as other compelling reasons.
The project is perfectly affordable. TEP is easily able to finance it. Using TEP’s own likely greatly exaggerated estimates of the cost, financing the entire project spread out over the project’s lifetime would cost less than 20 cents per $100 of TEP’s revenues (or less than 20 cents on a typical $100 ratepayer bill if TEP were to reverse its position).
In addition to opposing the City’s gateway and scenic ordinance and area plans, the project also conflicts with zoning requirements for numerous residential and historic neighborhoods. The proposed route goes straight though several Historic Register Districts, both national and local,  and Neighborhood Preservation Zones, which require new construction to adhere to height and compatibility requirements.
There has been activity at the state level as well. Underground Arizona (UAZ), a separate non-profit group that represents neighborhoods and collaborates with the Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition, appeared at state hearings held by the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) late last summer to determine the project’s route. With the leadership of Dan Dempsey, UAZ has raised compelling reasons opposing the legality of the ACC’s decisions affecting the project’s financing. The ACC issued a guideline (over their own attorney’s legal objections) that constructing underground projects should not be chargeable to ratepayers. The ACC also decided that obeying the City’s ordinance makes TEP’s project financially unfeasible, which is clearly false and so goes beyond the ACC’s powers.
The whole issue will reach a crucial stage in February with the city Zoning Examiner’s public process to decide on granting or denying zoning exceptions for the project. We will keep you in close touch. We feel that our case is very strong at both the local and the state levels. With your continued support and involvement in this project, we believe that we will prevail.
Very appreciatively,
John Schwarz, Colleen Nichols, and Bill Craig,
Steering Committee,  Neighborhood Undergrounding Coalition

ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION supported TEP (Sept 5, 2024) to overhead lines on map below

SAMPLE LETTER for TEP –
YOU MAY COPY AND PASTE FROM THIS DOC

*** CHOOSE A FEW POINTS FROM LIST BELOW OR ADD YOUR OWN ***
(The points below are meant only as individual suggestions; please feel free to use only one or two of them, or to offer your own ideas, or to insert your ideas along with some of the above suggestions. Also, please feel free to rewrite any of our suggestions in your own words.)

Date, 2024

Docket Control Center
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Docket # L-00000C-24-0118-00232

RE: Tucson Electric Power, Midtown Reliability Project
My name is _____________ and I am a resident of and/or homeowner in the _____________ neighborhood, situated along the route of the proposed TEP overhead transmission lines project. I live at____address, Tucson, AZ ____. (Might consider adding a personal note such as, I am a board member, etc., or how long you’ve lived in the neighborhood. If you support undergrounding, but do not live along the route, please change to suit your needs).
Let me state right up front that I am in no way against the utility fulfilling its responsibility to supply power to its customers. However, I strongly object to the Arizona Corporation Commission approving the proposed overhead lines along the line-siting routes selected by TEP as part of the Midtown Reliability Transmission Line Project, for the following reasons:

According to state statutes and court decisions, the Arizona Corporation Commission does not have jurisdiction to determine whether transmission lines should be constructed above ground or underground. The request TEP is making to construct the project overhead instead of underground asks the ACC to make a decision that goes beyond its jurisdiction.
An area where the ACC could have jurisdiction (determining whether a project is technologically feasible) does not apply to this project. TEP’s own studies and dozens of projects around the state make clear that undergrounding the Midtown Reliability Project is technologically feasible.

Overheading the Midtown Reliability Project conflicts with the University Area Plan (UAP) and Plan Tucson, both adopted plans governing the development and growth of the Tucson region. TEP is obligated by state law as well as its own franchise agreement with the City of Tucson to underground where required to by local laws, which include ordinances (like the gateway and scenic corridor ordinance and other zoning ordinances) and specific plans (like the UAP).

Quite a few of the affected neighborhoods are designated as National or City Historic Districts or are Neighborhood Preservation Zones (NPZ’s) or Historic Preservation Zones (HPZ’s). Citizens worked for years to actuate these safeguards to protect unique historic Tucson neighborhoods.

The presence of residential neighborhoods and small business owners adjacent to or directly within the proposed route will lead to loss of property value. TEP itself cites studies that show the devaluation of private property from overhead lines can reach 10% when within 500-1,000ft of the proposed right-of-way, reducing property values by as much as $70 million along the proposed TEP route.

