►
From YouTube: Bellevue City Council Meeting - Oct. 16, 2019
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
We're
holding
what
is
called
a
limited
public
hearing
to
consider
the
appeal
of
the
hearing,
examiner's
decision
that
would
approve
with
conditions,
Puget
Sound
Energy's
application
for
a
conditional
use
permit
for
the
South
Bellevue
segment
of
the
energize
e
side.
Project
appeals
in
this
matter
were
filed
by
a
sense
and
they
are
represented
by
attorney
Richard
Aram
Beru
CC,
and
if
that's
not
the
way,
you
want
me
to
say
it.
Csc
E
is
represented
by
attorney
Larry
Johnson
and
by
Warren
Halverson
norm
Hansen
and
Loretta
Lopez,
each
representing
themselves
as
individuals.
In
this
case.
A
In
addition
to
these
five
appellant,
the
other
parties
to
the
proceeding
are
the
applicant,
which
is
Puget
Sound
Energy
and
they
are
represented
by
Aaron,
Anderson
and
Sarah.
Leverett,
okay
and
the
city
is
represented
by
Matt
McFarland
and
Cheryl.
Zakrzewski
I'd
also
want
to
say
something
just
right
out
of
the
gate
here
up.
While
there
is
a
motion
to
delay
the
hearing,
no
matter
what,
if
we
go
ahead
with
the
hearing
tonight,
we
will
not
be
making
a
decision
tonight.
This
is
a
voluminous
record.
A
We
are
still
working
our
way
through
that
council
members
are,
and
so
we
will
not
be
making
a
decision
tonight.
We
will
be
taking
it
under
advisement,
so
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
people
understand
that
councilmember
Robertson
is
absent
right.
Some
of
you
may
notice
that
councilmember
Robertson
has
decided
to
recuse
herself
from
this
hearing
under
the
appearance
of
fairness
doctrine,
and
that
is
due
to
ongoing
business
negotiations
that
are
going
between
PSE
&
Robertson
&
Associates
LLC.
A
That
is
a
company
that
councilmember
Robertson,
is
a
member
of
the
company.
The
parties
to
the
appeal
were
informed
in
writing
of
her
decision
on
September
16.
So
exactly
a
month
ago.
However,
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
put
that
on
the
record
this
evening,
so
to
provide
a
roadmap
for
the
parties
and
for
the
appeal
hearing
I'm
going
to
in
just
a
few
moments.
Go
to
the
city
attorney.
A
Ask
her
to
explain
the
nature
of
these
proceedings
and
the
rules
and
procedures
that
the
council
has
to
follow
in
considering
this
appeal
council
will
then
take
up
the
matter
and-
and
that
also
will
ask
the
city
attorney
to
walk
through
the
appearance
of
fairness.
Doctrine
disclosures
that
the
council
will
need
to
make
whether
they
can
fairly
try
this
case
and
what
they
have
done
with
any
acts.
Any
ex
parte
contact
that
we've
had
will
then
take
up
the
matter
of
PSE
subjection
to
the
council,
considering
the
briefs
that
were
followed,
a
filed
by
mr.
A
Halverson
MS
Lopez
and
mr.
Hanson.
After
that,
the
council
will
address
the
requests
by
sense
and
CSEE
received
yesterday.
That
would
continue
the
hearing
to
a
later
date.
If
the
council
decides
not
to
continue
the
hearing
to
a
later
date,
Council
will
then
open
the
public
hearing
and
hear
oral
argument
from
the
parties
to
the
to
the
appeal.
So
miss
gorilla
I'm,
going
to
ask
you
now
to
take
over
and
explain
the
nature
of
the
proceedings
and
then
take
us
through
the
Fairness
Doctrine
issues.
B
B
Only
the
parties
to
the
appeal,
who
are
represented
by
either
themselves
or
by
counsel
sitting
at
the
table
tables
at
the
front
are,
will
be
allowed
to
speak
tonight.
Members
of
the
audience
here
other
than
the
parties
will
not
be
allowed
to
speak
to
the
council.
As
again,
the
council
may
only
consider
the
evidence
presented
before
the
Hearing
Examiner.
The
council's
role
in
this
proceeding
is
not
to
make
the
decision
in
the
first
instance
as
to
whether
the
conditional
use
permit
should
be
issued.
B
Instead,
the
council's
role
is
to
determine
whether
the
hearing
examiner's
decision
is
supported
by
material
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
In
this
context,
evidence
is
material
if
there
is
a
reasonable
probability
that
the
presence
or
absence
of
the
evidence
would
alter
the
decision
by
the
fact-finder
and
evidence
is
substantial
if
there's
a
sufficient
quantity
of
evidence
to
persuade
a
fair-minded
person
of
the
truth
or
correctness
of
the
decision.
So
in
essence,
the
council
is
sitting
as
an
appellate
body
in
this
instance
just
to
determine
if
there
is
material
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
B
The
appellant
bear
the
burden
of
proof
in
this
appeal,
and
the
council
may
only
grant
the
appeal,
in
other
words,
reverse
the
decision
of
the
Hearing
Examiner
or
grant
it
with
modifications
if
the
appellant
have
carried
their
burden
of
proof
and
the
City
Council
finds
that
the
decision
is
not
supported
by
material
and
substantial
evidence.
In
all
other
cases,
the
appeal
must
be
meaning.
The
hearing
examiner's
decision
must
be
upheld
and
in
making
its
decision,
that
counsel
is
required
to
give
substantial
weight
to
the
hearing
examiner's
decision.
B
Each
each
side
will
have
30
minutes
for
opening
the
appellant
will
proceed
first
and
have
30
minutes
for
their
opening
argument
and
for
rebuttal,
and
then
the
respondents,
Puget
Sound
Energy
and
the
Department
of
the
development
Services
Department
will
then
have
30
minutes
for
their
oral
argument.
And
after
the
respondents
are
finished,
then
the
appellant
will
be
permitted
to
make
a
rebuttal
argument
if
they
chose
to
set
aside
time
for
rebuttal.
The
counsel
may
ask
questions
of
the
parties
during
their
oral
argument.
B
However,
new
material-
that's
not
in
the
record
made
before
the
Hearing
Examiner-
cannot
be
presented
tonight
to
the
council
and
any
such
material,
if
it
is
presented,
will
be
disregarded
by
the
council
in
making
its
decision.
So
I
will
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions
of
the
council
on
the
rules
and
procedures
for
moving
forward
with
the
hearing
in
this
matter.
B
A
A
B
All
right
so
moving
to
the
appearance
of
fairness,
doctrine
and
the
need
to
disclose
ex
parte
communication.
So,
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
a
quasi
judicial
proceeding
and
the
council
members
are
acting
as
judges
and
because
of
that,
the
provisions
of
the
state's
appearance
of
Fairness
Doctrine
come
into
play
here,
and
judges
must
and
therefore
council
members
in
this
proceeding
must
maintain
fairness
and
impartiality.
B
And
if
the
council
members
acting
in
a
quasi-judicial
capacity,
cannot
exclude
ex
parte
information
from
their
consideration
and
base
their
decision
solely
on
the
record
and
affirm
that
they
will
maintain
their
impartiality.
Then
they
are
to
be
recused
from
participating
in
the
decision.
Staff
have
searched
all
emails
that
were
at
the
councils,
email
box
and
at
the
individual
council
members,
City
email
addresses
and
we've
identified
approximately
18
emails
that
we've
identified
as
potential
ex
parte
emails.
B
Those
have
been
disclosed
already
to
the
parties
of
the
representatives
of
the
parties,
so
they've
had
them,
and
so
at
this
point,
I
am
going
to
go
through
with
each
individual
council
member
and
ask
about
ex
parte
contexts.
But
you
don't
need
to
disclose
those
that
we've
already
found.
You
only
need
to
disclose
any
context
that
you
have
received
other
than
through
your
ear,
City
email
accounts,
and
if
you
do
have
any
additional
ex
parte
communications
to
disclose,
then
a
council
member
should
state.
B
You
know
the
name
of
who
contacted
you
the
date
or
the
approximate
date
of
the
contact,
the
method,
whether
it
was
by
phone
in
writing
in
person
meeting
and
the
substance
of
the
communication
and
if
I,
written
or
or
transcript
of
a
voicemail
exists,
then
those
should
be
put
in
the
record.
We
will
maintain
the
emails
and
the
verbal
disclosures
and
preserve
them
for
purposes
of
maintaining
a
record
of
what
the
ex
parte
contacts
are.
B
A
B
B
B
B
You,
deputy
mayor
Robinson,
do
you
have
any
additional
ex
parte
communications
to
disclose
other
than
those
in
the
city's,
an
email
box
or
your
individual
city?
Even
though
I
do
not?
Are
you
able
to
affirm
that
you
can
exclude
any
ex
parte
communication
from
your
consideration
and
base
your
decisions
solely
on
the
record
before
the
Hearing
Examiner
in
a
fair
and
impartial
manner?
Yes,
thank
you.
Mary
Almanack.
Do
you
have
any
additional
ex
parte
communications
to
disclose
I.
B
D
B
D
F
I
have
one
so
on
June
13th
I
participated
in
a
editorial
board
with
the
Seattle
Times,
where
one
of
the
questions
they
wanted
to
ask
me
was
about
energize,
Eastside
I
told
them
that
I
couldn't
talk
about
it
and
I
waited
until
they
were
done
to
the
next
question.
I
can't
tell
you
today
what
my
what
the
other
candidate
even
said,
I
wasn't
paying
any
attention,
and
then
the
article
that
came
out
on
June
27th
didn't
actually
talk
about
it
at
all.
So
I
have
no
way
to
know
what
he
actually
said.
