Opinion ID: 2538601
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Geophysical hazards standard and corresponding Anchorage Coastal Management Plan standard

Text: Portions of the area subject to the Airport's permit are in the high/very high earthquake hazard zone. [67] Under the geophysical hazard areas standard, development in geophysical hazard areas may not be approved by the appropriate state or local authority until siting, design, and construction measures for minimizing property damage and protecting against loss of life have been provided. [68] In its discussion of this standard, the Division stated that any facilities located in the filled wetlands would have the siting, design, and construction measures to minimize property damage and protect against loss of life implemented through the Anchorage CMP requirement that construction activities comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC), since building permits will be necessary before construction can begin in the filled wetlands and since the Anchorage Public Works Department reviews all tenants' building permits and applies the UBC requirements for building in high hazard areas. The Division explained that uses authorized by the permit tend to be low-density human uses and with the design and construction measures described above, minimization of property damage and protection against loss of life has been provided. ACE maintains that the Division's evaluation of this standard was in error because the final environmental impact statement for the ACMP states that [s]ince it will be impossible for districts to thoroughly assess each hazard area and devise detailed standards covering any conceivable use, developers will be obligated to conduct the surveys and studies needed to determine exactly what siting, design and construction measures are needed. The districts and state agencies will have enough general data to know when to require such surveys from the developers.[ [69] ] ACE charges that the Division issued its consistency determination without any surveys or studies from the Airport on the siting, design, and construction measures needed to minimize harm to property and people and that without this data, the Division could not apply the standard correctly. Since the Division had no data, ACE contends, no deference is due to the Division's finding on the standard. [70] The State argues that the Municipality adopted as a control measure in the Anchorage CMP the UBC sections dealing with construction in hazard areas, along with other measures and variations for local hazards. The State thus contends that the Division addressed the hazards by similarly requiring compliance with the local building code, as well as by requiring the use of a central sewerage system, engineering specifications to mitigate potential damage, and precautions during design and construction to reduce the hazard's effectsall Anchorage CMP policies. We conclude that the Anchorage CMP provided enough data on control measures for the Division to make its evaluation without further studies from the Airport. ACE contends that the Division also erred by relying on the UBC requirements. ACE charges that the Division improperly deferred a careful and detailed look at siting, design, and construction measures to later stages of the development process, quoting this court's decision in Trustees for Alaska v. State, Department of Natural Resources. [71] What we declared in that case, however, was that deferring a careful and detailed look at particularized geophysical hazards to later stages of the development process ... entails certain practical risks. [72] We determined that identifying hazards on a lease-site-by-lease-site basis could mask appreciation of any cumulative environmental threat that would otherwise be apparent if DNR began with a detailed and comprehensive identification of those hazards. [73] The logic of the Trustees holding does not necessarily extend to control measures, however, making ACE's substitution of siting, design, and construction measures for particularized geophysical hazards potentially inaccurate. In contrast to Trustees, the geophysical hazards here and the threat they pose appear to be relatively well understood, as evidenced by a map in the Anchorage CMP and a map from the Coastal Resource Atlas showing geophysical hazard areas within and near the airport. [74] With the threats generally understood, the risks of applying specific control measures later in the process are not great. Looking at the broad scope of the project, the Division prescribed standards that would be triggered later in the development process by means of the Anchorage CMP for specific facilities. The Division did not defer a hard look at this requirement, nor did it avoid its duty of performing a pre-decisional analysis of the Geophysical Hazards Standard's application... by placing the decision in the hands of the Municipality to be made after the consistency determination was rendered. Rather, it ensured that the requirement would be met during future development via application of the Anchorage CMP. ACE further alleges that the UBC involves only design and construction, not the siting of facilities. The State responds that the issue of siting within the 240-acre site will be addressed by requiring appropriate design and construction to minimize damage, but ACE counters that no approval of development is allowed under the geophysical hazards standard until siting measures have been provided, meaning that siting measures cannot be provided after the consistency determination. The State's argument is correct, however. For earthquake design, the UBC provides that [t]he procedures and the limitations for the design of structures shall be determined considering seismic zoning, site characteristics, occupancy, configuration, structural system and height; specifically, the UBC directs that [s]eismic hazard characteristics for the site shall be established based on the seismic zone and proximity of the site to active seismic sources, site soil profile characteristics and the structure's importance factor. [75] The UBC thus does factor siting into its design and construction standards for geophysical hazard areas. The Division therefore provided for siting measures in its consistency determination. ACE further claims that the Division failed to discuss whether the UBC requirements actually contain measures that are ... sufficiently protective against geophysical hazards in very high hazard areas, making it impossible to determine whether the standard was met. [76] However, the Division specifically referred to the specific UBC requirements for building in `high/very high hazard' areas. The UBC provides highly technical structural design and construction requirements for seismic zones, [77] which the Municipality and the Anchorage CMP rely upon as a control measure for hazardous lands. [78] The Division did not act unreasonably or arbitrarily in determining that the UBC standards were sufficiently protective. ACE disputes the applicability of the UBC to Anchorage International Airport's expansion, pointing to the State's assertion (in response to the Division's draft consistency finding) that the Airport has no authority to submit to [the Municipality of Anchorage] approval of land