In December 2013, the Community Development Department initiated a rezone of 43 parcels along North Douglas Highway extending from mile 1.3 to 1.9. The parcels are currently identified as transition zones, RR(T)D-3, RR(T)D-15, and D-1(T)D-3.

On June 25, staff held an informational meeting to discuss the proposed rezoning with all property owners in the affected area.  No one from the public participated in the meeting.

The Planning Commission heard the rezone proposal at its August 26, regular meeting. The Planning Commission recommended approving the rezone with modifications, up-zoning a portion of the lots currently zoned D-1(T)D-3 to D-5 and a portion of the lots zoned RR(T)D-3 to D-15.  The Planning Commission believed the modifications were, needed for consistency with the Land Use Maps of the Comprehensive Plan. 

Ordinance 2014-45 reflects the Planning Commission’s recommendations.

In July 2014, the applicant applied to have Lot 3 of Black Bear Subdivision, located at the south end of Silver Street, rezoned from D-1 to D-3. On July 28, staff held an informational meeting to discuss the proposed rezoning with all property owners in the affected area. 

The areas surrounding the lot at issue are either zoned D-1 or D-3. There are single-family developments in the D-3 neighborhood north of the proposed rezone, which would be consistent with the requested D-3 zoning for Lot 3.

The Planning Commission considered the rezone application at its August 26th, and September 9th meetings.  The Planning Commission recommends that the Assembly approve the rezone of the subject parcel from D-1 to D-3.

This ordinance would transfer $650,000 to the General Fund from the Sales Tax Fund in the FY15 Budget. 

On June 30, 2014, the Assembly adopted Ordinance 2013-11(AT), effectively consolidating all budget reserve funds in the General Fund.  The objective was to make it simple for the Assembly, public and bond rating agencies to determine the balance of the reserve.

When addressing the consolidation of the FY15 $650,000 allocation, revenue from the 2012 voter-approved 1% sales tax to the budget reserve was not included.  A supplemental appropriation is needed to address this.  In the future, the sales tax allocation to the budget reserve will be included in the overall operating budget adopted by the Assembly.

This Ordinance would appropriate to the Manager $1,800,000 of loan funds from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Alaska Drinking Water Fund (ADWF) State Revolving Fund.

The loan funds would be used to fund the construction phase of the Water Main Replacement – Egan Drive - 10^th to Main Street Capital Improvement Project.

The terms of the low interest loan are 20 years at 1.5-percent per annum.

Assembly Resolution 2668, adopted on November 25, 2013, authorized the City Manager to enter into this loan agreement with ADEC.

The Public Works and Facilities Committee reviewed this action at its June 2, 2014 meeting and recommended forwarding it to the full Assembly for approval.

This Ordinance would appropriate to the Manager $2,000,000 of loan funds from the State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), Alaska Drinking Water Fund (ADWF) State Revolving Fund.

The loan funds would be used to fund the Last Chance Basin Well Field Capacity Improvements Project.

The terms of the low interest loan are 20 years at 1.5-percent per annum.

Assembly Resolution 2679, adopted on February 24, 2014, authorized the City Manager to enter into this loan agreement with ADEC.

The Public Works and Facilities Committee reviewed this action at its June 2, 2014 meeting, and recommended forwarding it to the full Assembly for approval.

Ordinance 2014-32 was introduced on June 9, 2014, set for public hearing on June 30th, and discussed by the Committee of the Whole in a joint work session with the Planning Commission on June 16th. At the June 30th Assembly meeting, public testimony was heard and the Assembly referred the ordinance back to the Committee of the Whole. The Committee of the Whole considered the ordinance at its July 28th meeting, after which the Committee moved to continue its consideration of the ordinance to its September 22nd meeting.

At the September 22nd meeting, the Committee discussed a number of proposed amendments to the ordinance.  At the close of the meeting, the Committee approved forwarding the ordinance to the Assembly along with its proposed amendments for public hearing on September 29th.

The motion to move the ordinance to the September 29th hearing, as well as a motion to propose amending Table 1 of the ordinance with respect to towers located in the Rural Reserve districts, was passed by the Committee after 9 p.m.  At 9 p.m., the doors to City Hall were inadvertently locked without the Committee’s knowledge. 

 
Subsection (f) of the Open Meetings Act states that “Action taken contrary to [the Open Meetings Act] is voidable.” 

 
Subsection (g), however, reads:  “Subsection (f) of this section does not apply to a governmental body that has only authority to advise or make recommendations to a public entity and has no authority to establish policies or make decisions for the public entity.”

 
Since the Assembly was sitting as the Committee of the Whole, which is an advisory body to the Assembly (for example, the Committee cannot amend an ordinance, it can only recommend amendments to be adopted by the Assembly), the last two motions voted on at the Committee of the Whole meeting are not voidable under the Open Meetings Act.  Additionally, since the motions to amend the ordinance were only recommendations to amend, the Assembly must, as per its usual practice, consider and vote on the proposed amendments. 

 
Version (e) of Ordinance 2014-32 includes all of the changes previously considered at the June 16th, June 30th, and July 28th meetings.  In addition, it reflects the changes recommended by the Committee of the Whole on September 22nd.  The changes recommended by the Committee at the September 22, 2014 meeting were as follows:

 
1)   An amendment to Table 1 (49.65.950) with respect to towers in Rural Reserve districts.  Instead of specifying the minimum distance the towers in RR districts may be to the nearest dwelling, the ordinance now references the minimum distance to a recognized neighborhood association established in accordance with CBJ 11.35.  (Note that the reference to neighborhood associations in 49.65.970(e)(18) was amended to include a reference to CBJ 11.35 for consistency.)

