Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAudience Comment - Jeanne DeMund /�J�12 e�C� l�o��t�� �C?4,,,z. �?f�v�C� ��/�Za�(� ARAMBURU �Z.EUSTIS, LLP Attorneys at Law J.Richard Aramburu 720 Third Avenue,Suite 2000 ricic@aramburu-eusris.com Seattle,WA 98104 Jeffrey M.Eustis Tel 206.625.9515 eusris a aramburu-eusds.com Fax 206.682.1376 www.aramburu-eustis.com August 31, 2017 Carol Helland Via Email: Development Services Land Use Director CHelland@BellevueWA.gov City of Bellevue P.O. Box 90012 Bellevue 98009 Steve Osguthorpe, AICP Via Email: Community Development Director SteveO�NewcastleWA.gov City of NewCastle 12835 Newcastle Way, Suite 200 Newcastle, WA 98056 Jennifer Henning Via Email: Planning Director JHenning@RentonWA.gov Renton City Hall 1055 S. Grady Way Renton, WA 98057 Re: PSE Segmentation of Proposed Transmission line ("Energize Eastside"); Need for Supplemental DEIS on New Transmission Proposal in Renton, Newcastle and Bellevue Dear Ms. Helland, Mr. Osguthorpe, and Ms. Henning: As you are aware from our extended correspondence, I represent the Coalition of Eastside Neighbors for Sensible Energy (CENSE). CENSE has registered their concerns in various forums over the past years concerning the 18-mile 230kv transmission line proposed by PSE, branded as part of its intensive public relations campaign as "Energize Eastside." The "Energize Eastside" project was launched in December 2013, almost four years ago. To date, PSE has prepared two separate draft environmental impact statements (DEISs) on its proposal. CENSE has provided extensive public comment on these documents, oralfy at public hearings and in writing. The most recent comment period Mr.Johnny Harris Project 3018723 August 31,2017 Page 2 on the Phase 2 DEIS ended on June 21, 2017, about two months ago. On the first page of that document (dated May 8, 2017), the "Energize Eastside" project was described as foliows: The Energize Eastside project is a proposal to construct approximately 18 miles of new 230 Kilovolt(kV) electrical transmission lines and to add a new substation (Richards Creek) at the Lakeside substation in Bellevue to connect two existing bulk energy systems (one to the north in Redmond and one to the south in Renton), supply future electrical capacity and improve electrical grid reliability for Eastside communities." The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) is, according to the "Energize Eastside"website, to be publicly available in early 2018. Pursuant to the SEPA rules, no hearings can proceed on any permit applications for this proposal until the FEIS is available. During environmental review, the routing of PSE's proposed transmission has always been considered a single project, albeit with routing options. The Phase I DEIS spent some fifty-four pages discussing project alternatives, but there was no discussion of segmenting the project for permitting or construction that would divide the project into a northern and southern component. Recently, PSE has made major press releases advertising that it has chosen a route for the 18-mile transmission line, referenced by PSE as the "Willow Route," although no actual permit applications have been received from PSE for this route. Permit applications would be required in Renton, Newcastle and Bellevue. Given the background described above, CENSE members were surprised to read on the "Energi2e Eastside"website approximately three weeks ago the following: PSE will soon submit permit applications for the southern portion of the project. PSE's plan is to build and energize the new Richards Creek substation in Bellevue and upgrade the transmission lines in south Bellevue, Newcastle, and Renton by summer 2018. We anticipate submitting permits for the northern portion later this year. We need to build Energize Eastside in two construction phases to keep the backbone of the existing transmission system online and serving customers. By having the southern portion in service by next summer, we can avoid the need for rolling blackout plans. Once we've energized the southern portion of the project, we will begin work on the northern portion. Mr.Johnny Harris Project 3018723 August 31,2017 Page 3 From the foregoing, PSE indicates it will ask Bellevue, Newcastle and Renton to review and process separate permit applications for the southern segment of the project. It also says that by building the southern segment of the project, PSE "can avoid the need for rolling blackout plans." As described above, this piecemealing of the proposal is entirely new. For the reasons stated below, CENSE believes that separating this single project into two segments is inconsistent with applicable statutes, rules and regulations. Accordingly, we ask that Renton, Newcastle and Bellevue not accept separate applications for processing but insist on a single application and review for the entire 18-mile project. In addition, the statement that the southern portion will provide previously undisclosed benefits requires the preparation of a supplemental DEIS to discuss the segmenting proposal. The basis for our position is set forth below. First, throughout the protracted SEPA process the proposal has been considered a single project. This was due in part to PSE statements in the first DEIS that the proposed transmission will be necessary to serve the Bellevue Central Business District and surrounding areas. Certainly there is no documentation that communities along PSE's proposed southern segment are in need of additional transmission capacity. No