Native Village of Eklutna v. Alaska RR

• Citation: 87 P.3d 41
• Decision Date: 12 March 2004
• Docket Number: No. S-10270, No. S-10279.
• Parties: NATIVE VILLAGE OF EKLUTNA, Appellant, v. ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION and Municipality of Anchorage, Appellees. Municipality of Anchorage, Cross-Appellant, v. Alaska Railroad Corporation, Cross-Appellee.
• Court: Supreme Court of Alaska (US)

87 P.3d 41

NATIVE VILLAGE OF EKLUTNA, Appellant, v. ALASKA RAILROAD CORPORATION and Municipality of Anchorage, Appellees. Municipality of Anchorage, Cross-Appellant, v. Alaska Railroad Corporation, Cross-Appellee.

Nos. S-10270, S-10279.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

March 12, 2004.

Rehearing Denied April 16, 2004.

Sara E. Heideman, Hedland, Brennan, Heideman & Cooke, Anchorage, for Appellant.

William S. Cummings, Ashburn & Mason, Anchorage, for Appellee/Cross-Appellee Alaska Railroad Corporation.

William W. Whitaker, Assistant Municipal Attorney, and William A. Green, Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Municipality of Anchorage.

Before: FABE, Chief Justice, MATTHEWS, EASTAUGH, BRYNER, and CARPENETI, Justices.

OPINION

FABE, Chief Justice.

I. INTRODUCTION

This is the third appeal arising out of the Alaska Railroad Corporation's quarry operations on culturally significant land adjacent to the Native Village of Eklutna, which lies within the boundaries of the Municipality of Anchorage. Eklutna sought a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Railroad from blasting and all other quarry activities, arguing that the Railroad does not have a conditional use permit to operate a gravel pit in that area as Anchorage Municipal Code (AMC) 21.40.240(D)(4) requires. The Municipality of Anchorage intervened as a plaintiff. The trial court denied Eklutna the preliminary injunction and entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Railroad, concluding that the Railroad is not subject to local planning and zoning ordinances. Eklutna and the Municipality of Anchorage appeal. Because the legislature did not clearly express its intent to exempt the Railroad from local zoning laws, we reverse and remand.

II. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

A. Factual History

1. Cultural significance and history of the Eklutna quarry site

The quarry is located on one of two hills, or "knobs," adjacent to Eklutna. Dr. James Fall, a cultural anthropologist, prepared a report for the Railroad that explained the Eklutna quarry site's significance as the source of the village's name:

The Dena'ina name for the village [of Eklutna] is "Idlughet," "The Place by the Plural Objects".... The "plural objects" referenced in these place names are the two hills, or to use the term used by many Eklutna residents today, the "knobs," located between the village and Knik Arm, just north and east of the community.

For purposes of this appeal, the parties agree that Eklutna considers the knobs within the quarry property to be culturally significant.

The Alaska Railroad, at the time owned by the United States government, owned and operated the Eklutna quarry from an undetermined date in the 1940s until 1985.¹ In 1985, under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act of 1982, the Railroad was turned over to the State of Alaska, which operated it through the then newly created Alaska Railroad Corporation.² In 1987 Eklutna, Inc. and the Alaska Railroad Corporation entered into an agreement settling their respective claims over property under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act³ and under the Alaska Railroad Transfer Act.⁴ Under that agreement, the Alaska Railroad Corporation was granted the land containing the quarry until it ceases to use the land "in connection with furnishing mass or bulk transportation," at which time the land is to be conveyed to Eklutna.

2. Previous proceedings regarding the Eklutna quarry

The larger of the two Eklutna knobs has been the subject of two previous appeals before this court. In July 1995 the National Bank of Alaska, which owned part of the quarry operated by the Railroad, filed an application for a conditional use permit to conduct a granite mining operation there.⁵ The Municipality of Anchorage's Planning and Zoning Commission approved the conditional use permit, and the Anchorage Board of Adjustment and the superior court affirmed this decision.⁶ We reversed and remanded in 2000, concluding that "the Board's finding that `no cultural resources will be adversely affected' was unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record."⁷

The second case, Alaska Railroad Corp. v. Native Village of Eklutna, arose after the Railroad entered into a licensing agreement in 1995 granting Damco Paving Corporation the exclusive use of the quarry for commercial quarrying operations in exchange for the Railroad receiving royalty payments for the rock quarried.⁸ In 1997 Eklutna filed suit to enjoin Damco's quarrying operations, alleging that the quarry was a nonconforming use of the land and that neither the Railroad nor Damco had sought a conditional use permit to proceed with the commercial quarrying operation.⁹ In May 1999 the superior court granted judgment in favor of Eklutna, requiring Damco to obtain a conditional use permit before it could continue with quarrying operations.¹⁰ We affirmed in February 2002.¹¹ Not addressed in that decision was the question now before us: whether the Railroad enjoys sovereign immunity from local zoning laws in its own operation of the quarry.