 
2)   The section on photo-simulation representations in 49.65.970 was amended to clarify that the director would determine the reference locations for the pictorial representations.  (The section was also amended by to fix some typographical and grammar errors and for clarity.)

 
3)   The balloon test requirement was deleted.

 
4)   The Committee also approved forwarding the changes made as a result of its July 28, 2014 meeting (indicated in bold type.)

This ordinance would amend CBJ 62.55 with respect to right-of-way encroachment permits.  The proposed amendments would expand the availability of such permits, especially when the street vacation requirements (CBJ 49.15.450) cannot be satisfied.

The current purpose of CBJ 62.55 is to make a parcel that had an encroachment into the right-of-way prior to 1960 a marketable parcel, thus enabling prospective buyers the opportunity to obtain a traditional 30-year loan.

The proposed amendments would expand the availability of an encroachment permit in two ways.  First, it makes the permits available to parcels that encroached into the right-of-way prior to 1990, instead of 1960.  Second, it removes the 30 year permit duration.  Once obtained, an encroachment permit would be perpetual unless the structure is substantially damaged.

The Public Works and Facilities Committee reviewed this ordinance at its August 18, 2014 meeting, and recommended forwarding it to the full Assembly for approval.

This ordinance would appropriate an additional $2,792 in grant funds from the Alaska State Library for employee travel, training, and technology funding.

The current Public Library Assistance grant operating budget for FY15 is $17,158.  This ordinance would increase the grant budget to $19,950.

There is no CBJ match requirement for this grant.

This ordinance would appropriate $3,228 as partial reimbursement for bullet proof vests for JPD Officers. 

This funding is provided by the U.S. Department of Justice.  The Department of Justice offers a Bulletproof Vest Partnership program to law enforcement agencies across the nation.  JPD has a mandatory vest wear-policy which makes our agency eligible for this partial reimbursement.  JPD’s estimated total cost for FY15 is $6,744.

This ordinance would appropriate $67,812 to the Terminal Expansion Capital Project.  Funding is provided as follows: 

Federal Aviation Administration grant:                                  $65,625

Alaska Department of Transportation match:                         $ 2,187 

These funds would have been used to purchase used equipment to facilitate the wheelchair boarding of passengers from the two gates that have no boarding bridge to the terminal.  The FAA was slated to fund 93.75% of the project, with the remainder split between Alaska DOT and the Juneau International Airport.

The Airport Board reviewed this request at its August 13, 2014 meeting and recommended forwarding it to the full Assembly for approval.  However since that time, the FAA notified the CBJ that the federal funds are not available at this time.

(1) The attorney, if any, who advised the appeal agency at the hearing may be present during the deliberation on the decision of the case, and if requested, shall assist and advise the appeal agency;

(2) A member of the appeal agency who has not heard the evidence in person at the hearing may not participate in the decision;

(3) Deliberation shall be in executive session unless the agency votes to deliberate in open session; and

(4) The appeal agency shall itself prepare and adopt a written decision no later than 45 days after the close of the hearing and the filing of all post-hearing briefs, if any; or the appeal agency may direct the attorney who advised the appeal agency, if any, or the prevailing party to prepare a proposed decision. A proposed decision prepared by the advising attorney or the prevailing party shall be filed with the municipal clerk and served on each party to the appeal or the party's representative no later than 45 days after the close of the hearing and the filing of all post-hearing briefs, if any. The parties may file written objections to the proposed decision with the municipal clerk within five days after service of the proposed decision. The proposed decision and any objections to the proposed decision shall be placed before the appeal agency at the first regular meeting at which the matter may be scheduled or at a special meeting called for that purpose. 

On September 15th, Tall Timbers Neighborhood Association filed an appeal of the Board of Adjustment’s unlisted use determination. 

CBJ 01.50.020 provides that appeals “shall be filed only from a final agency decision.”  CBJ 01.50.030(e) provides that within 30 days of receipt of a notice of appeal, you must provide notice of the acceptance or rejection of the appeal (and if the latter, the reasons for rejection.)   CBJ 01.50.030(e)(2) states that you must liberally construe the notice of appeal in order to preserve the rights of appellants and if, after doing so, you find that there has been a failure to comply with the appellate rules, or if the notice of appeal does not state grounds upon which any of the relief requested may be granted, you may reject the appeal.

The City Attorney recommends that the appeal be rejected, without prejudice, as untimely and unripe.  The Board of Adjustment’s similar use determination is not dispositive. Though the determination results in Haven House, Inc.’s ability to apply for a conditional use permit, the ultimate decision as to whether the use will be permitted has not been made.  CBJ 49.15.330 states “a conditional use is a use that may or may not be appropriate in a particular zoning district according to the character, intensity, or size of that or surrounding uses.”  

The Board’s similar use determination is subsumed in the issue coming before the Commission on October 14th.  The Commission’s final decision on the proposed use, including its similar use determination, would be appropriately appealable after a decision in USE 2014-0008. 

Should the Assembly decline to hear the appeal at this time, the notice should make clear that the Board of Adjustment’s similar use determination will be appealable after the Commission issues a final decision in USE 2014-0008.

Alternatively, if you decide to accept the appeal, you must then decide whether the Assembly will hear the appeal itself or if it will assign the appeal to a hearing officer. If you decide to hear the appeal yourselves, you will be sitting in your quasi-judicial capacity and must avoid discussing the case outside of the hearing process. Additionally, you must comply with section 01.50.230 on impartiality.