alternatives were identified in either DEIS that would divide the project into two separate segments. If the applicant now intends to divide the proposal into segments, that alternative must be considered in a supplemental EIS. If building the southern segment of the project separately really does "avoid the need for rolling blackout plans,"then that alternative should be considered in environmental review. Given the history of the review of this project, starting in December 2013, it is implausible that PSE would not have known of this course of action in May, 2017, when the Phase 2 DEIS was issued. This is the kind of new information about the project that requires a supplemental DEIS under WAC 197-11-405(4)(b), Second, the bifurcation of the project is contrary to established land use and planning law. The impacts of the whole project must be considered in a single proceeding, lest the impacts of the whole are lost in an artificial division. Indeed, as the CENSE comments at various stages of the project have shown, the project as a whole lacks merit (and is a waste of public resources) because there is no need for it. A single proposal needs a single public hearing and one review. Third, bifurcating the process into north and south segments creates an unnecessary and wasteful review process. Interested citizens would be required to participate in two separate reviews for a single project. Local residents have already had to endure two Mr.Johnny Harris Project 3018723 August 31,2017 Page 4 separate and duplicative SEPA draft environmental impact statement reviews. To extend this process further with PSE's plan to try to wear out concerned neighbors with separate and duplicative reviews is inappropriate to the cities' policies of engagement of local citizens in the land use review process. Fourth, PSE's announced intention is to have permits issued for its proposed new "South Segment" in early 2018. However, according to its own website, the final environmental impact statement for the proposal will not be issued until early 2018. The SEPA Rules, in effect for more than thirty years, provide at WAC 197-11-655(2) that: Relevant environmental documents, comments, and responses shall accompany proposals through existing agency review processes, as determined by agency practice and procedure, so that agency officials use them in making decisions. See also SEPA itself, RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(d) (the detailed statement shall accompany the proposal through the existing agency review processes). Accordingly, the review process for the South Segment, even if appropriate under the law, cannot begin until the cities have the FEIS available for review. Fourth, it is apparent that the raison d'etre for the bifurcation of the project is to avoid engaging the East Bellevue Community Council (EBCC) in decision-making for the whole project. As described in Puget Sound Energy, Inc. v. East Bellevue Community Council, 74464-0-I, 74465-8-I, Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, January 30, 2017 (Unpublished), EBCC has previously been critical of PSE transmission projects within its jurisdiction. By dividing its project into separate north and south segments, and proposing to proceed with the south segment first, PSE can avoid EBCC decision- making while it builds the south segment of the project. The cities should not permit this deliberate avoidance of permitting procedures requiring local community review of conditional use permits. Washington law has been clear for many years that segmentation of a single project is not appropriate. In Merkel v. Port of Brownsville, 8 Wn.App. 844, 509 P.2d 390 (1973), the Court rejected the segmentation of a single project into shoreline and upland elements for approval. The court indicated: There is nothing in the record before us to indicate that the contemplated construction has ever been anything but one project. The question, therefore, is whether the Port may take a single project and divide it into segments for purposes of SEPA and SMA approval. 8 Wn.App. at 850-51. Indeed, the Bellevue Municipal Code for"electrical utility Mr.Johnny Harrts Project 3018'723 August 31,2017 Page 5 facilities"at BMC 20.20.225.E.4 requires that: "T#ae applicant shafi demonstrate that the propased electrical utility facility improves cel�ability to the customers served and reliabili , of the system as a whole . . .° �emphasis supp4ied). Sepa�ate review of an arfificial narth and south segment of the praposed 18-mile trar�smission line.is not appropriate under the code. In summary, PSE's annaunced intention#o#ake its single proJec#, long touted by it as necessary to address growth in downtown BeNevue and environs, and break it into finro parts. Such a bifurcation�s inconsistent with the priar extensive SEPA review, with (ocal ordinances and w�th Washington cas+elaw and the cities should �ot accept piecemeai appiications for#he�roject. Further, given the utility promated for the project to resolve "rolling blackouts"without addressing that issue ln the two DEISs, a suppleme�ntai DEIS must be prepared to address, document and consider this new a{ternative. We ask Renton, Newcastle and BeHevue to d�cline to accept piecemeat permits fur this project. Tharik you far your attention to this request. If yau have any questions, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, A: euRu&Eu T�s, LP J,� -�,., '�-� 1.�1i�' �` � J. Richard Arambun� JRA:cc cc: CENSE B�1levue City Cour�cil ' Newcastle City Council Renton City Caunci)