The suggestion that affected residents form an Underground Utility Assessment District is unacceptable. Individuals should not have to pay special higher rates in order to avoid TEP damaging their property values.

The up-front costs of undergrounding where the city requires it, even in the worst-case scenario, are affordable and not outrageously expensive or unaffordable. Because the cost is divided over the actuarial life of the project (more than 50 years) and among all customers, the bill of an individual customer for the Midtown Reliability Project, would rise no more than a few cents per month. Programs are available to completely offset the cost (and more) for all low-income customers. The reality is that undergrounding is extremely common in Arizona and becoming more common as technology improves and density increases. The cost is also offset to some degree by eliminating reduced property values that overhead transmission lines often cause.

With the growing problems of climate change, it becomes more important every year to place electric infrastructure underground rather than above ground. Recent studies show that the total cost of ownership of an underground asset to electrical utility companies (in this case, TEP), including savings from storm-related damages, significantly reduces the difference between above ground and underground cost, perhaps even making above ground lines cost more than underground. Over the long term, ratepayers will reap the benefit of reduced costs.

There has been a long-standing, strong, and very vocal disapproval from many neighborhoods of the selected routes since the initial proposal. A coalition of eleven neighborhoods and three other interest groups, representing some 25,000+ residents and business owners, formed an alliance to protest the overhead lines and supports the new non-profit called Underground Arizona.

The placement of the substation (whose permit was denied by the Zoning Examiner in 2021, which TEP did not appeal) guarantees that the overhead lines will pass through areas with numerous “sensitive receptors," such as schools, churches, a nursing home and rehab center, and right through the middle of residential neighborhoods, if the project is allowed to move forward with overhead lines.

For Tucson Electric Power to continue to insist on routes and overhead lines that clearly have long-term injurious effects on many citizens and, ultimately, on the entire city, is intolerable.

It is critical that the very real concerns of the literally tens of thousands of residents who will be affected by this project, indeed the policies of the entire city, be taken into consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very truly yours,

May 7, 2024 TEP's responsibility to economic development - Opinion piece by Dan Dempsey

Current TEP Proposal March 1, 2024

Underground Coalition Proposal "Half-way Solution" 2024.2

Location of the TEP substation on Jefferson Park Border (Vine near Lester) should be moved and no lines should go through this historic district.
OP-Ed by D. Dempsey published in Jan 2024 E-news:
"I have prepared this to help combat some of the confusion that TEP is attempting to generate at neighborhood meetings and elsewhere.

A. TEP’s Red Herrings (in no particular order and not a comprehensive list):
1.The ACC won’t allow undergrounding for aesthetic reasons.

False. The issue in Tucson is laws not aesthetics. Laws, no matter for what reason they’re enacted, are enforceable by the City and the ACC does not have the power to override the ones TEP would prefer to ignore. See the case law below.

2.The ACC won’t allow TEP to recover its costs.

False. TEP can recover the cost of complying with local laws. And, even if it could not, that does not give it nor the ACC the power to override local laws.

3.The only way to underground is with outside funding.

False. TEP is already required to use its normal funding process to underground where the law requires. If the law does not require it but undergrounding is still desired, then the City can opt to force TEP to underground if it pays the difference. See the Franchise Agreement below.

4.Prop 412 failed and therefore undergrounding is off the table.
False. Prop 412 may have given new taxpayer money to TEP for some undergrounding but its failure or even its passage would not have changed any of the facts contained herein.

B. The City’s undergrounding requirements include but are not limited to:
1.The Gateway and Scenic Ordinances
August 2021 Zoning Administrators Determination
2.The City’s General and Specific plans
May 2021 Zoning Examiners Decision
At least some neighborhood and area plans require the undergrounding of new electrical infrastructure. If yours does not, I recommend amending it.
3.Historic Preservation Zoning
*UDC 1.4.2.G says, “... The Zoning Administrator may allow, within the right-of-way, only those uses or structures that are permitted on the property immediately abutting the right-of-way.”
*UDC 9-02.3.0 says, among other things: “... Although new construction does not require a specific architectural style, it must be compatible with the overall design context of the neighborhood and streetscapes.”
*While undergrounding may not be explicitly required in an HPZ, 120ft poles are not compatible with at least the height restrictions of an HPZ leaving undergrounding as the only HPZ-compatible option.
3.T EP’s 2000 Franchise Agreement

TEP voluntarily agreed to underground where required by local laws.

