Planners Back New Process for Reviews : Environment: Foes criticize the move to cut the chances for public hearings and eliminate appeals. Proponents say the revisions would cut waste.

Area environmentalists on Monday accused Ventura County officials of trying to weaken the environmental review process by reducing opportunities for public hearings and eliminating appeals to the Board of Supervisors.

The accusations came as the Board of Supervisors prepared to decide today whether to approve a county Planning Division recommendation to bypass the county’s Environmental Report Review Committee in some instances.

The committee is a team of seven technical advisers from county departments that include Planning, Public Works, Environmental Health, Air Pollution Control District, the agriculture commissioner’s office, the Fire Protection District and the Local Agency Formation Commission.

A second Planning Division recommendation calls for the board to eliminate appeals of the committee’s decisions on whether planning documents have adequately addressed potential effects on the environment.

“This is one less opportunity for the public to have input at public hearings,” said Patricia Baggerly of the Environmental Coalition of Ventura County.

“The clear effect . . . is to diminish the role and voice of the interested public in the environmental review process,” said Mark Capelli, executive director of the Friends of the Ventura River.

But Stacy Roscoe, president of the Ventura County Taxpayers Assn., hailed the recommendation as a move to cut waste in government.

“This will do away with the redundant requirements without denying access or opportunity for anyone who wants to participate,” he said.

Members of the public will still have a chance to comment on environmental documents by writing to the county during a 21- to 30-day written comment period, said Bruce Smith, manager of the general plan section of the County Planning Division.

The public will also have the opportunity to attend public hearings on projects when the Board of Supervisors or planning commissioners vote on them, he said.

“In these times of added scrutiny on the efficiency of local government, this (the proposed change) is recommended as a cost- and time-saving measure,” Smith said. “Also, it (the environmental report committee’s review) is not a required step under state law.”

Smith said eliminating committee review in some instances would chop a week off the processing time and save $100 to $200 of the cost of processing each project.

Although he said those costs are now passed along to the applicants, he said there are additional costs to the county in preparing for the public hearings and in travel time for those staff members who serve on the review committee.

But he said he had no estimates of the total time or cost it would save the county and its staff.

Under existing policy, the committee holds a public hearing to scrutinize all environmental impact documents for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. After the committee makes a finding on whether the documents are adequate, the proposed projects go before the Planning Commission or the Board of Supervisors for final approval.

The documents reviewed can be full, detailed environmental impact reports prepared by private consultants, or smaller reports prepared by the county planning staff declaring the proposed project has no significant impact on the environment. In the latter case, the report is called a negative declaration.

Under the Planning Division recommendations, when the county staff makes a negative-impact declaration, the proposed project would bypass the technical advisers on the environmental review committee and go directly to the decision-making body.

Review of full environmental impact reports would remain a duty of the committee.

With the existing policy, environmentalists or others who disagree with the committee’s findings on whether the reports are adequate can appeal the findings to the Board of Supervisors.

Under the second Planning Division recommendation, appeals would no longer be allowed.

During the past year, the Board of Supervisors has opted to sit as the Environmental Report Review Committee for three large projects with known opposition in order to save the time appeals would have taken.

Those projects included the massive Ahmanson Ranch development in the east end of the county, the new county jail near Santa Paula and the proposed Weldon Canyon Landfill north of Ventura. Most appeals delay projects at least a month, Smith said.

Bypassing the committee is evidence of “a gradual erosion of the county’s commitment to the CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) process,” said Capelli, a biologist with the Friends of the Ventura River. “This latest set of proposals . . . retreats from a fundamental goal of maximum public participation in the public decision-making process.”

The two proposed revisions to the county’s policy are part of a package of four changes the board is scheduled to consider. The third and fourth recommendations involve notification among public agencies and specific wording of final approval documents.