B
Okay,
thank
you.
Are
you
able
to
exclude
any
ex
parte
information
from
your
consideration
and
decide
this
matter
based
solely
on
the
record
before
the
Hearing
Examiner,
in
a
fair
and
impartial
manner?
Yes,
thank
you
and
last
but
not
least,
council
member
new
in
house.
Do
you
have
any
additional
ex
parte
communication.
B
You
able
to
affirm
that
you
can
exclude
any
ex
parte
communication
from
your
consideration
of
this
matter,
decide
it
based
solely
on
the
hearing
examiner's
record
in
a
fair
and
impartial
manner.
I
can.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
So,
at
this
point,
under
the
appearance
of
Fairness
Doctrine,
the
parties
have
an
opportunity
to
rebut
the
substance,
meaning
oppose.
If
you
have
an
opposing
view
of
the
substance
of
any
of
the
ex
parte
communication,
so
I
would
offer
the
parties
the
opportunity
to
do
that
now.
A
A
So
next
we
will
address
the
Puget
Sound
Energy's
request
that
written
briefs
filed
by
the
appellant
Warren
Halverson
norm,
Hansen
and
Loretta
Lopez
not
be
considered
by
the
council.
Pia's
PSC
has
requested
that
the
council
not
consider
these
briefs
on
the
basis
that
they
were
not
provided
to
all
of
the
parties.
At
the
same
time,
they
were
provided
to
the
to
the
council.
A
Psc
will
have
five
minutes
to
present
an
oral
argument
up
to
five
minutes
on
this
issue.
Mr.
Halverson,
mr.
Hansen
and
miss
Lopez
will
also
have
five
minutes
as
a
way
of
explaining
this
I
do
want
to
thank
the
parties.
You
all
agreed
to
provide
your
briefs
three
weeks
in
advance
that
gave
us
there
gave
the
City
Attorney's
Office
a
significant
amount
of
time
to
review
that
they
have
to
review
to
make
sure
things
were
in
the
record.
So
I
very
much
appreciate
your
doing
that
I
also.
A
Would
point
out
that,
under
the
councils,
rules
of
procedures
appeals
located,
which
is
located
in
resolution,
nine,
four,
seven
three,
they
require
that
any
brief
or
written
materials
be
provided
to
Council
and
served
on
other
parties
no
later
than
1:00
p.m.
two
weeks
before
the
appeal
hearing,
which
in
this
case
would
be
October
2nd
due
to
the
size
of
the
record
in
this
matter.
I
did
ask
for
that
request
to
have
things
three
weeks
in
advance,
but
note
that
the
service
on
other
parties
in
the
in
the
resolution
is
two
weeks.
I.
A
A
Their
motion,
so
they
go
first,
okay,
so
miss
Anderson.
If
you
would
like
to
provide
comment,
you'll
have
five
minutes
and
just
so
I
think
there's
a
countdown
timer
on
it.
The
green
light
goes
on.
You
are
on
the
clock.
Yellow
light
should
go
on
at
one
minute.
Red
light
means
your
time
is
up.
Thank
you.
C
Your
honor
honorable
mayor
and
council
I
have
nothing
further
to
add
to
my
request,
I
believe
it
speaks
for
itself.
We
were
instructed
to
provide
these
briefs
on
time
to
all
parties
and
they
were
not
I.
Have
nothing
further.
To
add
beyond
that,
my
intention
in
raising
this
issue
was
to
preserve
the
record.
Thank
you.
A
Great,
thank
you
very
much.
So
the
the
pro
se
appellant
have
five
minutes
to
divide
among
yourselves.
Do
you
want
to
do
it
all
with
one?
Do
you
I
do
because
we
can
set
the
timing
for
you,
you
want
to
have
all
three,
and
so
do
you
want
us
to
set
it
singularly?
Okay,
so
and
we'll
pause
it
in
between
what
time?
Do
you
want
to
hand
it
off
or
you'll,
just
you'll
just
decide
one
to
hand
it
off.
G
My
name
is
Warren
Halverson
I'm
surprised
that
PSE
wants
to
deny
our
briefs
based
upon
their
reading
of
resolution.
9
473,
however,
I'm
not
surprised
that
their
actions
to
limit
public
testimony
from
the
record
from
our
perspective
here
is
what
happened
on
September,
the
27th,
mrs.
Levert,
emailed
the
city
objecting
to
our
briefs
and
accurately
quoting
resolution.
947
quote
appeal
may
be
submitted
to
the
council
by
filing
the
same
with
the
city
clerk
and
serve
copies
on
any
briefs
on
other
parties
no
later
than
1
p.m.
14
days
before
the
date
of
the
hearing.
G
This
is
the
resolution.
Did
we
comply
absolutely?
So?
What
is
the
difference
of
opinion
here?
A
while
back
I
received
at
my
house
an
unusual
call
from
the
city
saying
this
docket
is
so
large
that
PSC
in
the
city
would
like
21
days
to
review
it.
Frankly,
that
does
not
seem
to
be
a
big
deal,
a
gentlemen's
agreement.
If
you
will
receiving
no
other
correspondence,
we
complied
filing
our
briefs
with
the
city
clerk
on
September,
the
15th,
notwithstanding
the
fact
that
we
did
not
have
the
emails
for
the
other
parties.
Two
days
later,
mrs.
G
abhart
sender,
email,
asking
a
city
clerk
whether
we
had
filed
briefs
by
September
the
25th,
the
city
responded
that
we
did
and
they
are
on
file
that
very
same
day.
Two
days
later,
19
days
before,
we
were
really
required.
19
days
before
the
hearing,
we
sent
mr.
Amberson
copies
of
all
briefs
to
mrs.
abhart
to
meet
this
imposed
deadline.
Finally,
on
October
the
2nd
14
days,
14
days
before
the
hearing,
we
sent
another
copy
of
our
briefs
to
all
parties
without
further
communication.
We
sent
our
briefs
in
as
to
the
legality
of
all
this.
G
It
is
clearly
understood
that
the
resolution
states
14
days.
Furthermore,
resolution
9
473
is
signed
by
the
City
Council
and
there
is
no
authority
that
I
can
see
to
change
this
without
a
City
Council
approval.
In
effect,
then,
the
even
suggests
that
briefs
be
withheld
because
of
a
two-day
delay
19
days
in
a
gentlemen's
agreement
when,
in
addition,
the
14
day
requirement
was
met
is
outlandish.
G
H
I'll
just
say
that
at
the
outset
of
this
there
didn't
really
seem
to
be
a
roadmap
of
who
he
ascended
to.
We
did
send
it
to
this
clerk
and
to
the
hearing,
examiner's
office
and,
of
course,
we're
not
used
to
doing
this.
So
we
didn't
know
we
had
to
send
it
to
the
the
PSC
lawyer,
but
we
did.
We
did
all
those
in
a
in
a
timely
manner
and
we
did
it
in
good
faith
and
I
think
the
city
has
had
the
appropriate
amount
of
time
to
review.
So
that's
where
I
was
thank.
You.
I
I
A
E
A
A
A
Things
are
laid
out
fairly
well
but
again
in
the
interest
of
allowing
people
to
to
the
parties
to
speak
to
this
I
would
allow
sense
or
sense
and
CSEE
and
I
would
provide
them
five
minutes
if
they
wish
to
speak
to
the
motion
and
I
would
provide
PSE
five
minutes
if
they
wish
to
speak
to
the
motion,
and
since
the
motion
is
from
sense
and
CSEE,
they
would
go
first.
So
mr.
Aram
burrow,
and
do
you
want
to
reserve
some
time
for
mr.
Johnson.
J
I'll,
let
him
decide
that
I'm
gonna
be
very
brief:
counsel,
I'm,
Richard,
Aram,
Berger
and
I'm
here
tonight.
Representing
sense,
we
have
made
a
request
for
a
continuance
of
the
hearing,
because
we've
had
a
lot
of
back-and-forth,
that's
gone
on
over
the
past
several
days.
Regarding
the
the
briefing
regarding
recusal
requests
regarding
other
materials,
we
think,
given
the
complexity
of
the
matter,
that
the
continuance
is
a
short
continuance
is
appropriate,
and
so
we
so
move
and
that's
all
I
have
to
say
I,
don't
want
to
burden
the
record
any
more
with
that.
K
Mr.
mayor,
ms
deputy
mayor
council
members
larry
johnson
for
citizens
for
st.
eastside
energy
CSEE.
Normally
when
you
get
a
motion
for
continuance,
it's
just
because
it's
more
convenient
you
know,
maybe
we
were
not
quite
prepared.
My
concern
and
it
probably
will
be
become
more
evident
in
the
brief
argument.
K
I
want
to
make
as
to
the
merits
of
my
brief,
which
focuses
almost
exclusively
on
constitutional
issues
because
of
I
think
the
very
misleading
nature
in
which
that
was
briefed
by
your
attorney,
where
she
says
constitutional
issues
are
not
subject
to
the
jurisdiction
of
Hearing
Examiner
or
this
counsel,
and
she
cites
a
case
where
actually
the
holding
in
that
case
is
the
absolute
opposite.
I
will
get
to
that.
I've
got
a
slide
for
that.
K
So
I
would
like
to
give
you
as
decision-makers
the
opportunity
to
clean
this
up,
so
we
don't
have
to
go
through
years
of
Appeals
through
state
and
federal
courts.
We
can
fix
this
now,
and
so
I
would
ask
you.