4.Arizona Pub. Serv. v. Town of Paradise Valley (1980)
5.The Arizona Supreme Court said utilities must comply with local undergrounding laws.

TEP has left many with the impression that its only obstacle within local law is the gateway ordinance. This is false. The City has already enforced much more than that and, so long as we do not let it relent, should continue to do so. TEP cannot be allowed to make local laws optional, whether you agree with those laws or not. This is a much bigger issue than simply the gateway ordinance.

Undergrounding through the gateway and a few neighborhoods remains TEP's only economical option to comply with our laws. The cost difference spread out over the life of the asset is not significant and the laws would remain enforceable even if the cost was significant."

(Op Ed, by Dan Dempsy, member of the Undergrounding Coalition) published in January 2024 e-newletter

The Undergrounding Coalition makes these points:

1. An overhead project is in direct conflict with the UA Area Plan (UAP) and Major Streets and Routes Plan (MS&R Plan).
"[U]tilities in the right of way or visible from the street should be placed underground, wherever possible" MS&R Plan at Policy 5 & 6 Guideline 4.

2.To allow an unprecedented invasion of the massive overhead lines runs completely against these longstanding values - the city's distinctive character, vibrant neighborhoods and thoughtful growth - as reflected in numerous development codes, ordinances, area and neighborhood plans, and scenic and gateway routes, such as Kino/Campbell.

3. The presence of residential neighborhoods adjacent to or directly within the proposed route will lead to a loss of property value. TEP cites studies that show the devaluation of private property from overhead lines reaches a minimum of 10% when within 500–1,000 feet of the proposed right-of-way.

4. Quite a few affected neighborhoods within the study area are designated as National Historic Districts, and two neighborhoods are Neighborhood Preservation Zones (NPZs). Jefferson Park is both!

5. The cost to TEP to go underground is negligible, estimated to be 2/100th of the most current 11.5% rate increase, or about .20 per month per customer. The ACC could very possibly allow a zero rate increase for such a project, so TEP might have to absorb the expenditure as an ordinary cost to TEP and its shareholders of doing business in Tucson and complying with Tucson ordinances and plans. The city, U of A, and Banner should help as well. They are huge energy users, and this is to their advantage as much, if not more, than anyone else.

6. Coalitions, neighborhood groups and associations, and individual citizens have invested an immense amount of effort.To dismiss the need to go underground is not acceptable. A collaborative group of stakeholders willing to discuss the issue should be formed.

7. The proposed Vine substation will be located in a densely populated area, with the hospital nearby, residential neighborhoods on two sides, and U of A buildings and their residences on the other. TEP stated the Vine location as most appropriate due to the need to remain in the "Load Center". The substation could and should be moved to a more industrial area.

8. The issue of undergrounding affects the entire community—residences, businesses, and scenic areas. Undergrounding will safeguard the city’s extraordinary views. Pre-pandemic, in 2018–19, tourists spent $2.4 billion for the year in the Tucson market. That comes to more than $5,000 per household.

wHat is THE uNDERGROUNDING cOALITION?

The Underground Coalition is a group of several neighborhoods and entities who became aware of the plans of TEP to place 100ft 138kV poles through Tucson by way of Campbell Avenue, a designated scenic by-way. This group brought to the attention of the city the seemingly forgotten ordinance requiring all utilities on such by-ways to be undergrounded. Thus began examination of options, the writing of a white paper, hiring of attorneys, and hours of meetings. The city was clearly going to consider "exceptions" to this ordinance and TEP was going to lobby for as many as possible. How to minimize the impact, and keep open the public's ability to challenge any exceptions became the goals of the coalition. Below are listed papers of the Underground Coalition and newspaper articles that chronical the efforts to date.

May 16 Special Election-Franchise Agreement:
The franchise agreement:
https://docs.tep.com/wp-content/uploads/Proposed-City-of-Tucson-TEP-Franchise-Agreement-1-17-2023.pdf
More on Prop 412 (approving the TEP Franchise Agreement)
https://yeson412.com/supporters

UPDATE November 29, 2022
From the Undergrounding Coalition In early November, the Steering Committee initiated informal discussions with TEP about the Kino to DeMoss-Petri Transmission Line Project. We want you to know those conversations continue with the representative from TEP. To date, we have discussed possible alternative methods for funding for the undergrounding portion of the project and optimizing the number of miles that TEP will construct underground within the guidelines that the City Council has set forth.

