Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/07/1994 05:00 PM House O&G
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 177
HB 401 - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES
DR. PAUL RUSANOWSKI, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF GOVERNMENTAL
COORDINATION, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, also ADMINISTRATOR,
ALASKA COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM, spoke for the need for
passage of this legislation. He said coastal zone
management (CZM) has been in existence since 1977 and it has
a fail-flaw that needs to be addressed. He stated the
Coastal Policy Council (CPC) has a due process conflict with
the legislation which supports the elevation process within
the CZM program. He further stated that roughly 70 percent
of Alaska's population resides within the coastal zone.
Alaska's CZM program encompasses most of the coastline and,
in some cases, extends hundreds of miles inland. The zone
inward varies because each district within the coastal zone
can set its boundaries based on various influences and
conditions. Within each district, any project that is
subject to permitting by more than one agency or is
federally permitted, is then coordinated in its review by
the Division of Governmental Coordination. The reviews are
then subject to elevation if a dissenting party objects, and
these can elevate to the director level within the resource
agencies and ultimately to the commissioner level. In the
present situation, an aggrieved party can also petition the
CPC to address the same issues that were subject to
elevation. A due process conflict is potentially created if
the commissioners of the resource agencies also sit on the
Coastal Policy Council. This happened recently with the
Timber Creek Cabin elevation. He stated that we need a
statutory and/or regulatory fix to resolve this issue. The
present bill separates individual projects from a petition
of process/policy concerns. A project would elevate through
the review process but would not be petitioned to the CPC.
In lieu of severing this petition process, another review
step has been created within the consistency determination
at the regional consistency level or the director level
elevation. The CPC would review their petition and make a
determination. If the comments were not fairly considered
they would remand the determination for review. This
resolves the existing due process problem. He pointed out
this as an equitable solution and it enhances the
consistency process. By moving from the APA process to an
informal hearing process, there is an estimated $8,000 net
savings to the program. This also provides an opportunity
to ensure that public comment is considered in the process.
At the present time, the public must rely on districts to
champion their comments.
DR. RUSANOWSKI called attention to the proposed amendment #2
which originated within governmental coordination, and
recommended that on page five, line 10, the following
language be added under item (B): " A party that is
authorized under AS 46.40.096(e-1) or (g) of this section
may file a petition showing..." This references both
conditions and preserves all petition rights.
Number 330
STEVEN PORTER, ARCO, ALASKA and MEMBER, COASTAL POLICY
COUNCIL, stated the CPC process was not designed to
accommodate the individual consistency determination
although they understand the need and desire to set a
balance between conservation and development issues. He
said they came up with a consensus document that provides
for a petition to the CPC regarding a reasonable time frame.
The recommendation is that the reasonable time frame be no
more than thirty days. The amendment as stated is on page
four, line six of the document.
Number 345
REPRESENTATIVE SITTON questioned whether thirty days was an
adequate time frame for the council to address a possibly
complex subject.
Number 350
MR. PORTER responded that because of the purpose of the
hearing, basically a single meeting of the CPC for a review
indicated that thirty days would be ample time. He stated
there has not been opposition to the thirty days.
Number 356
DR. RUSANOWSKI expressed there was no opposition to the
thirty-day period. He said there is an issue of adequate
notification which argues for a reasonable period of time.
From experience in working with elevations, which have a
fifteen day review, thirty days seems more than adequate.
Number 366
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS questioned the logistics of the
council's management of this thirty day process of review.
Number 382
DR. RUSANOWSKI stated that a small number of projects,
approximately one dozen move forward with some dispute; they
are handled within a fifteen day meeting time line. He
explained that in this case, we are broadening out to
include the public and there is concern as to whether the
same fifteen days would be adequate in all cases.
Therefore, a longer period of time might be necessary to
accommodate the public. He concluded there seems to be no
problem with thirty days.
Number 405
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if the period for receipt of
public comment was fifteen days.
DR. RUSANOWSKI responded the public comment period is
typically thirty days for a public notice project, however
it can be as short as seventeen days for response. He said
most of the projects have a thirty day public comment period
associated with them.
Number 418
MIKE O'MEARA (via Homer) commented that from his experience
it is difficult for the public to adequately cope with a
thirty day comment period as opposed to a sixty day period.
He asked that consideration be given to the comments
provided by the ombudsmen and other legislators in order to
provide adequate comment time for the average citizen. He
stated that he would like more information.
Number 459
DR. RUSANOWSKI addressed the concern by recounting that a
year and a half ago, the attorney general specified there
was a due process problem in addressing the elevations and
petitions. The CPC authorized governmental coordination to
proceed in building consensus for a solution. The process
included five participants from the CPC, Bob Walsh of
Community & Regional Affairs, five different coastal
districts, eight people from various resource agencies
within the state, and five private industry representatives.
In approximately a year's time, this working group met in
attempts to craft a concept. The concept went back to the
CPC in October of last year and was endorsed by the council
to move forward with support for legislative action. Since
October, members of this working group have met informally
with the Division of Governmental Coordination to work on
various drafts of the present legislation. In January, the
efforts were completed.
Number 501
MR. O'MEARA asked for an elaboration of the five coastal
districts involved in this process.
Number 506
DR. RUSANOWSKI stated that district participation was
solicited throughout the process, but the five districts
that chose to be consistent in their participation were
Bristol Bay Coastal Resource Service Area, Kodiak Island
Borough, Northwest Arctic Borough, North Slope Borough and
the Aleutians West Coastal Resource Service Area.
Number 529
BETH KERTTULA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW, stated this legislation is the result of a very long
public process with a great deal of involvement from various
sectors; this resolution is able to involve both the CPC
while still allowing for an elevation process, thereby
working quite well in coordinating permits in Alaska. She
said that a copy of the opinion is available if anyone is
interested.
Number 568
CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if the proposed changes would
satisfy potentially future litigation.
Number 588
MS. KERTTULA indicated that perhaps there may be future
regulations that require more input from the coastal
districts, but more to the point, she expressed her
confidence in this as an open and broad-based process. She
said this is a good step forward in allowing third parties
to petition the CPC, and because there is a time limit
involved, a notice will be required to go out. She further
stated this is one more step for public notice and notice
requirements that agencies will have to meet. Coastal
Management has been moving in this direction all along and
this takes it a step further.
Number 649
CHAIRMAN GREEN questioned if DR. RUSANOWSKI's testimony in
favor of the bill indicated the Administration's support of
the bill.
Number 656
DR. RUSANOWSKI said the Office of the Governor concurs with
this legislation.
TAPE 94-5, SIDE B
Number 660
A motion was made to adopt amendment #1. Hearing no
objection, the motion carried.
Number 668
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to adopt amendment #2, either (e)
or (g). This amendment was submitted by Governmental
Coordination on February 2, 1994. Hearing no objection, the
motion carried.
Number 678
CHAIRMAN GREEN entertained a motion to move HB 401 out of
committee with individual recommendations as amended.
Hearing no objections, it was so ordered.
ADJOURNMENT
CHAIRMAN GREEN adjourned the meeting at 5:52 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|