City Council Minutes 2001 03 06 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Louisville City Council Meeting March 6, 2001 Page 8 high temperature episodes. She also asked that the monitoring be conducted over a significant amount of time. Mike Gheleta, 761 Pear Court, Louisville, CO, stated that he represented the Louisville Power Line Corridor Association at the Public Utility Commission hearings. He voiced his opinion that the PSCo application does not meet the Special Review Use criteria. He stated the Planning Commission was remanded the application for review of pole height and rerouting of the line, and that Public Service has already ordered the poles that they originally requested. He also noted that PSCo did not commit to rerouting the line. He stated that there is no written ruling by the PUC, only a press release, and that the PUC hearing proved that PSCo has over estimated the burial of the power lines. He suggested that the PUC and the City form a government-to-government partnership to resolve this matter. He noted that it appears the PUC has rejected the suggestion. He stated that it is likely that the District Court will ultimately decide on the issue of the power lines. He urged the Council to deny the PSCo Special Review Use application. He stated that if Council is inclined to approve the SRU application, stringent conditions should be added, to include significant monitoring for EMF and noise levels, and maintenance of the existing pole locations. He stated that it is actually the Court's role to decide on the dispute between the two entities. Heating no other public comments, Davidson closed the public heating. COUNCIL QUESTIONS Sisk thanked Mr. Gheleta for representing the Power Line Corridor Association pro-bono and asked how many hours he donated to this case. Gheleta stated that he donated over 200 hours to the Power Line Corridor Association. Sisk remarked that a billing rate for those hours would have been astronomical. He voiced his concern that the City's cost for defense of this case in Court would be prohibitive. Sisk asked Mr. Diehl if he believed that a press release rises to the level of a written ruling. Diehl stated that he did not believe a press release rises to the level of a written ruling, however the PUC made an oral ruling on February 14, 2001 and stated a written ruling would follow. He believed that the written ruling would be very similar in nature to the oral ruling. Ci~ Attorney Light stated that he did not have a copy of the transcript of the February 14 proceedings, but he did speak with the Staff Attorney for the Public Utilities Commission and was told the written ruling should be issued within a week. Light stated that they will deliberate in public and then make an oral ruling. He stated that he expected