Opinion ID: 2594248
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Native Village of Eklutna v. Alaska Railroad Corporation (Eklutna II)

Text: Following the superior court's grant of an injunction against Damco in 1999, the Railroad began direct operation of the quarry. [9] Eklutna moved for a preliminary injunction. The superior court declined to issue a preliminary injunction and instead entered summary judgment for the Railroad on the ground that the Railroad was immune from local zoning ordinances. [10] The Municipality of Anchorage intervened and sought a declaration that the Railroad was subject to municipal zoning. After considering the Municipality's position, the superior court reinstated its grant of summary judgment in favor of the Railroad in 2001. [11] On appeal, Eklutna and the Municipality argued that the Railroad was not immune from local land use regulation under state law. [12] We held that the Alaska Railroad Corporation Act [13] (ARCA) did not clearly indicate that the legislature intended to immunize the Railroad from local zoning ordinances. [14] Among other provisions, we discussed AS 42.40.390, the section at issue in the current appeal. [15] We concluded that AS 42.40.390 should not be read as a clear declaration that the legislature intended to shield the Railroad from local land use regulation. [16] After concluding that the legislature did not clearly intend to immunize the Railroad, we adopted a balancing of interests test to be applied by trial courts when determining whether the Railroad is immune from municipal zoning requirements. [17] Under the balancing test, trial courts should weigh the nature and scope of the instrumentality seeking immunity, the kind of function or land use involved, the extent of the public interest to be served thereby, the effect local land use regulation would have upon the enterprise concerned and the impact upon legitimate local interests. [18] But we cautioned that trial courts should not apply the test unless the state has made a reasonable good faith attempt to comply with local zoning laws. [19] Thus, under the rule articulated in Eklutna II, the Railroad should first apply for a conditional use permit from the Municipality and then seek judicial relief through application of the balancing test only if the Railroad's efforts to procure a conditional use permit prove unsatisfactory. [20]