Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/04/1994 08:15 AM House RES
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 238 - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES KEN ERICKSON, AIDE, SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, stated the Coastal Policy Council coordinates state agencies and local coastal districts in reviewing and issuing state permits for proposed development projects affecting natural resources in Alaska's coastal zones. SB 238 clarifies when and how certain parties can petition the Coastal Policy Council during an Alaska Coastal Management Program consistency review. MR. ERICKSON said this bill corrects a problem which occurs when a petition is brought before the council after a final commissioner level decision on a consistency review has been made. Under current Alaska Coastal Management Program statutes and regulations the state's resource commissioners cannot delegate their responsibility to participate in an elevation of a consistency determination to the commissioner level, nor may they delegate their authority to decide a petition in the final consistency determination. However, as noted in the included informal Attorney General's opinion, the commissioners cannot sit in both capacities. Number 395 MR. ERICKSON stated the clarifications embodied in SB 238 will ensure that complaints are heard and addressed in a timely manner. This bill will ensure that citizens, state agencies, and affected projects have a voice in the development policies of the state's coastal areas. He stressed SB 238, as proposed, is the result of intensive collaboration between Senator Pearce, an Alaska Coastal Policy Subcommittee, the Alaska Department of Law, and other interested parties. He told committee members that in their folders they will find a negative fiscal note, a sectional analysis, an analysis from Paul Rusanowski, a summary of the Attorney General's opinion, and a summary of the Alaska Coastal Management Policy's review process. Number 407 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN said the committee has heard essentially the same bill as a house version and it was passed. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS stated SB 238 had not been heard in the House Resources Committee, but had been heard in the Oil and Gas Committee. STEVEN PORTER, ARCO ALASKA, testified via teleconference, and expressed support of SB 238, a good consensus bill. PAUL RUSANOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, stated SB 238 is identical to HB 401 and emphasized SB 238 is a consensus bill which was developed over a period of almost two years, involving many members of coastal districts, interested industries, and state representatives and added that the bill has been endorsed in concept by the Coastal Policy Council for moving forward in the legislative process. He said the Coastal Policy Council contains nine representatives from different districts around the state and seven representatives from state departments. Therefore, SB 238 has broad support within the Administration, within the coastal program and within the constituents of the coastal program represented by the districts. MR. RUSANOWSKI stressed SB 238 does resolve a problem of due process in which currently the commissioners are charged with hearing elevations on disputed projects and are also charged with sitting on the Coastal Policy Council to hear petitions. He noted that committee members have in their folders a diagram illustrating the due process problem. He stated SB 238 is one solution which solves the problem. Number 475 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS noted the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board has concerns and asked Mr. Rusanowski to address those concerns. MR. RUSANOWSKI said the concern which the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board has is that the public which will participate in the process and will have the ability to petition the Coastal Policy Council to ensure their comments are fairly considered has to participate in the review itself; that is they have to actively comment during the consistency review. If a person has not commented during that review, that person does not have the right to petition to ensure their comments were fairly considered. He stated the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service Area Board feels SB 238 will diminish the ability of the public or other groups to participate in the process and that any individual should have the ability to petition that their comments are fairly considered. Number 500 MR. RUSANOWSKI said the issue is best stated as if you have not participated in the process and are unaware of the project, you only have a five day window in which to respond to request a petition to the Coastal Policy Council. It would be difficult to conceive of a circumstance where someone would become aware of a project who had not commented and would have a grievance that could be resolved. He noted that the coastal district has the ability to petition. He stressed the coastal district is the representative group, at the local level, for all of the citizens of that district and already perform that function. MR. RUSANOWSKI stated what is being added to that function is the ability of a citizen who chooses individually to participate to ensure that not only the agencies have performed properly but that the district has performed properly. If in that individual's opinion, this has not happened with respect to his/her comments, that individual can go to the Coastal Policy Council and make sure the Council does take action with respect to their concern. He stated the department does not view the Bering Straits Board's concern as appropriate to SB 238. Number 536 REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES posed a hypothetical situation where a process was going forward and an individual had made comments that a third party agreed with, but for expediency purposes decided not to duplicate the comments but rather just monitor the process. Then the decision is made and it is the third party's opinion that those comments which represented their own were not fairly dealt with and for