This
is
Keck
emotion,
upon
emotion,
but
I
would
ask
you
to
consider
this
idea
of
a
continuance
more
in
terms
of
the
bigger
question
of
whether
there
should
be
a
remand
and
that's
all
I
really
have
to
say.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
C
A
C
C
In
regard
to
the
motion
for
a
continuance
this
matter,
we
just
heard
about
a
gentlemen's
agreement
that
you
would
be
afforded
additional
time
to
hear
this
case
because
of
the
voluminous
record.
We
met
those
deadlines
the
opposition
gave
you
19
gave
us
19
days
notice
of
it.
They
delivered
their
materials
to
you,
even
if
it
is
a
gentlemen's
agreement.
You've
already
received
additional
time
to
review
this
record.
Your
code
says
14
days.
This
has
been
noted
for
a
long
period
of
time.
C
You've
had
this
for
quite
a
considerable
amount
of
time
and
tossing
out
concepts
of
constitutionality
are
not
the
basis
for
you
to
extend
this
hearing
any
further
I
would
submit.
It
remains
a
delay
tactic,
and
tonight
is
the
night
we
need
to
get
to
breast
tax.
Folks,
you've
got
the
record
you're
not
asked
to
make
a
decision
tonight.
I
fully
anticipate
that
this
council
will
take
this
matter
under
advisement,
because
it's
a
big
record,
you
have
a
lot
of
material
to
read.
C
A
Well
again,
I
just
begin
with
I.
This
meeting
has
been
set
for
a
significant
period
of
time.
For
this
date
we
do
have
a
voluminous
record.
I
have
managed
to
read
all
of
the
the
appeal
briefs.
I,
don't
know
where
other
council
members
are
on
that,
but
if
they
haven't,
they
still
have
the
time
to
do
that,
and
we
still
have
the
time
to
go
back
and
take
a
look
at
the
record,
even
if
there
was
a
decision
to
remand.
A
That
is
something
that
we
could
do
and
that's
something
that
the
council
would
have
to
do
at
a
later
date.
So
that
would
be
part
of
the
deliberation
that
we
would
make
on
this
issue.
That's
my
opinion
all
that
anybody
else
who
has
an
opinion
on
that.
If
they
wish
to
speak
so
I
would
need
a
it
would
be
a
motion
to
deny
the
continuance
I
believe.
E
A
A
Okay,
so
at
the
request
of
cents
and
PS
at
the
request
of
sense
and
PSE
I've,
given
both
sides
and
additional
15
minutes
of
oral
argument,
our
rules
generally
say
15
minutes
is
what
you
need
in
this
case,
and
it
is
a
large
record
I've,
it's
up
to
the
mayor,
to
what
to
do
with
that.
So
I've
doubled
that
to
30
minutes.
Excuse
me.
A
J
We
will
take
20
minutes
for
our
principal
presentation,
reserving
10
minutes
following
the
presentations
of
the
city
and
PSE
I
intend
to
speak
for
about
13
minutes,
and
then
the
other
four
parties
will
take
the
remaining
20
minutes
of
our
initial
period
of
time.
So
that's
that
would
be
our
allocation
of
time.
Okay,.
A
E
A
And
seconded
to
open
the
appeal
hearing,
all
in
favor
say:
aye
aye
any
opposed
the
motion
passes
and
we
now
have
the
hearing
before
us.
So
I
was
mr..
A
Ranbir
was
the
mic
at
the
podium
on
I
yeah,
okay,
it's
on,
but
because
it
didn't
sound.
But
if
you
would,
these
are
very
loud
tonight,
so
I'm
not
quite
sure
what
what's
going
on
there,
but
we're
ready
for
the
for
your
time.
Mr.
one.
J
J
J
Well,
let
me
go
ahead
and
proceed
if
I
may
I'm
Richard
Duran
brew,
I'm
an
attorney
representing
sense,
a
long
involved
party
and
in
these
proceedings
before
that
before
the
city
I
know,
you've
all
read
the
briefs
or
going
to
read
the
briefs
and
I'm
here
tonight
to
provide
clarification
and
I'm
fully
prepared
to
answer
any
questions.
You
have
feel
free
to
interrupt
me
at
any
time
if
there's
matters
that
that
you
think
needs
some
further
clarification.
J
We're
asking
the
council
to
remand
this
matter
because
of
serious
defects
in
the
decision-making
that
have
preceded
our
hearing
tonight.
One
of
the
most
important
things
for
tonight
is
that
the
council
has
to
keep
its
eye
on
the
target.
The
target
is
the
south
segment
three
point
three
miles
that
run
from
about
Richards
Creek
down
to
the
south
boundary
of
the
city.
There
is
not
a
proposal
that
is
filed
for
the
rest
of
the
project.
You
are
limited
to
only
that
section
for
compliance
with
the
code.
J
There's
all
sorts
of
material
on
the
record.
There's
all
sorts
of
material
in
the
briefs.
I
want
to
talk
about
two
things
tonight
for
the
council
that
are
critical
to
your
decision-making.
The
first
of
those
is
need.
Your
ordinance
is
very
clear.
There
must
be
a
demonstration
of
operational
need
that
requires
the
location
of
the
facility
at
the
Senate.
The
proposed
site,
we
contend
that
that
the
record
demonstrates
there
is
not
a
showing
of
operational
need
now.
Well,
it's
been
a
lot
of
discussion
about
the
parties
and
who
their
witnesses
were.
J
We
don't
have
to
go
any
farther
than
the
three
principal
agencies
that
regulate
and
control
electric
facilities
in
the
northwest.
To
show
that
operational
need
does
not
exist.
First
of
all,
the
Bonneville
Power
Administration
regulates
transmission
cells
from
power
from
the
federal
dams
on
the
Columbia
River
two
years
ago.
It
canceled
79
miles
of
transmission
because
and
I'll
quote,
recent
trans
indicate
load.
Growth
has
generally
slowed
relative
to
what
was
assumed
in
our
studies
is
Bonneville,
Power
Administration.
They
also
said,
and
another
quote
we
want.
J
We
will
look
at
cutting-edge
technologies
such
as
battery
storage
flow
control,
devices
to
proactively
manage
congestion
and
further
extend
operational
capacity.
No
new
transmission
needed
because
there's
not
a
need
for
it.
Washing
utilities
and
Transportation
Commission
regulates
PSC
regulates
other
private
utility
companies
in
the
state
of
Washington.
What
does
the
WCT
say
about
PSC
again
quotes
from
from
the
the
Commission
historically
PSE
load.
Forecasts
have
been
overly
optimistic
reading
through
that
they've
been
too
high.
They
always
overestimate
what
that
what
the
needs
are.
This
is
from
the
WCT.
J
The
UCT
also
says
the
2017
integrated
resource
plan
projects
flapped
to
negative
growth
rates
for
the
first
ten
years
of
PSE
s
plan
flat
to
negative
growth.
There
is
not
a
demonstration
that
there's
need
for
this
project
and
finally,
seattle,
City
Light,
just
across
Lake
Washington
from
us
another
high-tech,
growing
industry
city,
with
dozens
of
tower
cranes
with
Amazon,
with
Expedia,
with
all
sorts
of
development
going
on,
and
the
City
Light,
who
provides
electricity
in
Seattle,
indicate
there's
runaway
growth
know
as
we
provided
a
new
record.
J
So
so
the
major
agencies
that
regulate
power
say
growth,
that
the
kind
of
growth
we've
seen
in
the
past
simply
does
not
exist
anymore
and
as
a
footnote
here,
the
lack
of
growth
is
creating
serious
financial
issues
in
in
the
electric
industry.
People
are
told
not
to
use
their
not
to
consume
electricity.
That
means
there's
less
revenue
and
there's
less
revenue
then
to
to
manage
to
manage
the
growth.
So
conclusion,
yes,.
J
The
growth
of
electrical
demand,
your
your
ordinance
2008,
requires
that
the
applicant
demonstrate
that
there
is
an
operational
need.
Pse
says
there
is
an
operational
need
based
upon
growth
in
electric
consumption.
We
can
test
that
proposition
and
just
given
you
what
the
major
agencies
have
been
been
saying
on
this
issue.
J
Operational
need
is
not
established
for
this
facility,
and
so
one
of
the
key
elements
of
this
proposal
lacks
the
demonstration
to
meet
your
code.
Second
issue:
what
are
we
really
dealing
with
here
and
there's
great
confusion?
That's
been
created
by
the
PSE
sudden
and
abrupt
decision
to
only
apply
for
this
three
point.
Three
mile
line
we
started
and
the
people
at
this
table
and
the
people
in
this
room
in
2014
and
2015
and
members
of
the
council
will
remember
this
as
well.
J
It
was
a
16
mile
line
that
we
couldn't
get
along
without,
but
now
we
have
a
dead
end
line,
it
runs
up
to
the
lakeside
substation
and
it
stops
it
doesn't
go
any
farther.
The
rest
of
the
line
is
not
applied
for
is
not
a
part
of
the
application
now
PSC
said
when
they
applied
for
just
the
short
part
of
the
line.
They
said
you
would
just
wait
now
we're
going
to
apply
for
the
rest
of
it
and
we're
going
to
get
on
with
the
whole
thing
and
we're
going
to
do
that.
J
That's
what
they
said
in
August
2017.
Well,
we're
now
in
October
of
2000
nineteen.
Twenty
six
months
later,
there's
no
application
for
that
facility.
The
council
cannot
rely
what
PSE
says
it
might
do
to
justify
this
project.
You've
got
to
look
solely
at
this
south
segment
of
the
of
the
facility
and
the
the
they
claim
that
they
have.
They
have
considered
the
technical
issues
under
your
ordinance
for
just
the
south
segment
truth.
The
matter
is,
there's
not
one.
