III. Public Participation in EIR Review Process

During the course of the CEQA review, the Commission provided various opportunities for public involvement, as required by CEQA, and took advantage of the insights and ideas of community members. The Commission issued a "notice of preparation" (NOP) of an EIR on September 5, 2003, and distributed it to the State Clearinghouse, city, county, state and federal agencies, affected state and federal legislators, local elected officials, and members of the public adjacent to the proposed transmission line route. Interested parties had 30 days to submit comments regarding the scope of the EIR. The Commission received e-mails and letters from 63 members of the public in response to the NOP.

The Commission held two scoping meetings prior to developing project alternatives to study and mitigation measures to consider. These meetings provide the Commission with input from the public regarding the proper scope and content of the EIR. The Commission held these scoping meetings on September 15, 2003, in the Spring Valley Branch Library in Spring Valley and on September 16, 2003, in the Santee City Hall in Santee. Approximately 34 people attended the scoping meetings. Among the parties who submitted written or verbal comments were individuals, the City of San Diego, the City of Santee, the County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation, the County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use, the Otay Water District, the Padre Dam Municipal Water District, the Miramar Marine Corps Air Station, the Cajon Valley School District, and two community groups called Preserve Wild Santee and Santee Citizens for Safe Power. These organizations and a number of individuals raised a variety of concerns, which are described in more detail in the final EIR:

· The need for the project and whether SDG&E had justified constructing the project;

· Impacts on the quality of life, including health risks associated with EMF exposure, visual impacts, effects on local property values and potential conflicts with other community uses such as fire protection, traffic, and recreation;

· Impacts on the natural environment including local habitat, plants and wildlife especially in identified upland and wetland areas;

· Project alternatives, including undergrounding, route modifications, and pole design; and

· Environmental decision-making process, including the fairness of the process, the need for good information about project status and the need to conduct a thorough environmental evaluation.

Commission staff subsequently issued a scoping report summarizing issues and concerns identified by the public and various agencies during the scoping process. The Commission made the report available for review at local EIR Information Repositories and on the Internet. The report determined that CEQA requires the Commission to conduct an EIR. Commission staff subsequently engaged the services of an environmental consultant and supervised its work on a DEIR.

The Commission notified the project mailing list on April 1, 2004 of the availability of the DEIR. In May 2004, the Commission held four public participation hearings and informational meetings in the project corridor. Two were held in the City of Santee, one in the City of El Cajon and one in the City of Spring Valley. The purpose of the meetings was to describe the proposed project, the findings of the DEIR, and how to participate in the Commission's decision-making processes. Members of the public spoke at the meetings, mostly in favor of project undergrounding.

The public review period for the DEIR ended on May 17, 2004 when the Commission received comments from 30 parties and members of the public. The FEIR considers these comments. The comments in favor of the project mostly raised concerns with the need to relieve regional congestion and associated CAISO costs, the costs of delaying construction and the limited benefits associated with undergrounding alternatives. Comments critical of the project raised concerns with the impact of EMF levels on health, the loss of property values, the visual impact of overhead lines in residential areas, noise from overhead lines and the effects of the project on natural habitat and wildlife, among other things.