CRMC responds to CLF allegations

February 10 , 2006, WAKEFIELD—In response to the recent allegations from the Conservation Law Foundation, and Cynthia Giles, Director of the Foundation’s Rhode Island office, the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council would like to clarify and correct the following:

As it is written in the petition to reopen rulemaking and motion for modification of action, “The rules that are the subject of this petition have potentially significant environmental impacts but were adopted without meaningful notice or opportunity for comment…”

• The CRMC advertised the then-proposed changes at three different times for public notice and comment – the first was dated Sept. 6, 2005 for the October 11 meeting(which was cancelled); the second was dated Oct. 7, 2005 for the November 22 meeting; and the third was dated Dec. 21, 2005 for the January 24 meeting. All of these were advertised in the Providence Journal.
• During all of these public comment periods, as well as the public hearings held during the full Council meetings, there were no comments or objections from the public forwarded to the Council, nor were there any comments or concerns voiced by members of the public. There were also no comments or questions from Council members at either time, which suggested that the Council members present fully understood the changes.

Item 3 in the petition states, “In the course of changing these regulations, CRMC violated a number of rules that are intended to protect the public’s right to notice and opportunity to comment and to encourage open and accountable government…”

• As stated in the above explanation, the CRMC provided ample public comment periods for the regulation changes. In fact, the filer of this petition, Ms. Cynthia Giles, Esq., was present at the January 2006 meeting and made no public comment and voiced no concerns, either in writing or by voice.
• On Jan. 24, 2006, after opening the public hearing on the changes, CRMC Legal Counsel Brian Goldman explained that “this change was reported out of the policy and planning subcommittee, which would allow a grandfather stipulation for affordable housing prior to December 14, 2004, which there might be approximately 10 statewide.” He also said at this time that “after this date affordable housing applications would fall under the new regulations…and that this was a technical correction.” Again, there was no public comment and the vote to approve these changes was unanimous.

“The CRMC prides itself in being a transparent agency, and recognizes Ms. Giles’s petition to reopen rulemaking on this change,” said CRMC Chairman Michael M. Tikoian. “However, like any other changes made to the RI Coastal Resources Management Program, we have followed the process and the law.”

Executive Director Grover J. Fugate added, “Reconsidering the legal vote taken would subject the Council to a reconsideration request every time someone isn’t happy with a regulation change.”

In reference to the information not discussed at the meeting, describing the history and root of the changes made concerning affordable housing applications to both the Salt Pond and Narrow River Special Area Management Plans (SAMPs), which Ms. Giles included in her 15-page petition, the CRMC did not omit that information from discussion. All previous council regulations except those being changed always remain in full force and effect. The information on pollution by way of nitrogen from ISDS, as well as density restrictions, is stated in detail in both of the SAMPs.

The rule changes made on January 24 do not by any means “reopen the loophole that (CRMC) closed in December of 2004.” Out of the few projects that might fall under this change to the SAMPs, all of them are still required to comply with other CRMC regulations, including denitrification.

In response to Ms. Giles’s claim that the changes were not explained in four instances, three of those opportunities named in the petition – the Dec. 20, 2005 P&P meeting, the meeting agenda for Jan. 24, 2006 and the meeting on that date – were three opportunities for public comments and questions, none of which were received. As for the fourth opportunity, the rulemaking file, it was complete aside from the concise explanatory statement which is required to be filed with the Secretary of State’s office within 30 days of the adoption of the rule, under RIGL 42-35-2.3.

In summary, any person – whether they be a member of the general public, the media or the Council – who had a question regarding the chronological history of these changes could have contacted the CRMC at any time prior to the decision rendered on Jan. 24, 2006.