J
There's
not
a
showing,
for
example,
of
the
operational
need
for
the
short
project,
there's
not
a
showing
that
your
code
says
that
facilities
will
be
put
not
in
in
residential
districts,
but
in
districts,
which
are
primarily
served
by
the
electrical
facility,
the
location
selection
hierarchy.
Your
words,
your
ordinance.
J
What
we
end
up
with
now
is
the
area
south
of
1990
being
the
burden
for
providing
electrical
facilities,
electrical
energy
in
the
downtown,
where
we
are
right
now,
but
with
no
burden
on
the
downtown
all
in
the
well
in
a
residential
area.
And
that's
what
you
said
when
you
pass
this
ordinance
that
we
weren't
going
to
do
that.
We
have
the
show
of
very,
very
good
reason
why
we
put
things
in
residential
areas
where
we
put
electric
transmission
and
other
facilities
in
residential
areas
instead
of
the
areas
in
which
they're
being
used.
So
so.
J
So
it
raises
other
questions:
we've
have
the
salad
segment,
okay,
so
I'll
segment
down
here.
Why
can't
we
have
the
nori
segment?
Do
the
same
thing?
It's
it's!
It's
one
segment
dead
ends
what's
wrong
with
that.
There's
been
no
analysis
of
that.
No
consideration
of
that
at
all!
It's
really
what's
going
on
here,
a
cynical
effort
by
PSE
to
to
create
conflict
between
neighborhoods
in
the
city,
those
north
of
i90
and
those
south
of
i90
to
to
project
conflict
between
bridle
trails
and
somerset.
Is
that
what's
going
on
with
this?
J
This
really
pretty
much
ridiculous
proposition
appears
to
us
to
be
a
divide
and
conquer
situation.
Pse
says:
well
it's
fine
to
do
this
in
segments
because
we
are
going
to
construct
it
in
segments.
Well
that
that
reasoning
doesn't
stand
up
any
project
that
you
build.
You
start
at
one
place
and
end
another,
but
we're
talking
about
permitting
and
we're
talking
about
justification
under
the
city's
ordinance.
That
has
not
been
done
here.
J
A
K
Hope
it's
one
just
one
thing
there:
it
is
yeah
now
you
may
ask
why,
by
the
way,
I'm
ready
to
take
about
a
minute
I'm,
not
even
40
seconds
I'm
gonna
take
about
40
seconds,
and
this
has
given
me
so:
okay
I
just
watch
it
normally
I,
wouldn't
take
a
page
out
of
a
brief
and
highlight
it
quite
like
this,
but
it
causes
an
enormous
amount
of
concern
for
several
reasons.
This
brief
written
by
the
same
attorney,
who
advises
you
taking
an
advocacy
position
for
Department
I,
think
right.
K
There
is
a
big
problem,
but
it's
obvious
from
the
way
this
hearing
this.
This
appeal
began
that
you're
looking
to
her
for
guidance
about
how
you
were
to
run
this
entire
process,
and
here
she
is
providing
an
advocacy
statement,
saying
basically
don't
read:
CS
E's
appeal
brief,
because
it's
all
about
constitutional
law
and,
according
to
this
case,
she
signs
just
show
Sabres
the
Snohomish
County
she
says
quote:
City
Council
has
no
authority
to
rule
on
constitutional
issues.
That
is
absolutely
false,
and
that
is
a
false
and
misleading.
K
Reading
of
that
case,
the
case
is
exactly
the
opposite
says
the
council,
or
the
Hearing
Examiner,
doesn't
have
any
jurisdiction
over
equitable
estoppel
a
legal
doctrine,
but
the
case
goes
into
considerable
detail
about
whether
a
due
process,
the
law
applied
in
denying
people
appropriate,
hearing
notice,
violated
due
process
rights,
and
so
there
was
a
long
discussion
in
that
opinion
about,
indeed
the
application
of
due
process
of
law.
So
please
do
read
my
brief,
because
there
are
huge
constitutional
problems
and
what
the
Hearing
Examiner
did
outline
them.
All.
K
K
On
this
point,
you,
as
the
appellate
body,
cannot
really
pass
judgment
on
something
where
there
is
a
ruling,
where
there's
no
findings
of
fact
all
conclusions
of
law,
no
reasoning
or
not
there
or
anything
just
denied,
and
that
happened
to
two
key
motions
between
sense
and
CSEE,
about
getting
information
that
we
were
clearly
entitled
to
and
and
and
other
issues,
and
we
got
nothing
but
denied
that
was
it
and
I
think
right.
There
is
again
if
we,
if
we
get
that
back
to
the
Hearing
Examiner,
he
can
at
least
tell
you
his
reasons.
A
K
A
K
A
A
H
Very
ready,
okay,
I'm
speaking
as
an
electrical
engineer
and
a
47
year,
Bellevue
resident
and
a
longtime
proponent,
for
electrical
power.
Reliability
I
started
on
this
journey
and
with
the
CAG,
which
was
the
privately
run
organization
to
review
the
project
back
in
2012.
So
it's
been
seven
years.
No
I
have
three
points
to
make
number
one
PSE
has
consistently
declined
to
provide
necessary
transparency
of
the
current
project
load
flow
data
to
support
the
need
for
appropriate
review
by
the
qualified
public,
we're
not
terrorists.
H
It
feels
to
me
like
that
the
data
has
been
fabricated
to
mass
Curt
masquerade.
The
truth
point
to
PSE
needs
to
conduct
other
alternate
solutions
in
good
faith.
Energized
Eastside
is
a
project
solution
which
is
a
carryover
from
the
last
century
that
they
originally
built
this
line
in
1929
and
they're,
trying
to
duplicate
actually
what
they
have
point-three
respect
the
land
use
code
to
locate
electrical
facilities
and
land
use,
districts
were
needed,
Somerset
and
other
neighbors
would
certainly
do
not
have
a
demonstrated
need
for
more
electrical
power.
Thank
you.
Thank.
G
Thirty
one
minute
and
forty
seconds
the
written
brief
that
I
submitted
for
your
consideration
shows
significant
errors
and
the
hearing,
examiner's
findings
and
I've
noted
those
the
public
involvement
findings
are
often
biased
in
the
accurate.
The
Hearing
Examiner
seems
to
give
PSC's
paid
consultants
extra
credence,
while
citizen
experts
are
casually
dismissed
without
much
explanation.
The
record
does
not
fully
report
or
rebut
witness
Dean
Apostles
testimony
and
his
study,
visual
and
aesthetic
impacts
on
Bellevue
and
Bellevue.
G
South
PSC
continues
to
stand
by
a
Qantas
2014
forecast
of
demand
for
electricity
growing
at
a
rate
of
2.4
percent
per
year,
BSC
as
adjust
as
its
forecast
downward
in
subsequent
years,
but
the
company
has
not
updated
this
crucial
Eastside
forecast.
These
PSE
even
admits
in
the
hearing
to
more
recent
studies
in
2016,
17
and
18.
Yet
the
company
refuses
to
share
actual
peak
demand
data
for
the
east
side,
perhaps
perhaps,
because
that
data
might
jeopardize
their
rationale
for
this
project.
The
lack
of
transparency
is
a
big
problem.
G
How
can
we
justify
spending
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
in
destroying
thousands
of
trees?
If
we
don't
know
the
facts
about
our
electricity
usage,
we
voted
for
transparency
in
our
government,
and
this
is
a
major
test
of
the
commitment
in
Bellevue.
I
have
been
involved
in
this
project
from
the
beginning
six
years
and
scores
of
meetings.
Never
once
did
we
see
discussion
of
segmentation
into
Bellevue,
south
and
north
for
permitting
purposes.
Why
did
PSE
split
the
project
into
two
parts
is
PSC
admitting
that
the
need
has
lessened
our
other
alternatives
now
feasible.
G
I
It
matters
throughout
the
six
plus
years
of
this
project.
We
have
studied
18
miles
now.
It's
changed
16
but,
let's
say
at
16
of
the
entire
system
and
now
PSC
wants
to
snip
that
system
and
make
it
three
point
three
without
any
analysis,
without
any
just
just
how
shall
I
say
without
any
evidence,
so
I
request.
This
require
PSC
to
present
data
studies
and
reports
of
the
3.3
mile
segment,
as
an
independent
segment
require
analysis
of
the
electrical
power
need
in
neighborhoods.
I
Within
the
three
point,
three
segments
require
PSC
to
release
the
underlying
data,
which
PSC
asserts
is
the
basis
for
the
need
for
the
project.
There
are
legal
mechanisms
for
this
process
and
for
keeping
the
data
confidential
and
number
three
or
continue
the
hearing
to
address
the
entire
project
with
proper
notice
to
all
residents,
north
and
south.
Thank
you.
A
L
Thank
You
mayor
council,
McFarland
attorney
for
development,
Services
Department
I'd
like
to
begin
by
reminding
council
again
of
its
role
and
adjudicating
these
Appeals
energized
Eastside
project
and
PSC
tup
application
or
matters
of
significant
public
interest.
But
the
only
issue
before
Council
is
whether
to
grant
or
deny
these
five
appeals,
despite
the
public
support
for
and
opposition
to
PSC's
proposal.
Council's
role
here
is
very
narrow.
As
the
city
attorney
mentioned
councils
decision
is
a
legal
decision,
it's
not
a
policy
decision,
it's
not
a
political
decision.
L
L
For
this
conditional
use
permit
application
the
Hearing
Examiner
points
out
that
since
CSEE
and
their
members
have
been
opposing
the
energized
east
side
project
for
many
years,
this
opposition
is
a
help
D
in
critical
part
of
the
environmental
review
and
land
use
processes.
This
public
comment
and
opposition
is
exactly
what
led
to
the
thorough
analysis
contained
in
the
record
supporting
approval
of
PSECU
P.