some reason, the second party decided not to appeal. He stated what SB 238 forces is that in order for people to keep their opportunity to elevate the issue, many people will be commenting just to keep their oar in the water. He said he can envision a number of circumstances where people might want to just watch and see what happens and then choose to be concerned at the last minute. Number 555 MR. RUSANOWSKI explained the present process addresses that situation. A citizen of a district is represented by the district's participation and has no rights currently to any petition or elevation status in the present review process. He said if a person has a grievance with how the process is being handled, they must go to the district representative, make their case known, and the district supports their position in the process. The district is the entry point for the public. Number 580 MR. RUSANOWSKI stressed SB 238 expands that participation by the public so if they chose to participate themselves, they have a right to make sure they are heard. If they have not participated themselves, they still have the same right to go to their district and say the process is not working correctly and the district needs to represent them and move forward. He felt the present status has not been diminished, but rather the ability has been added for a member of the public who chooses to participate, to have the same rights as the district. Number 597 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated in her experience with the public and planning process, in order to be available to participate in the objection process, a person has to have been available in the beginning. She felt that was a good way to guarantee that people do not come in out of the woodwork and get involved. BETH KERTTULA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, stated she is available to answer questions. Number 637 TOM LOHMAN, REPRESENTATIVE, NORTH SLOPE BOROUGH, testified via teleconference, and expressed support of SB 238. He said all of the good things in SB 238 stand in contrast to the Administration's introduction of HB 474 which also addresses coastal management issues. ROGER ALLINGTON, DIRECTOR, STATEWIDE PLANNING, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND PUBLIC FACILITIES (PF), stated the department does not have a problem with SB 238, but does have a problem with the coastal management procedures. He said on January 31, the department communicated with Senator Pearce's office suggesting language be added to SB 238 to correct the problem. The problem is that currently all DOT and PF projects are required by federal law to have a minimum of three public involvement processes. A statewide transportation plan is required which goes through a public process; a three year state transportation improvement program is developed which goes through a public process; and then each project has to go through an environmental process. At that time, the department has to go through the Division of Governmental Coordination consistency determination which adds about 30-50 days to the project time period which gives the opportunity for an opponent of the project to get a second bite of the apple. MR. ALLINGTON stated DOT suggests the Coastal Management Act be amended to provide that in AS 44.19.145, which involves the functions of the office of the Governor, in subsection 11 which addresses determining federal consistencies, an additional clause be added which would state, "provided however that if a project has been developed in such a manner that the requirements of AS 46.40.096 are met, the state agency proposing the project shall make the conclusive state consistency determination." MR. ALLINGTON said this amendment will allow DOT or any other agency which goes through the process outlined for the Coastal Management determination program will be able to make a consistency determination. He stated DOT feels this change will serve the public process required. He added that DOT does get local government concurrence on projects. TAPE 94-25, SIDE B Number 000 REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN felt the procedure used to proposed the amendment is strange and felt the proposed amendment does not relate directly to SB 238. He wondered why the Administration did not introduce a bill on the subject. MR. ALLINGTON responded they could but since SB 238 was at hand, the procedure could be included in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE FINKELSTEIN said this is not how the Administration usually operates. REPRESENTATIVE DAVIES commented this amendment will affect all agencies in their review process and will need a lot of consideration. Number 020 CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked the view of the sponsor in regard to the suggested amendment. MR. ERICKSON said Senator Pearce defers to the will of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked if the amendment fits within the title. MS. KERTTULA stated she had not seen the amendment previously. She was not sure about the single subject rule in the title and said conceivably it would not be under the same subject, especially given the general thrust of the bill. She said it is not an easy suggestion to simply say that if the state agency has been meeting with the process, then it will not have to go through a consistency review. It would create many legal issues and there is a need for the Department of Law to take another look at the bill and the proposed amendment. In her opinion, given the lateness in the session, the proposed amendment needs to be taken up as a separate topic. REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE felt the amendment should not be considered. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES agreed. Number 056 DREW SCALZI, MEMBER, ALASKA COASTAL POLICY COUNCIL, testified via teleconference, and passed on giving testimony. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN made a MOTION to pass CSSB 238(FIN) with the fiscal note out of committee with INDIVIDUAL RECOMMENDATIONS. CHAIRMAN WILLIAMS asked if there were any objections to the motion. Hearing none, the MOTION PASSED.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|