03/24/1994 08:35 AM House FIN

  SB 238    An  Act  establishing a  procedure  for  review of                 
            proposed   projects   under  the   Alaska  coastal                 
            management program, and relating  to petitions for                 
            compliance  with  and   enforcement  of   district                 
            coastal management programs under that program and                 
            to the disposition of those petitions.                             
                                                                               
            SB  238  was   HELD  in   Committee  for   further                 
            consideration.                                                     
  SENATE BILL 238                                                              
                                                                               
       "An Act establishing a procedure for review of proposed                 
       projects under the  Alaska coastal management  program,                 
       and  relating  to  petitions  for  compliance with  and                 
       enforcement  of  district  coastal management  programs                 
       under  that  program and  to  the disposition  of those                 
       petitions."                                                             
                                                                               
  KEN ERICKSON, STAFF  TO SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, stated that the                 
  Coastal Policy  Committee (CPC)  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 would  clarify                 
  when and how certain parties can petition the Coastal Policy                 
  Council  during   an  Alaska   Coastal  Management   Program                 
  consistency review.                                                          
                                                                               
  He added that the  bill would correct a problem  that occurs                 
  when a petition is brought before  the council after a final                 
  commission level decision  on a consistency review  has been                 
  made.  Under  the current Alaska Coastal  Management Program                 
  statutes and regulations, the State's resource commissioners                 
  cannot delegate their  responsibility to  participate in  an                 
  elevation  consistency  determination  to  the  commissioner                 
  level, nor  may they delegate  their authority  to decide  a                 
  petition  in  the  final  consistency  determination.    The                 
  clarifications would  ensure that complaints  are heard  and                 
  addressed in a timely manner.   Mr. Erickson summarized that                 
  the bill  would ensure  that citizens,  State agencies,  and                 
  affected projects have  a voice in the  development policies                 
  of the state's coastal areas.                                                
                                                                               
  PAUL   RUSANOWSKI,   DIRECTOR,   DIVISION  OF   GOVERNMENTAL                 
                                                                               
                                5                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  COORDINATION, OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, provided the Committee                 
  with background information on the proposed legislation.  In                 
  1977, when the Legislature enacted  AS 46.40.100, it created                 
  an ability for  certain people to  appeal issues to the  CPC                 
  through "petitions".  In 1984, when the CPC promulgated it's                 
  regulations  creating  the  consistency review  process  for                 
  consistency determinations in 6 AAC 50, it amended a section                 
  of  the regulations  that  specifically allowed  consistency                 
  determinations  to be reviewed by the CPC, intending to have                 
  consistency determinations appealed to  court rather than to                 
  the CPC.                                                                     
                                                                               
  At that  time there was no commensurate  statutory change to                 
  AS 46.40.100.   Since regulations cannot remove  a statutory                 
  right,  the  ability  to  bring  a  petition  from  a  final                 
  consistency determination to the COC remains.  The situation                 
  has created a dual appeal mechanism, consequently, conflicts                 
  have arisen.                                                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Brown  questioned how  the legislation  would                 
  affect  the  oil  and  gas  lease  sale.     Mr.  Rusanowski                 
  acknowledged there  would be  no  change in  how the  system                 
  determination was made  for an oil or  gas lease sale.   The                 
  legislation would provide  an opportunity for the  public to                 
  comment on the system determination.                                         
  Mr. Rusanowski noted that the Commissioner of the Department                 
  of Natural Resources would be prohibited from making a final                 
  determination  until disposal of the  appeal.  He added that                 
  the Coastal  Policy Council would  have thirty (30)  days to                 
  address the consideration  of comments  which would have  to                 
  occur at the regional or director level.                                     
                                                                               
  Representative Foster  commented on  a letter  of opposition                 
  from Unalakleet, the Bering Straits Coastal Resource Service                 
  Area Board indicating their concern with the deletion of due                 
  deference to that  local coastal district.  [Copy  on file].                 
  Mr. Rusanowski  responded  that a  representative  from  the                 
  Bering Straits participated in  the meetings which generated                 
  the consensus bill and  that they are aware of  the process.                 
  The board objects  because there has  been a petition  which                 
  was handled in their district in  which the process had been                 
  unsatisfactory in addressing local interest and concerns.                    
                                                                               
  Representative  Foster asked if  the Bering  Straits Coastal                 
  Resource  Service   Area  Board  continues  to   oppose  the                 
  legislation.  Mr. Rusanowski stated they do.                                 
                                                                               
  Representative Hanley MOVED to report CS SB 238 (FIN) out of                 
  Committee  with  individual  recommendations  and  with  the                 
  accompanying fiscal notes.  Representative Foster  OBJECTED.                 
                                                                               
                                                                               
                                6                                              
                                                                               
                                                                               
  A roll call was taken on the MOTION.                                         
                                                                               
       IN FAVOR:      Hanley,  Martin,   Navarre,  Therriault,                 
                      Brown.                                                   
       OPPOSED:       Foster, Grussendorf, Larson.                             
                                                                               
  Representatives  Hoffman,  Parnell  and   MacLean  were  not                 
  present for the vote.                                                        
                                                                               
  Lacking six votes to move a  bill from Committee, the MOTION                 
  FAILED (5-3).                                                                
                                                                               
  SB 238 was HELD in Committee for further consideration.