For
example,
public
participation
directly
resulted
in
the
independent
technical
analysis
showing
project
need.
L
Public
participation
resulted
in
the
conditions
of
approval
recommended
by
the
department
and
adopted
by
the
Hearing
Examiner
addressing
pipeline
safety.
Public
comment
informed
the
environmental
record
developed
by
the
partner
cities
of
Bellevue,
Redmen,
Renton
and
Newcastle
during
the
EIS
process.
This
record
encompasses
five
years
of
environmental
review
undertaken
by
the
partner
cities
that
fully
analyzes
environmental
impacts
of
the
entire
energized
Eastside
project
and
evaluates
alternatives,
including
non
wire
alternatives
and
the
no
action
alternative.
This
is
the
most
intense
and
comprehensive
environmental
review
required
by
law.
L
Public
comment,
along
with
the
city
regulations,
adopted
bike
that
mr.
Rambabu
has
referred
to
also
forced
PSC
to
justified
this
project.
Psc
was
required
at
each
step
of
the
land-use
process
to
show
its
work
and
establish
that
its
eup
application
satisfies
the
applicable
land,
use
code,
decision
criteria
and
warrants
approval
by
the
city.
L
Despite
this
massive
record,
the
good
news
for
Council
is
once
again
that
its
role
is
very
limited
and
constrained
by
law.
Counsel,
simply
reviews
the
Hearing
Examiner
decision
with
deference
and
decides
that
the
decision
is
supported
by
the
evidence
in
the
record
counsel
is
not
required
to
re-weigh
any
evidence
or
revisit
the
technical
studies,
supporting
approval
or
judge
the
credibility
of
the
members
of
the
public
are
the
experts
who
testified
during
the
public
hearing.
The
Hearing
Examiner
has
already
completed.
L
All
of
that
work
and
Council
need
only
reviewed
the
decision
and
decided
it's
supported
by
the
record.
Now
I
represent
the
department,
I
don't
represent
Council.
There
seems
to
be
some
confusion
on
that
matter.
The
department,
Development
Services
Department
does
believe
that
the
hearing,
examiner's
decision
is
supported
by
material
and
substantial
evidence
in
the
record.
Dst
is
provided
Council
with
a
25
page
response.
We
also
provided
an
attachment,
a
that,
gives
you
a
road
map
to
all
of
the
evidence
in
the
record
supporting
the
decision.
L
Dsd
included,
attachment
a
to
help
council
manage
this
voluminous
record
and
better
understand
why
these
appeals
should
be
denied.
Based
on
that
record,
I'm,
not
going
to
repeat
all
the
information
DST
is
briefed,
but
I
do
want
to
focus
on
a
few
specific
argument,
arguments
that
have
been
raised
tonight.
First
I'll
focus
on
the
alternatives
and
segmentation
arguments
that
sense
and
its
members
have
been
raising
since
at
least
2017.
L
It
is
important
to
remember
that
the
purpose
of
the
energized
Eastside
project
is
to
meet
local
peak
demand
and
to
protect
reliability
in
the
east
side
of
King
County.
With
this
purpose
in
mind,
PSC's
application
contains
two
components:
the
Richard
Creek
substation
and
the
upgrade
of
3.3
miles
of
existing
transmission
lines
in
South
Bellevue.
The
substation
is
the
driving
piece
of
the
proposal,
but
PSC
also
requested
the
city
approved
the
replacement
of
existing
poles
and
transmission
lines
within
the
existing
utility
corridor.
L
This
existing
corridor
was
established
in
the
1920s
and
1930s
PSC's
proposal
by
its
very
nature,
requires
the
city
to
balance
the
need
for
reliable
and
sustainable
utility
services
for
all
Bellevue
citizens
with
the
environmental
and
land
use
values
that
the
city
prioritizes
in
its
policies
and
code
simply
put.
The
record
shows
that
by
using
the
existing
corridor,
PSC's
chosen
alternative
is
compatible
with
the
uses
and
development
that
have
been
built
up
around
this
transmission
line
for
decades.
None
of
the
five
appeals
before
Council
acknowledge
much
less
discuss.
L
The
fact
that
the
least
impactful
feasible
alternative
identified
by
PSE
is
to
use
the
existing
utility
corridor
to
upgrade
the
transmission
line.
Contrary
to
senses.
Argument
the
location
selection
hierarchy
in
2020,
255
D
requires
that
PSC
consider
non-residential
land
use
districts,
but
the
code
certainly
does
not
require
the
creation
of
an
entirely
new
utility
corridor
based
on
public
opposition
to
the
project.
This
is
especially
true
when
the
record
shows
the
continued
use
of
the
existing
corridor
is
the
least
impactful
feasible
alternative.
L
L
Second,
it's
very
important
for
council
to
understand
that
phase
construction
and
permitting
for
a
linear
infrastructure
project
is
not
an
example
of
piecemeal
environmental
review.
In
fact,
it's
the
opposite,
even
if
the
north
and
south
segments
are
combined
under
SEPA
for
environmental
review
purposes,
this
does
not
mean
they
have
to
be
combined
for
land
use
permitting
purposes.
L
The
department
addressed
this
argument
in
quite
some
detail
at
pages
66
to
84
of
the
Hearing
Examiner
port
and
I
would
strongly
encourage
the
council
to
read
that
portion
of
the
record
as
well
as
pages
16
to
20
of
the
department's
pre-hearing
brief
since,
and
its
members
are
now
representing
the
council
incorrectly.
The
PSC's
justification
for
the
phase
construction
project
was
a
last-minute
change
to
the
project
that
somehow
caught
the
public
by
surprise.
L
This
argument
has
no
legal
support
whatsoever,
but
I
do
want
to
remind
council
that
if
and
our
wind
PSE
seeks
a
permit
for
the
North
Bellevue
segment,
the
city
will
then
review
this
new
application,
based
on
a
new
record
developed
under
a
different
provision
in
the
land
use
code,
a
new
staff
report
and
director's
recommendation,
including
new
conditions
based
on
the
on
the
new
record.
A
new
public
hearing
before
the
Hearing
Examiner
and
a
new
decision
or
recommendation
from
the
Hearing
Examiner
mr.
A
L
I
think
the
the
Hearing
Examiner
has
hit
that
right
on
the
head.
He
said
corrective
action
plans
blackouts
affect
everybody,
and
he
says
that
in
his
decision-
and
it
doesn't
matter
if
you
live
in
a
commercial
district
if
you're
a
hospital
if
you're
a
nursing
home,
if
you're
a
residential
citizen
blackouts
affect
everybody
as
we
sit
here
tonight.
The
only
issue
before
council
is
this
record
and
whether
it
supports
this
Hearing
Examiner
decision
now
I
stay
for
the
remainder
of
the
hearing.
L
C
Honorable
mayor
deputy
mayor
and
council,
thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
speak
to
you
tonight
I'm
here
with
my
colleague,
Sarah
Leverett.
We
are
legal
counsel
for
Puget
Sound
Energy
I
support
the
cities,
Hearing
Examiner
decision
approving
the
issuance
of
a
co
P
for
this
project,
with
the
conditions
that
were
recommended
by
the
City
Planning
Department
and,
in
fact
imposed
by
the
Hearing
Examiner.
They
are
based
on
substantial
evidence
in
the
record,
which
is
carefully
detailed
in
his
decision.
C
Both
the
hearing,
examiner's
decision
in
the
PSC
table
at
the
end
of
our
memorandum
submitted
to
you,
contains
citations
to
the
record,
supporting
his
findings
and
conclusions
when
I
refer
to
record
I
appreciate
that
we're
talking
about
a
whopper
here,
15,000
pages
is
a
lot.
I
have
been
a
city
attorney
and
I've
been
legal
counsel
to
land
use
departments
for
cities
nearly
my
entire
career.
This
is
not
easy.
It's
tough
to
get
through
this
kind
of
record.
C
Turning
to
the
project
itself,
transmission
lines
and
poles
are
in
aloud
use
in
every
single
land
use
district
in
the
city
of
Bellevue
every
one
of
them
the
Cu
P.
That's
before
you
tonight
is
a
mechanism
by
which
the
city
can
require
special
conditions
on
development
or
on
the
use
of
land
to
ensure
that
designated
uses
transmission
line
houses.
Businesses
are
compatible
with
the
other
uses
in
the
same
land
use
district
or
in
the
subject
property.
This
is
in
your
code
insofar
as
incompatibility
of
land
uses.
C
C
None
today,
a
high
voltage
transmission
line
is
surrounded
by
houses
and
businesses
that
won't
change
as
a
result
of
this
project
and
in
the
words
of
Bellevue's
land
use
code,
2030
be
120,
energizes
and
I
quote
compatible
with
other
uses
in
the
same
land
use
district
and
in
the
vicinity
of
the
subject.
Property,
there
is
not
one
shred
of
evidence
in
15,000
pages
that
suggests
that
reliable
that
electricity
is
not
desired
by
anybody
inside
the
City
of
Bellevue.
C
What
has
changed
you
might
ask,
since
these
current
lines
were
installed,
Bellevue
has
experienced
eight
fold
growth
and
impacts
to
the
company's
transmission
system.
Reliability
when
peak
demand
for
power
is
made,
the
term
peak
demand
is
critical
to
this
proposal.
Peak
demand
is
that
amount
of
electricity
that
all
customers
may
simultaneously
demand
at
any
given
moment.
Pse
s
transmission
system
must
be
able
to
handle
peak
demand
at
all
times,
regardless
of
what
is
happening
elsewhere
on
the
grid
in
Bellevue
or
in
this
is
the
company's
system.