What follows is our present understanding of the process to come. There will be considerable opportunity for public participation.
In a study session of the Mayor and Council that will take place in late December, TEP will present a draft proposal regarding a means to secure financing for undergrounding. After a public meeting (or series of public meetings) that will probably take place early next year, the Mayor and Council will make a decision. Should Mayor and Council approve, they would then call for a special election with a vote of the public that will likely occur in May, preceded by open public meetings.

Our current understanding is that if the public gives approval in the special election, making funding available, TEP will then draw up and make their specific proposal for the project (the exact route, where construction will be underground or overhead, the cost of the project, etc.). That proposal will go through the phases of the special public process for gateway and scenic routes that the Mayor and Council recently adopted. If approved, TEP would like the project to be able to go to the Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) in early 2024 and then the Zoning Examiner for the special exception permit for the substation. Barring difficulties and delays, the earliest construction would begin is in 2025 and, if so, the lines would be in use by early 2027.

We will continue trying to make certain that optimizing undergrounding and securing significant funding are top of mind with TEP in the process, and we will remain in touch with you.
Thank you once again for your activism and support.
(Steering Committee Member and JP Rep: Colleen Nichols, [email protected]

July 12, 2022 - AZ STAR ARTICle OF m&C Meeting

July 2, 2022 - revisions to exceptions
recommendations of the Underground coalition

April 6, 2022
Recommendations of the Undergrounding Coalition
april 6, 2022 -virtual meeting to consider exceptions

This meeting of PDSD and the public ended when the commission lost its quorum - a commissioner left the meeting. How much of the testimony was lost depends upon the timing--i.e. when the meeting lost its quorum. Who may have to retestify is uncertain at this time. This meeting will have to be rescheduled.

TEP is seeking to amend the Gateway and Scenic Routes code of the City of Tucson so as to allow the construction of tall overhead transmission lines in places along those routes, which are now prohibited. Toward this end, TEP has proposed criteria to permit exceptions to the current code.

Next Wednesday, April 6, at 6:00 PM, the City of Tucson's Planning Commission will hold an important virtual public meeting. The purpose of the meeting is to present the proposed exceptions to the public, and to gather public feedback. This hearing is crucial and we hope as many neighbors as possible will attend and voice their concerns at the hearing.

Details about meeting access and procedures to submit written comments or speak at the meeting are as follows: To join the meeting: Go to https://www.tucsonaz.gov/pdsd/planning-commission. Click "Join Meeting" at the top of the page.

To comment:

No in-person attendance; by computer or phone only.
Submit written comments by e-mail to [email protected]. Include the public hearing date, the title: UDC Amendments-Underground Transmission Line Relief C8-22-04, Special Exceptions, and your name. Written comments must be received no later than 5pm Tuesday, April 5.
Submit written comments by mail to Dept of Planning and Development Svcs, 201 N Stone Ave, 3rd Floor, T/A 85701, Include the public hearing date, the title: UDC Amendments-Underground Transmission Line Relief C8-22-04, Special Exceptions, and your name. Written comments must be received no later than 5pm Tuesday, April 5.
To speak at the hearing - Send a written request to Planning [email protected] by Tuesday, April 5, 5pm. Include the hearing date, your name, and phone number you will use.

For the history of the project and latest updates on the efforts to keep 138kV poles out of historic and residential neighborhoods, and off the Gateway and Scenic routes in Tucson, see below.

What to Consider:
After much research, thought, and consideration to develop a strategy that could most likely result in the most favorable outcome for all members of the Undergrounding Coalition, the Steering Committee has concluded that we, the citizens of Tucson, can optimize our impact by focusing on outright opposition to four of TEP’s proposed criteria.

Furthermore, the Steering Committee advocates for the addition of four new criteria along with amending TEP's proposed preface, the combination of which will place checks on the effects of all of TEP’s other criteria.

