Opinion ID: 2538601
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Anchorage CMP hazardous lands policy

Text: 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.