C
All
PSC
customers
in
Bellevue
and
Beyond
are
entitled
to
as
much
electricity
as
they
demand
at
any
given
moment
as
a
matter
of
law.
That
means
the
company
has
a
legal
obligation
to
ensure
that
it
can
deliver
at
all
times.
Neither
load
growth
as
mr.
RAM
borough
and
many
materials
in
the
record
refer.
Nor
annual
demand
are
the
measure
that
this
company
has
to
meet.
C
It
is
the
precise
peak
demand
that
it
has
to
plan
to
PSC's.
Director
of
system
operations
testified
at
the
public
hearing
that
unplanned
transmission
deficiencies
can
give
rise
to
unplanned
outages
as
a
safeguard.
The
company
is
required
to
have
correction
action
plans
in
place
for
such
situations.
Corrective
action
plans
include
forced
load
shedding,
which
means
deliberate
blackouts.
C
They
can
be
taken
when
the
transmission
system
fails,
but
Washington
law
requires
PSC
to
deliver
reliable,
continuous
power
to
its
customer
at
all
times,
meaning
that
caps
being
used
as
a
substitute
for
reliable
electricity
is
not
acceptable.
Pse
has
been
watching
the
growth
in
the
east
side,
including
Bellevue
for
decades
I'm
sure
you
all
have
experienced
it
as
well.
They've
been
watching
it
to
see
what
effects
the
growth
may
have
on
continued
reliability
of
its
transmission
system.
C
The
company's
existing
utility
corridor
has
been
shown
in
the
Bellevue
comp
plan
since
1993
as
the
route
that
would
be
used
for
transmission
upgrades
if
and
when
they
become
necessary.
This
has
also
been
in
the
company's
system
plan
for
decades.
Historically,
utilities
have
been
expected
to
act
responsibly
and
study
an
upgraded
system
before
reliability
deficiencies
emerge,
but
in
2007
it
became
a
mandatory
legal
duty
to
assess
its
transmission
systems,
reliability
under
a
specific
range
of
scenarios
and
stressors.
C
When
a
deficiency
is
identified,
the
company
must
plan
accordingly
for
system
upgrades
in
order
to
handle
future
peak
demand
without
interrupt
the
methodology
for
conducting
transmission,
reliability.
Studies
and
planning
is
established
by
federal
regulations
developed
by
Newark,
both
winter
and
summer.
Peak
demand
must
be
analyzed
because
electric
customers
rely
on
power
every
season
of
the
year.
C
Utilities
are
audited
for
their
compliance
with
these
regulations
and
they
are
subject
to
fines
for
failure
to
study
the
need
for
and
then
plan
transmission
upgrades.
Today,
the
law
requires
that
PSE
demonstrate
that
it
plans
10
years
in
advance
to
avoid
transmission
failures.
That
shouldn't
become
as
a
surprise,
considering
that
this
conversation
has
been
going
on
for
six
years.
10
years
is
a
reasonable
future
to
require
a
utility
to
look
into,
even
though
it's
hard
to
do.
It's
not
easy.
Without
a
crystal
ball
to
predict
what
peak
demand
is
going
to
be
in
10
years?
C
She
herself
led
the
company,
through
this
era
of
change,
to
transmission
planning
and
personally
to
the
company's
transmission
reliability
compliance
plan,
which
has
successfully
passed
every
audit
since
2007
meeting
the
standards
themselves
is
exacting
and
there
is
very
little
discretion
and
how
utilities
show
their
meeting
them
the
contingencies
and
stressors
to
a
transmission
system
that
must
be
included
in
these
studies
is
also
prescribed
by
law.
The
company
cannot
pick
and
choose
which
to
study
and
which
to
ignore
and
as
I
stated
earlier,
the
studies
have
to
be
done
for
both
winter
and
summer.
C
This
is
in
part
because
transmission
systems
can
handle
more
power
in
the
winter.
We
call
it
higher
rated,
because
the
cool
air
in
winter
helps
cool
electric
system
components
down
which
allows
them
to
run
most
efficiently
in
the
summer.
The
higher
temperatures
don't
allow
for
that
cool
weather,
cooling
and
very
hot
days,
further
limit
the
operating
range
of
the
very
same
equipment
that
functions
better
in
the
winter.
Consequently,
transmission
system,
reliability
models
must
assess
the
system's
reliability
for
both
peak
demand
in
summer
and
winter.
Looking
at
one
is
not
enough.
C
Pcs
manager
of
transmission
planning,
jens
ned
root
is
a
licensed
engineer
who
has
also
spent
his
career.
Doing
transmission
reliability
work.
He
testified
that
the
company
does
such
studies,
which
take
months
and
that
they
do
them
every
single
year
after
first.
I
excuse
me
as
I
earlier
identify
identified.
Ps
he's
been
watching
this
situation
in
the
east
side
for
decades.
This
is
not
a
quick
rush
for
money.
It's
not
some
quick
bait
and
switch
they've
been
watching
this
for
decades.
C
If
it
were
a
cash
grab,
this
would
have
been
done
in
1993
when
it
was
first
put
in
your
comprehensive
plan.
Maybe
it
would
have
been
done
earlier
than
that.
Maybe
it
would
have
been
done
later
than
that,
but
the
company
has
instead
looked
10
years
into
the
future
year
after
year
and
held
back
on
seeking
this
upgrade
study
there
every
year
got
audited
and
didn't
do
anything.
C
Finally,
in
2012
after
years
and
years
of
study,
the
report
finally
demonstrated
that
capacity
and
reliability
deficiencies
on
the
115
line
in
Bellevue
is
likely
to
result
in
transmission
system
failure
as
early
as
winter
of
2017
18
and
the
summer
of
8.
Excuse
me,
the
summer
of
2018.
In
fact,
the
system
did
exceed
the
summer
limits
twice
both
times
earlier
than
projected
mr.
Ned
Road
certified
to
this.
In
writing.
C
His
testimony
adhering
is
that
this
proposal
enhances
transmission
reliability
to
customers
served
and
to
the
reliability
of
the
system
as
a
whole,
and
that
includes
the
east
side,
including
Bellevue.
The
company's
studies
demonstrate
that
the
consequences
of
a
transmission
system
failure
were
significant
as
I
indicated.
However,
they
did
not
rush
to
judgment
immediately
in
1993
or
in
2009,
when
this
first
started
shaping
up
as
something
real
in
a
defined
date
in
the
horizon.
C
Psc
then
initiated
outreach
to
the
public
and
the
city
about
proposing
to
upgrade
the
existing
line
in
2015
quanta,
updated
its
own
study,
which
confirmed
its
2013
conclusions.
Parenthetically
PSE
continued
to
do
its
annual
assessments
internally,
as
required
by
federal
law.
There
is
no
error
in
PSE
s
decision
to
get
a
second
opinion
by
quanta
or
measure
twice
before
cutting
once
in
this
case,
the
company
took
measured
and
professionally
informed,
looks
every
single
year
at
its
situation,
and
it
still
does
today.
C
However,
the
city
of
Bellevue
and
its
constituents,
including
the
appellant
here
tonight,
were
not
satisfied
with
relying
simply
on
PSC's
studies.
They
weren't
satisfied
with
relying
on
Kwan
as
peer
reviews.
To
conclude,
there
was
a
need
for
the
project
and
because
of
this,
you
Bellevue
elected
officials
commissioned
required
and
then
commissioned
its
own
assessment.
C
You
did
your
own
assessment
of
the
company's
submittals
and
with
the
input
of
sense
and
others,
you,
the
City
of
Bellevue,
developed
a
list
of
questions
that
the
study's
author
would
have
to
answer
to
demonstrate
that
PSC's
conclusions
were
correct.
Bellevue
hired
a
company
called
use
to
answer
those
questions
and
to
assess
the
accuracy
of
PSC's
work,
use
answered
the
public,
including
census
questions
and,
in
fact,
concluded
that
PSC
had
performed
its
assessment
accurately.
C
Also
around
the
same
time,
despite
the
you
study,
the
four
Seba
cities
of
redmond,
Bellevue,
Newcastle
and
Renton
independently
hired.
Yet
another
consulting
firm
Stantec
to
also
independently
assess
PSC's
work,
Stan
Tech's,
independent
work
again
confirmed
PSC's
assessment
that
the
project
was
needed
to
address
a
transmission
deficiency
in
the
Eastside,
separate
from
the
city's
studies
and
dissatisfied
with
PSC
studies
and
cuantas
work
since
and
CSEE
separately
had
their
own
competing
study
prepared
today
referred
to
as
the
Lockhart
Schiffman
load
study.
Mr.
C
C
Nevertheless,
armed
with
this
study,
which
is
also
in
the
record
that
the
Hearing
Examiner
considered
sense
and
CSEE
challenged
puget
work
in
a
lawsuit
of
the
Federal
Energy
Regulatory
Commission,
even
with
the
load
flow
materials
provided
by
the
petitioners,
firk
found
no
error
in
PSC's
methodology
and
found
no
error
that
PSC
concluded.
Energized
Eastside
is
needed
and
it
rejected
that
appeal
at
hearing.
In
addition
to
the
Lockhart
Shipman
study
sense
also
submitted
a
needs
and
cost
study
prepared
by
Robert
McCulloch
and
a
historical
summation
done
by
mr.
C
Don
Marsh,
a
census
opposition
to
the
project,
all
of
which
was
purported
as
evidence.
That
project
is
not
needed
on
the
record.
Mr.
McCullough
admitted
to
errors
in
his
study
which,
when
they
were
corrected,
actually
supports
the
need
for
this
project.
Mr.
Marsh's
summation
speaks
to
load
growth.
