Opinion ID: 3011395
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compliance with Public Participation

Text: Requirements. The Residents raise both procedural and substantive issues with the manner in which the City conducted public hearings on the proposed project. Procedurally, the Residents contend that HUD regulations required the City to hold public hearings before the City submitted its amended grant application and before the City decided whether the project had a significant environmental impact. Appellants' Brief at 20. The Residents further contend that, even though the City purported to hold public hearings, those hearings did not comply with the substantive public participation requirements because the City had already decided to proceed with the project and never gave any consideration to the opposition that was voiced during the public hearings. Applicants for UDAG grants are required to hold public hearings prior to applying for a grant in order to obtain the general views of citizens and neighboring residents, particularly those of low and moderate income. 24 C.F.R. 570.454(a) & (b). HUD also requires grant applicants to allow the public to review an applicant's FONSI. 24 C.F.R. S 58.46. Here, the City held public hearings on the proposed project and provided an opportunity for the public to review its FONSI at the conclusion of the City's EA. However, the Residents contend that these hearings were little more than a charade. They argue that the City did not provide for meaningful public participation because the hearings were held after the UDAG application had been submitted to HUD.7 In support of their claim that the City never had any intention of considering public comments, the Residents assert that the Executive Director of the City Planning Commission stated that the project was adone deal before public hearings were held. Similarly, the Residents point to testimony that the Vice President of the _________________________________________________________________ 7. As noted above, this application was actually the fifth amendment to a UDAG application first approved by HUD in 1986 to partially fund a festival park at Penn's Landing. Because this amendment proposed a completely new project, the City was required to comply with all the requirements of the UDAG program. 24 U.S.C. 570.463(b)(2). 16 Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) confirmed that the project was a done deal as far as local politics are concerned prior to any hearings on the UDAG application. Appellants' Br. at 24. Thus, according to the Residents, the City's act of withdrawing its priorflawed application and resubmitting a virtually identical one as its fifth amendment could not cure the regulatory and statutory defects in the City's UDAG application. Although the statutory and regulatory scheme pertaining to UDAG grants require public hearings prior to submission of an application, nothing in the regulations prevent an applicant from curing a procedural defect in a UDAG application by withdrawing the defective application, curing the defect, and then resubmitting the application. That is what occurred here. The initial application and earlier amendments were submitted without proper public notification and hearings. The prior amendment was withdrawn, hearings were held, and the application was then resubmitted. Under the circumstances, we understand why the Residents might feel that their opposition fell upon deaf ears even though they were finally able to voice it. However, the record here is to the contrary. It shows that the City did not totally ignore the concerns of neighborhood residents, though those concerns were clearly not addressed to the extent, or in the manner, that the Residents would have liked. Accordingly, as we discuss more thoroughly below, we can not conclude that the decision to forego an EIS was arbitrary or capricious or without observance of procedure required by law under the APA. 5 U.S.C. S 706(2).