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.