(Note: TEP's language is in red, the Steering Committee's responses are in blue).
Criteria to OPPOSE
The four criteria to outright oppose are the following:
Utility shall gain relief from the Gateway/Scenic ordinances if the following are allowed without mitigation…
12-d. Existing high-voltage transmission lines, vertical structures, or buildings in area that already compromise the viewshed. No (See the awful visual impact of the current doubling up of poles on Grant from Alvernon to Swan).
12-h. Proposed transmission lines provide electrical service to critical customers where overhead lines are strongly recommended for specialized operations; examples include but are not limited to: provision of electricity to Davis Monthan AFB or other installations necessary to the national defense, hospitals, research facilities, etc. No. We object categorically that hospitals and research facilities would be considered in the same manner as military facilities. We also oppose overhead lines at hospitals and research facilities and remain neutral about Davis Monthan and military facilities.
12-i. Proposed overhead transmission lines, rather than undergrounded transmission lines on a particular route, would avoid undesirable aesthetic, viewshed, or other adverse impacts that would result from facilities being located on an alternative route. No (This criterion, if implemented as written, would convert gateway and scenic routes from being special routes the Code intends them to be, to being subsidiary to other routes instead).
12-k. A Special Exception request to relieve the requirement to underground transmission lines that meets the findings established by UDC section 3.4.5, Findings and which also meets criteria a, e, and g of this subsection is deemed to presumptively meet the required findings for approval. No (There should always be full public review without prejudice of any proposed exception).

New Criteria to SUPPORT
The amended preface and four new criteria are as follows:
12. Transmission lines may be relieved of their requirement to be underground per UDC section 5.3, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) or section 5.5, Gateway Corridor Zone (GCZ) in accordance with UDC section 3.4.3 Zoning Examiner Special Exception Procedure. In addition to the required findings of UDC section 3.4.5, the criteria for Special Exception consideration includes the following, with the understanding that an exception will be permitted only as long as none of the other following criteria are violated where the criteria are relevant.
12-l. The effects that can be expected from permitting any of the exceptions listed herein or any combination of those exceptions when added together must remain consistent with the overall purpose and integrity of the gateway/scenic route, unless it is technologically impossible and/or clearly financially cost prohibitive.
12-m. Notwithstanding any of the above criteria, above ground transmission lines are not allowed in or alongside historic areas (as defined by or listed in the National Register of Historic Places, properties or districts, City of Tucson Historic Preservation Zones, City of Tucson Historic Landmarks, or Neighborhood Preservation Zones).
12-n. Utility cannot obtain relief from Gateway/Scenic ordinances by routing through adjacent residential neighborhoods.
12-o. Any new above-ground utility that is permitted must be designed, constructed, and also maintained to be as unobtrusive as possible.
A public meeting to review the exception criteria, and for you to provide comments and input is scheduled for Wednesday, April 6 at 6:00PM. It is virtual meeting.

TEP's Entire Proposed Exceptions for your information :
12. Transmission lines may be relieved of their requirement to be underground per UDC section 5.3, Scenic Corridor Zone (SCZ) or section 5.5, Gateway Corridor Zone (GCZ) in accordance with UDC section 3.4.3 Zoning Examiner Special Exception Procedure. In addition to the required findings of UDC section 3.4.5, the criteria for Special Exception consideration includes the following:

a. Proposed overhead transmission lines are contextually sensitive to adjacent and surrounding zoning and land uses. Examples of this may include a proposed location that is industrially zoned or a proposal that results in a less adverse aesthetic impact or less adverse impact on viewsheds for surrounding properties.
b. Underground construction causes significant increase in ground disturbance when compared to overhead construction in sensitive areas such as Environmental Resource Zone (ERZ) or Watercourse Amenities, Safety and Habitat (WASH) wash crossings or environmentally and archeologically sensitive areas,
c. Minimal impact on residential areas with adequate setback,
d. Existing high-voltage transmission lines, vertical structures, or buildings in area that already compromise the viewshed,
e. Overhead lines located on non-Gateway or non-Scenic corridor route that perpendicularly crosses a Gateway Corridor Zone or Scenic Corridor Zone,
f. Repair or upgrade of existing facilities where proposed facilities are similar in size and scale to the existing facilities being repaired or replaced,
g. Transmission lines are proposed in an area where there is an existing presence of railroad, highway and/or bridge crossings, or in an area where underground installation would interfere with other existing undergrounded utilities,
h. Proposed transmission lines provide electrical service to critical customers where overhead lines are strongly recommended for specialized operations; examples include but are not limited to: provision of electricity to Davis Monthan AFB or other installations necessary to the national defense, hospitals, research facilities, etc.,
i. Proposed overhead transmission lines, rather than undergrounded transmission lines on a particular route, would avoid undesirable aesthetic, viewshed, or other adverse impacts that would result from facilities being located on an alternative route,
j. Proposed project in an area where costs to install underground would have a disparate impact on low-income residents. Satisfaction of this criteria alone is not sufficient as a finding for approval and must be found in conjunction with at least one other criterion.
k. A Special Exception request to relieve the requirement to underground transmission lines that meets the findings established by UDC section 3.4.5, Findings and which also meets criteria a, e, and g of this subsection is deemed to presumptively meet the required findings for approval.