Mr.
andrews
presentation
tonight
does
as
well
that
fails
to
address
the
heart
of
the
issue
here.
C
The
issue
is
need,
driven
by
peak
demand
on
the
day
when
it's
hotter
than
all
get-out
and
everybody
is
cranking
it
up
or
when
it's
terribly
cold
or
when
there
are
other
failures
inside
the
larger
grid.
Pse
still
has
to
guarantee
that
it
can
deliver.
That's
why
their
studies
take
months
and
months
to
do
and
they're
required
to
do
them
year
after
year
and
that
they're
audited
over
and
over,
for
and
for
which
they
have
gotten
multiple
peer
reviews
and
for
which
the
city
has
gone
out
and
paid
its
own
money
to
also
peer
review.
C
The
Hearing
Examiner
describes
the
substantial
evidence
that
supports
his
decision.
This
includes
testimony
from
PSC's
transmission
planning
experts,
miss
Koch
and
mr.
Ned
Ruud.
They
address
that
PSC
conducts
transmission
reliability
studies
annually
in
accordance
with
federal
law
that
their
work
is
regularly
audited
for
compliance.
Psc
has
never
failed
any
of
these
audits.
He
weighed
the
two
quanta
engineering
reports
that
peer
reviewed,
Puget
swerg,
and
then
he
assessed
the
use
and
Stantec
reports
that
independently
assess
PSC
and
qantas
work
against
that
information.
He
weighed
mr.
McCullough's,
admittedly
erroneous
work
and
mr.
C
Marsh's
summation
that
simply
ignores
peak
demand.
Indeed,
in
finding
57a
the
Hearing
Examiner
states
that,
having
quote
read
and
reread
the
opposition
reports
and
evidence
and
the
independent
studies
prepared
by
Stan,
Tech
and
use
one
finding
and
conclusion
became
crystal
clear.
The
applicant
reports,
forecasts
and
data
analyses
were
in
compliance
with
applicable
industry
standards.
The
opponents
failed
to
rebut
the
independent
consultant
reviews
of
PSC's
work
involved
in
this
this
application
process,
all
of
which
concluded
that
PSE
was
planning
and
reviewing
data
in
accord
with
industry
practice
and
standard.
C
As
for
the
single
study,
the
project
opponents
introduced
to
counter
all
of
PSE
studies,
peer
reviews,
testimony
and
evidence
in
support
of
the
need
for
energized
Eastside
at
finding
57
E.
The
Hearing
Examiner
found
just
like
FERC
that
Lockhart
shiffman's
study
was
insufficient
to
overcome
the
large
body
of
evidence
supporting
energized
Eastside
quote
mr.
Lockhart
alleged
flaws
and
the
load
flow
reports
that
PSC
relied
upon
to
demonstrate
need
for
its
energized
Eastside
project.
Among
other
things,
he
did
not
rebut
the
favorable
reviews
provided
by
independent
consultants
engaged
by
the
city
regarding
pscs,
supporting
studies,
mr.
C
Lockhart
and
the
other
project.
Opponents
did
not
demonstrate
that
the
studies
used
by
PSE
violated
any
transmission
planning
requirements
or
were
otherwise
unjust,
unreasonable
or
unduly
discriminatory
or
preferential.
Opponents
do
not
cite
anything
that
would
require
PSE
to
use
the
study
inputs
that
they
prefer
over
the
inputs
and
assumptions
that
PSC
used
unquote.
C
What
is
the
one
thing
not
in
contention
here
tonight?
There
is
not
a
single
shred
of
evidence
in
this
record
suggesting
that
safe
and
reliable
power
is
not
needed
for
the
modern
life
that
every
one
of
us
enjoys
minds
not
depends
on.
In
close
statistics
on
static
or
declining
energy
use
are
reflecting
a
decline
in
the
average
use
per
year
by
customer.
That
is,
but
only
one
element
of
electric
transmission
reliability
system
planning
energy
use
on
a
customer
basis.
You
should
not
be
confused
by
this.
The
number
of
customers
continues
to
increase.
C
Individual
demand
may
be
flat,
but
the
volume
of
customers
continues
to
increase
and
it
has
increased
Eightfold.
Since
this
line
was
built,
the
aggregate
peak
demand
is
continuing
to
increase
and
strain
PSE
system.
It
is
the
growth
in
peak
demand
that
drives
the
size
and
amount
of
infrastructure
required.
To
summarize
what
you
and
the
Hearing
Examiner
had
before
you
regarding
need.
Pscs
allows
us
alone
includes
annual
reviews
from
2009
through
2018
over
35,000
permutations
of
contingencies.
C
J
Well,
I'm
reminded,
as
I
listened
to
the
presentation
by
ms
Anderson
of
another
Anderson,
who
wrote
the
emperor,
has
no
clothes
and
the
Emperor
does
have
no
clothes
here
when
I
was
up
here.
For
my
opening
comments,
I
asked
PSE
to
identify
a
single
report,
a
single
report
that
deals
with
the
south
segment
just
with
the
south
segment.
There
was
no
answer
to
that
material.
Now.
What
they
like
to
talk
about
is
well.
We
have
the
Stantec
report.
We
have
two
quanto
reports.
J
We
have
the
eu's
report.
We
have
the
FERC
decision.
All
of
them
share
one
thing
in
common:
didn't
deal
with
this
project:
it's
not
this
project,
it's
not
the
South
segment,
all
the
way
along
through
all
of
this
work.
It
was
indicated
that
the
entire
the
the
project
that
was
necessary
and
proposed
was
the
run
that
ran
sixteen
miles
from
Renton
to
Redmond.
That
was
the
project.
There
hasn't
been
a
study
on
this
3.3
mile
little
dead-end
project.
J
Now
that's
important
because
your
code
requires
an
applicant
to
produce
information,
and
your
decision
criteria
says
the
the
applicant
shall
demonstrate
an
operational
need
exists
that
requires
the
location
or
expansion
at
the
proposed
site.
Three
point
three
miles:
is
there
a
proof
that
an
operational
need
requires
a
three
point,
three
mile
segment
of
this
of
this
line?
J
Of
course
not
there
isn't,
it
doesn't
exist,
subsection
5b
of
the
decision
criteria
and
your
wonderful
ordinance
of
2008,
where
feasible
the
prudent
the
preferred
alternative
identified
is
located
within
the
land
use
district
requiring
additional
service
and
residential
land
use.
Districts
are
to
be
avoided.
Well,
is
that
is
there
any
showing
that
the
south
segment
is
the
section
that
meet
needs
additional
service?
Well,
of
course
not.
J
Everyone
admits
that
the
growth
in
Bellevue
on
the
growth
in
the
east
side
is
centered
in
the
downtown
area
in
the
spring
district
and
the
other
places
in
the
downtown
part
of
the
city,
not
in
the
Somerset
area,
not
in
the
three
point
two
miles
which
is
80%
residential
through
which
that
line
runs,
there's
not
been
no
proof
of
any
indication
of
any
of
those.
Those
residents
in
that
area
need
this
facility
at
all,
so
the
standard
and
mr.
J
McFarland
helped
us
out
here
by
saying
well,
is
there
material
and
substantial
evidence
that
supports
the
decision?
There
isn't
because
there
isn't
any
evidence
about
the
south
segment
now.
This
is
important
because
we
we
have
labored
in
hearing
after
hearing
and
meeting
after
meeting
and
reading
thousands
of
pages
of
an
environmental
impact
statement
and
none
of
them
dealt
with
the
south
segment.
None
of
them
did
that
mr.
Halverson
mr.
J
J
J
Pse
says:
well:
we're
just
gonna
build
this
south
segment
now
and
maybe
we're
gonna
build
a
north
segment
later
when
well,
it's
been
two
and
a
half
26
months.
No
application
has
been
forthcoming,
doesn't
appear
ones
going
to
be
happening
anytime
soon.
Is
this
something
that
we
ought
to
worry
about
for
brownouts
blackouts,
these
horrible
things
that
are
going
to
happen
in
the
winter
of
2018,
when
they
don't
even
have
enough
interest
to
finish
that
the
last
5.3
miles
of
it
in
Bellevue?
Does
that
make
any
sense?
J
F
J
Substantial
evidence
that
that
supports
this
decision,
so
Miss
Andersen,
says
well
we're
very
careful
over
here
at
PSC.
We
do
everything
right.
We
adopt
the
without
the
eyes
across
the
T,
whatever
it
is,
and
we
do
all
those
things
over
here
and
if
that's
true,
why?
There's
a
utility
and
transportation
Commission
say
that
PSE
has
consistently
exaggerated
its
growth
rates.
I
mean
these
are
people
whose
job
it
is
to
look
after
PSE.
Why
do
they
say
that?
J
And
why,
in
fact,
between
2012
and
2014,
when
PSE
suggested,
there
would
be
a
growth
increase
of
1.5
percent?
In
fact,
it
dropped
by
1.3
percent.
Almost
a
3
percent
difference
are
these
people
that
can
be
trusted
with
this
situation,
keeping
in
mind
that
they
enjoy
something
I
wish
I
had
in
my
business
and
lots
of
business.
People
would
love
to
have
a
guaranteed
rate
of
return
on
these
investments.
J
They
they
are
going
to
take
all
the
money
from
here
tonight,
mrs.
Anderson's
bills,
everybody
else's
bills,
they're
going
to
be
folded
into
the
rate
base
and
they're
gonna
be
paid
for
by
the
people
in
this
room
and
new
people
on
the
council.
Now,
and
has
the
utilities
and
Transportation
Commission
ever
turned
down
PSE
for
an
investment.
J
J
J
There's
not
a
demonstration
of
need,
there's
not
a
demonstration
that
there
has
been
the
kind
of
analysis
necessary
to
determine
compliance
with
your
own
ordinance.
