Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCC AGENDA PK 1992/02/24TO: VIA: FROM: DATE: R8s Members of the Resource Conservation Commission Robert A. Leiter, Planning Director ~~ Douglas Reid, Environmental Review Coordir February 24, 1992 RCC Recommendation to Hold Public Hearings On September 23, 1991, the Chula Vista City Council received a memo from the Chairperson of the RCC recommending that public hearings be considered on Draft EIR's (DEIR). The City Council then directed planning department staff to provide an analysis of the pros and cons concerning this recommendation, in order to formulate the groundwork for an ultimate policy decision. The following is an attempt to outline the considerations involved in both sides of the issue. PROS: 1. Additional oublic inout Holding public hearings at RCC meetings would give the RCC the opportunity to hear the public's environmental concerns directly in person, instead of from written comment letters submitted on the EIR. This would provide the RCC with the opportunity to ask questions from interested citizens about the project and get additional public input prior to making their recommendation to the Planning Commission on the adequacy of the EIR. By holding public hearings at the RCC meetings, the RCC members would hear verbally from the public about their environmental concerns instead of just in writing. -2- 1. 3. Duplication in the EIR Process. consultant during the lna phase of the EIR Process. There is no requirement by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to hold public hearings on EIR's. Some jurisdictions, such as the City of San Diego, do not hold public hearings on EIR's. The City of Chula Vista's policy to hold public hearings on the DEIR is above and beyond the basic mandate of CEQA. This is a requirement set forth by the Chula Vista Environmental Review Procedures. Holding public hearings on DEIR's at the RCC meetings would parallel and duplicate the current City policy to receive public testimony on the DEIR before the Planning Commission. This could result in duplication by the EIR F~ 1 EIR Response to Comments Additional time commitment required by RCC members. RCC members would be required to make a commitment to the City to spend additional time attending longer RCC meetings. In addition, the secretarial support to the RCC would likewise be required to make additional time committments. Additional time commitment required by the public. Typical Planning Commission public hearings on DEIR'S presently range anywhere from approximately 30 minutes to several hours or more, depending on the complexity of the project, the level of controversy, and the number of environmental issues. By requiring public hearings on DEIR's at the RCC level, the public would be required to attend one additional public hearing to present their testimony. This could be a burden to some members of the public who may have difficulty finding transportation or may not be comfortable attending night meetings. -3- Due to the City's recent policy decision to require an informal public forum to be held prior to the Planning Commission hearing on large scale projects, the decision to hold public hearings at the RCC would create two additional steps in the already complex EIR process. 4. Additional time commitment required by City staff and Consultants. Holding public hearings at RCC meetings would increase the length of the meetings, necessitating additional secretarial time for typing minutes, public hearing transcripts, and notices of public hearings. This would also increase the time commitment of staff planners who would be involved in coordinating these additional tasks. This decision would translate into additional costs to the city for staff time, as well as, costs involved in mailing public notices to property owners and publishing them in the Star News. These costs would, ultimately, be passed on to the project applicant. 5. Additional costs to the aoolicant. There will be an increase in the scope of the environmental review process, additional costs incurred by mailing out notices to the public of RCC public hearings, increased comments to respond to in the Final EIR, and increased attendance by the EIR Consultant at RCC meetings, all of which contribute to an increase in the cost of preparing the EIR. CONCLUSION Overall, it appears that holding public hearings at the RCC meetings, would create an additional burden on the RCC members, the public, the applicant, and city staff. The primary positive outcome of holding public hearings at the RCC meetings--increased public input during the RCC's review of environmental documents--does not appear to provide enough of an incentive to change the existing procedures due to the increased time commitments and increased costs.