Tucson Underground Coalition white paper
MARCH 15, 2022

December 2021
UNDERGROUNDING THE 138 Kv POLES - UPDATE by the uderground coalition

(December 2021 update)
The Steering Committee of the Undergrounding Coalition (UC) wants to update you about TEP’s proposal to construct 100-foot industrial scale power lines across the city, north to south, from 36 Street and Kino Boulevard to Demoss-Petrie on the far northwest side of Tucson.

Over the past seven months, the Underground Coalition won a series of victories in the effort to keep the overhead transmission lines out of residential neighborhoods. 1) The Zoning Examiner denied TEP’s application for a new electrical substation on the north perimeter of the UMC Banner campus required for the project. The Examiner cited TEP’s failure to address the University Area Plan, which forbids new overhead power line construction in favor of underground lines.
2) Members of the UC Steering Committee then found existing city ordinances prohibiting overhead placement of new transmission lines along Gateway and Scenic routes, which include the full length of Kino/Campbell in TEP’s proposed Kino-DeMoss- Petrie project.
3) The Tucson Mayor and Council in September voted unanimously, 7-0, to oppose placing the power lines along TEP’s alternative Euclid route.
4) Mayor and Council also decided to enforce its ordinances prohibiting overhead transmission lines along the Kino-Campbell Gateway.
5) Following this series of adverse rulings, TEP requested and was granted a four-month continuance of the ACC (Az Corporation Commission) hearings, until February 2022 to allow time for good-faith negotiations with parties to the action.

Currently, negotiations between the City and TEP have been underway, and the process will soon expand to include all parties to this action.

The successes thus far are in no small part due to the efforts of the coalition members and the many activists who have contributed tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours of time to fight TEP’s overheading plan.

Our current understanding of the public process to come is that TEP will approach the City to request specific individual exemptions it wants to the ordinances. There will then follow a full open public meetings then the City will decide to accept or deny any or all of the individual requests.

Meanwhile, TEP will ask for another delay for the ACC hearings, until June. When the details for the public process on the City’s side have become known, we will schedule a meeting by zoom for representatives of all neighborhoods in the coalition to determine appropriate future action. Meanwhile it's "wait and see".
(JP contact: Colleen Nichols -[email protected])

For Line-siting Committee comments you file on line:
Use this the link https://efiling.azcc.gov/online-services/utilities-public-comment-external
A form comes up,
* fill in all of your pertinent info,
*name of Company - Tucson Electric Power,
* Docket number  L-00000C-21-0288-00192,
* and if you are for, against, or neutral,
* then you  fill in the comments section, which could actually be selected from parts of the letter below.

Every comment that supports undergrounding is important.

LINE SITING SAMPLE LETTER WITH OPINION/ISSUE POINTS
YOU MAY COPY AND PASTE FROM THIS DOC

Date:

Docket Control Center
Arizona Corporation Commission
1200 West Washington
Phoenix, AZ 85007
Docket number: L-00000C-21-0288-00192
RE: Tucson Electric Power, TEP Kino to DeMoss-Petrie Transmission Line Project

My name is ________and I am a resident of and/or homeowner in the ________ neighborhood, situated along the route of the proposed TEP overhead transmission lines project. I live at____address, Tucson, AZ ____. (Might add another personal note such as, I am a board member, etc., or how long you’ve lived in the neighborhood.)

First, let me state that I am not against the utility fulfilling its responsibility to supply power to its customers. However, I profoundly object to the line siting routes and the proposed overhead lines selected by TEP as part of the Kino to DeMoss-Petrie Transmission Line Project for the following reasons:

An overhead project along a gateway corridor, namely Kino and Campbell Avenue, is expressly forbidden by Tucson city ordinances.

An overhead project conflicts with the UA Area Plan (UAP) and Plan Tucson, both adopted plans governing the development and growth of the Tucson region.