What
the
council
needs
to
do-
and
this
is
our
request-
is
to
do
two
things.
One
remand
it
back
and
require
that
the
staff
and
Hearing
Examiner
have
technical,
detailed
studies
on
this
south
segment.
J
We
think
if
that
work
was
done,
that
if
we
can
get
by
with
half
of
the
line,
maybe
we
don't
need
any
of
the
line
and
we
think
that's
what
that
analysis
would
show,
but
at
least
it
needs
to
be
done
to
comply
with
the
with
the
ordinance.
Secondly,
we
need
to
look
at
the
data.
They
talk
about
transparency,
but
they
don't.
They
don't
show
their
data.
We've
asked
them
for
years
and
years
and
years
tell
us
what
these
peak
peak
demands
are.
When
did
these
things
occur?
How
big
are
they
well?
J
No,
we
can't
give
that
to
you
because
well
we
have
these
security
responsibilities
and
these
these
people
are
not.
People
can
really
be
trusted.
With
with
this
information
truth,
the
matter
is
peak
numbers
for
how
much
power
is
being
used
at
this
moment
in
the
city
of
Bellevue
are
available
and
can
be
provided
and
help
you
and
your
constituents
determine
whether
or
not
they
really
is
innate.
Are
things
really
going
up?
Are
they
are
we
really
risking
brownouts
and
blackouts?
Is
this
guy
gonna
fall?
We
don't
have
that
information.
J
The
Hearing
Examiner
erred
when
he
did
not
require
PSC
to
produce
that
information,
and
it's
not
security
information.
It
doesn't
talk
about
individual
customers.
We
just
want
the
data
for
individual
substations
within
the
city,
easy
stuff
to
get,
and
wouldn't
you
like
to
know
if
PS
ease
predictions
are
really
coming?
True,
wouldn't
you
like
to
know
if
the?
J
If,
in
fact,
tomorrow
night,
everything
we
see
out
here
is
going
to
go
dark
well,
just
as
in
anything
else,
you
do
in
utilities
and
other
things
you
look
at
the
past
performance
and
you
find
out
whether
that
past
performance
indicates
that
there's
a
need
to
do
something.
You
don't
have
that
information,
you
need
it
to
make
your
decision.
J
So
where
are
we
twenty-eight
seconds
twenty-seven?
We
think
need
has
not
been
shown
and
need
has
not
been
certainly
shown
for
the
south
segment.
It
should
be
turned
down
on
that
basis.
It
should
be
remanded
back
to
get
that
detailed
electrical
technical
engineering,
information,
that's
necessary,
and
data
indicated
that
we've
requested
be
made
available
to
us
and
there
we
go.
A
You
very
much
so
I
think
what
I'm
gonna
do
at
the
moment
is
just
ask
if
council
members
do
have
any
questions
of
the
parties,
if
that's-
and
this
would
be
specific
to
the
parties,
if
not,
we
have
a
voluminous
record
that
is
before
us,
which
is
what
we
actually
have
to
rule
on.
Clearly,
they
could
not
talk
in
60
minutes
about
everything
that
is
in
the
in
the
15,000
pages
here.
E
C
Everybody
and
deputy
mayor
in
particular,
I,
didn't
say
that
demand
is
training.
The
system
I
said
that
peak
demand
is
testing
the
reliability
of
this
system
to
continue
to
perform.
That's
what
federal
law
requires
not
demand
and
I
will
analogize
I'm
sure
it
will
drive
my
client
crazy,
but
I'll
analogize
to
a
sewer
pipe
because
you're
in
the
business
of
utilities
as
well
so
stay
with
me.
C
Let's
assume
that
a
sewer
pipe
receives
three
hundred
and
sixty-five
thousand
gallons
of
sewer
per
year
might
go
up
a
little
teeny
bit,
but
the
demand
is
pretty
much
three
hundred
and
sixty
five
thousand
gallons
per
year.
If
I
break
that
out,
the
line
is
not
sized
for
twenty
four
thousand
gallons
per
day,
four
thousand
gallons
per
hour,
because
that's
not
what
your
pipelines
are
sized
for.
C
Your
pipelines
are
sized
for
when
everybody's
flushing,
the
toilet,
at
the
same
time,
doing
their
laundry
and
taking
showers
getting
ready
for
school
they're
sized
larger
to
handle
peak
amount.
That's
what
PSC
is
struggling
with
here
and
peak
demand
exists
in
Bellevue
up
and
down
the
corridor.
It
has
been
studied
in
all
of
the
citations
to
all
of
those
studies
are.
In
my
brief.
It
looks
at
peak
demand
in
Bellevue
in
its
entirety.
C
E
Can
I
clarify
my
question,
then
sure?
So
in
your
memo
you,
you
say
that
the
actual
PSC
data
showing
that
the
eastside
grid
had
exceeded
summer
performance
capacity
multiple
times
in
the
summers
of
2018
and
2019,
and
you
also
say
that
PSC's
actual
real-time
data
shows
that
the
need
for
the
project
is
now
so
I'm
wondering
when
your
footnote
there
is
testimony
firmus
by
mr.
so
or
I,
don't
know
his
name
coke
coke.
Thank
you.
So
is
there
data
to
support
what
he's
saying
there
somewhere
in
the
record
there.
C
Is
you
will
find
it
in
the
quanta
reports
that
are
in
the
record?
The
citations
to
those
actual
pages
are
in
the
hearing?
Examiner's
memorandum
decision-
I,
don't
have
the
exact
pages
I
believe
they
started
around
page
33
you'll
also
find
those
citations
in
a
chart
that
is
attached
to
my
memo
to
you
and
it
includes
I
find.
C
A
E
E
C
C
C
A
C
J
I'll
be
brief,
and
it's
a
long
record,
but
I
do
not
recall
that
the
data,
the
specific
data
define
data
for
2018
2017
has
has.
Is
it
found
in
the
record,
the
the
the
the
the
quanto
reports
are
all
before
them.
So
you
can't
cite
those
the
city.
The
city
asked
the
PSC
about
how
things
were
going
in
the
summertime
and
I
said.
Well,
we've
exceeded
this,
but
they
didn't
give
any
data.
This
is
a
data-driven
process
and
that
data
hasn't
been
been
produced
and
it's
not
in
the
record.
Okay,.
K
Just
just
to
give
this
an
additional
important
context:
I
mentioned
two
motions
that
were
denied
by
the
Hearing
Examiner
without
reason,
in
violation
of
a
number
of
cases
on
due
process,
those
motions
dealt
with
the
specific
data
and
it
was
very
clear
that
this
was
the
only
way
we
were
gonna
be
able
to
present
her
case
and,
astonishingly
with
that
was
denied.
Without
reason.
We
don't
know
why
and
I
think
we
should
find
out.
You
should
find
out,
so
you
can
do
your
job.
Those.
K
F
K
A
A
A
The
ability
and
the
work
that
is
done
by
our
staff
to
be
able
to
put
this
record
into
a
usable
way
into
a
way
that
we
can
use
it
is,
is
really
terrific.
It
goes
beyond
belief
to
have
been
able
to
put
this
amount
of
record
onto
onto
our
the
sticks
that
we
were
able
to
use.
I
will
tell
you
being
stuck
on
an
airplane
for
hours.
One
way
and
four
hours
back
I
got
a
lot
of
work
done
last
weekend
so
and
it
was
because
our
staff
was
able
to
do
that.
A
So
again,
thank
you.
Thank
you
for
your
participation.
We
will,
we
will
be
a
journey
into.
We
will
be
a
journey
from
the
meeting
tonight.
There
will
be
no
decision
as
I
said
tonight,
given
the
amount
of
record
I
think
it's
going
to
take
a
number
of
weeks
before
we
are
ready
to
be
able
to
come
back
into
public
session
and
be
able
to
have
a
discussion
about
that.
So
I'm
thinking,
you
know,
I'm
thinking
it.
If
this
is
the
sixteenth,
that
would
not
surprise
me
if
we
are
30
days
out.
A
That
wouldn't
surprise
me
I,
don't
want
yes,
mr.
Aaron
Burr,
oh
of
course
we
what
we
will
be
giving
the
party's
notice
we
will
so
we
will,
as
we
get
closer
to
being
able
to
have
that
date,
and
we
know
it.
We
will
give
you
as
in
much
advance
notice,
as
we
can.
Is
there
a
requirement
under?
Do
we
have
anything
in
the
code
that
requires
a
certain
days.
I
know
we
met
the
14
day
requirement
about
this
hearing.
A
Yeah
and
it's
it
is
that
there
is
the
potential
that
we
would
not
do
this
on
a
council
agenda
night.
If
there's
the
potential
like
tonight
that
we
would
do
it
on
a
non
council
night,
you
don't
need
to
sit
through
a
couple
of
dozen
proclamations
and
mr.
Zimmerman
for
those
of
you
who
know
mr.
Zimmerman,
the
cell
again
I
think
it
will
be
a
while.
We
will
get
notice
to
the
parties,
I
think
the
parties,
if
you
can
get
notice
out
to
the
people
who
are
your
members,
that
would
be
helpful.
A
We'll
try
to
give
you
as
much
advance
notice,
as
is
possible.
We
have,
we
will
provide.
Also,
then,
if
especially
if
it
is
a
special
meeting,
will
provide
special
notice
to
those
who
are
on
file
for
getting
a
special
meeting
notice.
If
not,
it
could
possibly
be
on
a
regular
agenda
and
I'm
I
can't
give
you
a
specific
answer
tonight
and
I
apologize
for
that.
But
it's
a
big
record.
Okay.