3. Quarry operations in recent years

After the superior court entered its decision in Alaska Railroad Corp. in May 1999,¹² the Railroad resumed direct operation of the quarry. The Railroad began removing rock and other materials from the quarry in May or June 2000, and it blasted in the quarry on July 26, 2000.

On January 12, 2001, the Railroad notified Eklutna that "no operations or blasting would occur at the site until March, 2001." However, at a January 19, 2001 meeting, the Railroad informed Eklutna that blasting would occur on January 26, 2001.

B. Procedural History

On January 22, 2001, Eklutna filed a complaint and motion for preliminary injunction to stop the blasting. Following expedited briefing, an evidentiary hearing, and oral argument, the trial court denied Eklutna's request for a preliminary injunction. Although the trial court recognized that "[t]hese hills are vital cultural resources for the Village inhabitants and the Denaina Athabascan Indians as a people," it concluded that the municipal ordinance could not prevent the Railroad's quarry operation and entered final judgment in favor of the Railroad as a matter of law, because "the legislature intended that [the Railroad] not be subject to local planning and zoning ordinances."

On March 1, 2001, the Municipality of Anchorage moved to intervene in the litigation in order to seek declaratory relief endorsing its position that the Railroad must comply with municipal zoning. The superior court set aside its judgment while it considered the Municipality's motion. After granting the motion to intervene and reviewing supplemental briefing by the parties, the court reinstated its previous final judgment. Eklutna appealed the judgment and the Municipality filed a cross-appeal against the Railroad.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo.¹³ To obtain summary judgment, the moving party must prove the absence of a genuine factual dispute and its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.¹⁴ All reasonable inferences of fact must be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party.¹⁵ Because this appeal presents an issue of first impression before this court, we adopt the rule of law that is most persuasive in light of precedent, reason, and policy.¹⁶

B. The Railroad Is Not Immune from Local Zoning Laws.

The Railroad maintains that it is not subject to the Municipality of Anchorage's zoning ordinance, which would require it to obtain a conditional use permit before operating the quarry. It argues that the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act¹⁷ (ARCA) and its legislative history show that the legislature intended the Railroad to be immune from such laws. It further argues that even if ARCA does not evidence express legislative intent to immunize the Railroad, Alaska law presumes that the legislature intends state instrumentalities to be immune from local zoning in the absence of a legislative statement to the contrary. Eklutna and the Municipality (collectively "Eklutna") maintain that because there is no clear and express provision in the statute regarding whether the Railroad is immune from local land use regulation, a balancing of interests test should apply to determine the legislature's intent.

We hold that ARCA provides no clear indication of the legislature's intent with regard to local land use authority over the Railroad and that Alaska law does not presume state immunity to local zoning. Left with unclear indications of intent and no presumption of immunity, we turn to a balancing of interests test to determine whether the legislature intended to subject the Railroad to local zoning ordinances.

1. No provision of the Alaska Railroad Corporation act clearly indicates legislative intent to exempt the Railroad from local zoning.

At the outset, it is important to note that ARCA created a state entity with a unique combination of private and public powers and immunities. Although it is "an instrumentality of the state,"¹⁸ the Railroad is not part of the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities (DOTPF) and is not subject to certain financial and procedural requirements to which other state agencies are subject, such as the State Procurement Code, the Fiscal Procedures Act, and the Executive Budget Act.¹⁹ With the Railroad's unique status within the state government in mind, we examine several provisions of ARCA to determine whether the legislature intended to immunize it from local zoning.

a. Alaska Statute 42.40.920(b)

Alaska Statute 42.40.920(b) lists statutes from which the Railroad is exempt. It provides:

(b) Unless specifically provided otherwise in this chapter, the following laws do not apply to the operations of the corporation:

....

(3) AS 35....

Title 35 of the Alaska Statutes is entitled "Public Buildings, Works, and Improvements" and authorizes DOTPF to construct almost all public works in the state.²⁰ Alaska...