Some affected neighborhoods are designated as a National Historic Districts and two neighborhoods are Neighborhood Preservation Zones (NPZ’s). Citizens worked for years to actuate these safeguards to protect the unique historic Tucson neighborhoods.

The presence of residential neighborhoods adjacent to or directly within the proposed route will lead to loss of property value. TEP cites studies that show the devaluation of private property from overhead lines can reach 10% when within 500-1,000ft of the proposed right-of-way.
Tucson values its unique character, vibrant city neighborhoods, and thoughtful growth, as reflected in numerous development codes, ordinances, and area and neighborhood plans and by scenic gateway routes such as Kino/Campbell. To allow an unprecedented invasion of the massive overhead lines runs completely against these longstanding values.
The suggestion that affected residents form an Underground Utility Assessment District is unacceptable. Individuals should not have to pay special higher rates in order to avoid TEP damaging their property values, reducing property values by $70 million.
The cost to TEP to underground is negligible, estimated to be 2/100th of the most current 6.8 % rate increase, about 14cents/month per customer.
There has been strong and very vocal disapproval from many neighborhoods of the selected route since its initial proposal. A coalition comprised of nine neighborhoods and two other interest groups, representing some 20,000+ residents, have formed an alliance to protest the overhead lines.

The placement of the substation, (whose permit is currently denied by the Zoning Examiner) guarantees that the overhead lines will pass through numerous “sensitive receptors”, and through neighborhoods, if the project is allowed to move forward with overhead lines.

One of the current “selected routes”, 1B, exiting the substation, is next to a hospital, near churches, and a school, directly bisects a historic district - the heart of a residential neighborhood, and runs right next to a long-term care facility, all “sensitive receptors” as defined by TEP.
No neighborhood should bear the brunt of providing an upgraded electrical system to the urban core, nor be expected to shoulder the enormous needs of large entities, such as The University of Arizona, Banner Health, and other buildings which continue to be erected in the surrounding areas.

The latest, eleventh hour added “alternate route”-5A, was long ago rejected due to the number of “sensitive receptors” and neighborhoods it would damage. The exit route, A, proceeds right down a neighborhood street between homes. The eleventh-hour community input meetings in August will be fraught with controversy. TEP has not been consistent with its process.

For Tucson Electric Power to continue to insist on routes and overhead lines that clearly have long-term injurious effects on many citizens and, ultimately, to the entire city, is intolerable.

It is critical that the very real concerns of the literally thousands of residents who will be affected by this project be taken into consideration. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Very Truly Yours,

Beliefs and Goals of the underground coalition

Beliefs of the Underground Coalition The following is to clarify the position of the members of the Coalition as it relates to the proposed TEP 138kV poles line siting from Kino to DeMoss-Petrie project.
1. Tucsonans have the right to expect consistent access to electricity.
2. Overhead power lines have significant negative effects on our community.
3. No residential areas, including their borders, are suitable for high voltage power lines of the type proposed in the Kino to DMP project.
4. Property value reduction caused by overhead lines amount to approximately $5-to-$10 million per mile, a conservative amount based on estimates in TEP-cited studies. Property owners should not be placed in a position of having to pay higher rates in order to avoid damage a TEP project does to the value of their property.
5. The City of Tucson invested $100M+ to build Kino Parkway as a scenic gateway to our city, promoting economic growth and investment. The city needs to protect its investment.
6. The reduction in property taxes due to the loss of property values for Pima County would be conservatively $500k per year.
7. Undergrounding the lines is technically feasible, affordable, and can be done as demonstrated in municipalities/cities across the country. TEP absorbs costs of this magnitude routinely for community benefit.
8. The issue of over heading large 138kV lines, if approved, could eventually affect any neighborhood in Tucson, now and in the future, thus neighborhoods must now cooperatively work together on this issue.

Goals of the Underground Coalition

The lines should be constructed underground.
Undergrounding the lines will protect property values of homes and businesses in the proposed area as well as protect the scenic gateway to Tucson, the Kino Parkway.
TEP should either absorb the cost or seek a rate increase with the ACC. If it seeks a rate increase, then the cost of lines would be shared by all, not just by nearby property owners.
Should TEP seek a rate increase, TEP’s assistance for low-income ratepayers should be raised to cover cost increase (possibly 50 cents per month, likely less).
Collaborate with neighborhoods city-wide to ensure the undergrounding of power lines in residential areas, now and in the future.