use decisions or development on AIA. The State Attorney General has issued an opinion that AIA is not subject to [Municipality] land laws and [the Department of Transportation] has directed AIA to comply with the AG opinion. ACE reasons that the Division could not therefore rely on the UBC to provide the protections that the geophysical hazards standard mandates. The State counters ACE's argument by correctly noting that Anchorage International Airport's separate planning and zoning statutes do not exempt the airport from local building codes. [79] The State also points to AS 35.10.025, which dictates that [a] public building shall be built in accordance with applicable local building codes including the obtaining of required permits. This section applies to all buildings of the state and corporate authorities of the state. [80] These statutes indicate that the Airport is subject to Municipality building codes. The State's most persuasive argument, however, is that the UBC applies to the airport expansion because that is a condition of the permit. ACE counters by noting that the Corps permit requires evidence of either a Municipality building permit, a fill permit, or listing in an annual report as a Statesponsored project. While this is true, the Division's consistency determination explicitly states that [n]o filling for a structure is allowed prior to the tenant's receipt of a building permit from the Municipality of Anchorage. The Division also noted that [b]uilding permits are necessary before tenants are authorized under the [Airport] 10-year permit to place fill in the Turnagain Bog wetlands. Fill may be placed without a building permit in the Postmark Drive portion of the permit; however, a building permit still is needed before construction of any facility can begin. The consistency determination represents a consensus reached between you as the project applicant and the reviewing agencies listed above, regarding the conditions necessary to ensure the proposed project is consistent with the ACMP. We are informing the federal agency responsible for approving a federal authorization for your project that your original proposal has been modified subject to the conditions in this consistency determination. Given the statutory language and the conditions in the Division's consistency determination, we conclude that the UBC applies to Anchorage International Airport's expansion.
In addition to the geophysical hazards standard, ACE also challenges the Division's finding of consistency with the Anchorage CMP policy for hazardous lands. The values listed in the Anchorage CMP for these lands include open space, recreation, parks, greenbelts, aesthetics, development where feasible and safe, and development when no other alternative area exists. The policies associated with these lands are as follows: 1. Discourage development in areas designated high hazard. 2. Encourage the Municipality to adopt adequate regulations and ordinances in these areas. 3. Require the use of central sewerage systems and engineering specifications sufficient to mitigate potential loss of life and property. 4. Assure that all appropriate precautions are taken during design, construction, and landscape modification to reduce the effects of the hazard. The Division declared that [d]evelopment in these areas is not prohibited and the State of Alaska and the [Municipality] believe [the Airport] has demonstrated practicable alternative sites are not available, and then referred to its discussion of the geophysical hazards standard. Federal regulations applicable to state plans require the project applicant to show consistency with the enforceable, mandatory policies of the management program and to demonstrate adequate consideration of policies which are in the nature of recommendations. [81] ACE claims that the Division's decision was arbitrary because the Division never discussed how the Airport's proposal would protect the values listed above, nor how the Airport's project would meet the policy of discouraging development in high hazard areas. ACE contends that values are the building blocks for the policies, so they provide direction for management, yet instead of showing that no other alternative area exists, the Division only claimed that the Airport has demonstrated that practicable alternative sites are not available, which, according to ACE, is more lenient. The federal regulation ACE cites lists the information a project applicant must provide, not what a reviewing agency must do. Alaska regulations define the ACMP to include the enforceable policies of approved programs of districts and direct that a project is consistent when it is in compliance with... the enforceable policies of an approved program for an affected coastal resource district. [82] The enforceable elements of the Anchorage CMP for hazardous lands are the policies, not the values. The consistency review addresses the relevant policies, noting that a central sewerage system will be required and that the UBC standards assure that appropriate precautions are in place to minimize the hazard. Although one of the policies is to discourage development in high hazard areas, the Division was correct in noting that development in these areas is not prohibited, as is clear from the term discourage and the stated goal of assuring that development in areas designated as hazardous lands occurs in a manner consistent with [the geophysical hazards standard] in order to protect human life and ensure public safety and welfare. Assuming that the values can be considered policies which are in the nature of recommendations, the Division and the Airport demonstrated adequate consideration of them. The Division specifically addressed recreation, the feasibility and safety of development, and the lack of alternatives in its consistency determination. The Airport also removed part of Connors Bog from the permit application and rejected other Airport lands as expansion possibilities due to public concern about their use as recreation areas, and it considered aesthetics and open space in proposing a 300-foot buffer along the airport's east boundary to provide noise and visual mitigation. Also, as noted earlier, the Municipality in conducting its consistency review noted that the Municipality and the resource agencies have acknowledged the airport's need for expansion and the fact that there are no alternatives other than within the airport boundary to accomplish these needs, and that [s]pecific and viable alternatives for all of the runway dependent/airport related land uses spelled out in this application either do not exist or are impractical. Reviewing agencies give substantial deference to and can use as a basis for their own conclusions the assessments of the affected district, which `is considered to have expertise in the interpretation and application of its program.' [83] The Division thus had a reasonable basis for concluding that the Airport's project was consistent with the Anchorage CMP's enforceable policies, and the Division and the Airport showed adequate consideration of the Anchorage CMP's values associated with hazardous lands. We therefore conclude that the Division reasonably and not arbitrarily determined that both the geophysical hazards standard and the Anchorage CMP policies were met.