Members/Supporters of the Underground Coalition: Catalina Vista, Feldman’s, Iron Horse, Jefferson Park, Mountain/1st, Pie Allen, Rincon Heights, Sam Hughes, Samos, Sugar Hill, and West University, the Historic Fourth Avenue Coalition, and the Tucson Historic Preservation Foundation.

Meetings & Minutes

Underground Coalition Meeting #3
TimeThursday: Jul 1, 2021 06:30 PM

6/9/2021 Underground Coalition Meeting #2
Underground Coalition Mtg 2
Wednesday, June 9 ⋅ 6:30 – 8:30pm

6/9/2021 Minutes - Underground Coalition #2 Meeting Minutes

5/10/2021 Minutes - Underground Coalition #1 Meeting Minutes

5/13/2021 Zoning Examiner Denies TEP request for Substation

138Kv Vine Avenue Substation, A.K.a. UA Substation

Association Letter: Sent April 13, 2021. Printed here to inform our neighbors and community.

Sample letter for individual neighbors

Copy, paste, and edit to your specifications. You too can make your opinions known.

Association Letter: Sent March 22, 2021 Initial letter sent to the zoning examiner. Printed here to inform our neighbors and community.

UNDERGROUNDING PROPOSAL

The Underground Coalition is comprised of 11 Tucson neighborhoods, Historic Preservation Society, and 4th Avenue Historic District. The proposal below was researched by the listed authors and presented to TEP as an alternative to overhead 138Kv poles. As of January 2021, TEP has not responded and continues with the three options, two of which bisect Jefferson Park. No other neighborhood has been projected for poles through the neighborhood.

WHY TEP SHOULD NOT IMPACT ANY HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOOD
1 – TEP has other options along major thorough-fares (or underground?)
• Neighborhood streets are generally narrower and designed to accommodate slow car, pedestrian and bike flow within the neighborhood.
• Right -of -ways are not large enough. Poles would be too close to residences.
• Visual blight – non-conforming with the intent of historic districts.
2 – TEP itself has designates Historic Neighborhoods as “sensitive receptors”
“sensitive receptors,” are factors which would have impact on placement, and would be taken into consideration. They include aspects, such as historic status, impact on the affected area, such as schools, nursing homes, hospitals and the like.

WHY JEFFERSON PARK IS ESPECIALLY IMPACTED
1– Jefferson Park already bears the burden of an ENLARGED substation at its southern border-complete with SF-6 gas, a greenhouse gas, which has been discontinued in CA and Europe.
2- JP is not only an Historic District but also a Neighborhood Preservations Zone, one of two in the city. It has special provisions to protect the integrity of the Historic District.
3 – Vine or Park BISECT the neighborhood

and are narrow residential streets heavily traveled by bikers to and

from U of A and Banner.

and have especially narrow right of ways placing poles too close to residences
and Vine is a watershed management area for neighborhood with stormwater basins along right-of-ways to address flooding issues.

4 – JP meets all the criteria for “sensitive” area
JP includes three churches, a long term care nursing home and rehab facility, The International School of Tucson, which serves students from preschool through eighth grades, and Banner Hospital, which is located on our southern border.

These kinds of poles should not be sited through any residential neighborhood. Jefferson Park happens to meet several of the "sensitive receptor" criteria which makes the Vine or Park options especially controversial. On an additional note, several neighbors believe that the EMFs from the larger Kv Poles are dangerous and they are not convinced otherwise by the current arguments.

TUCSON ELECTRIC PROJECT AND JEFFERSON PARK

Jefferson Park Neighborhood Association has consistently, with other historic neighborhoods , rejected the placement of 75-100 ft 138Kv electric poles in historic neighborhoods.

TEP lists historic neighborhoods, school, hospitals as sensitive areas, yet continues to suggest the possibility of using Park or Vine south to north from the Banner northwest corner. Read the newsletters below.

Jefferson Park Neighborhood continues to advocate regarding the pathway of the proposed 138Kv poles and the creation of a 138Kv substation on the southern border of the neighborhood on Vine Avenue. We ask for no poles through this Historic neighborhood---2 of the 3 pathways proposed by TEP bisect the neighborhood. We raise concerns about the SF6 gas used in the substation and its siting next to residential areas and Banner hospital. Further we support the Underground Coalition which asks for undergrounding of the poles.