Wetlands Review Board (Sunset Date 5/31/2023)

AGENDA WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING October 20, 2016 City Hall Room 224 5:15 P.M. I. ROLL CALL II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 16, 2016 regular meeting III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS V. BOARD COMMENTS VI. AGENDA ITEMS 1) AME2016 0007 Request to change 23 acres of the 83 acre Honsinger Pond parcel from Rural Reserve to Industrial zoning a. Staff Presentation b. Applicant Presentation c. Public Testimony d. Board/Staff Discussion e. Motion VII. PENDING PERMITS & UPDATES 1) Juneau Wetlands Management Plan and streamside setback update VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON UPDATE IX. SCHEDULE FOR NEXT BOARD MEETING Regular Meeting, Thursday November 17, 5:15 p.m., City Hall Room 224, tentative. X. ADJOURNMENT  DRAFT MINUTES WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD June 16, 2016, 5:15 p.m. City Hall Room 224 Meeting Summary Roll Call Board Members Present: Amy Sumner, Brenda Wright, Lisa Hoferkamp, Irene Gallion, Andrew Campbell, Hal Geiger, Percy Frisby, Nina Horne Board Members Absent: Ben Haight A quorum was present. Staff Members Present: Teri Camery, Senior Planner; Eric Feldt, Planner II Public Present: Greg Chaney, CBJ Lands Manager Meeting called to order at 5:20 p.m. II. Minutes approved as written for April 21, 2016 Regular Meeting III. Agenda approved IV. Public Participation on Non-Agenda Items. None V. Board Comments. Ms. Sumner asked about what appeared to be ATV use on the Mendenhall wetlands near Eagan Drive. Mr. Feldt explained that this area, known as the “Field of Fireweed” near Honsinger Pond, had been recently used for live noise testing for a potential motorcross park in the area. He said that the applicant has not yet filed a Conditional Use application, and that the testing was occurring on uplands, not in wetlands. VI. Agenda Items 1) SMP2016-0002/CSP2016-0006, Pederson Hill Major Subdivision Staff presentation Ms. Camery explained that the Board was reviewing this project in its advisory role and that Board minutes and the final Board motion would be included in the Mr. Feldt’s staff report to the Planning Commission. DRAFT WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2016 Page 1 of 4 Mr. Feldt provided an overview of the project. He said that the current review was for the preliminary plat, and the second step would be final plat approval. He described the history of the project and explained that it has been in city plans for a long time, with an intent to provide smaller, affordable lots similar to the Casey-Shattuck neighborhood downtown, approximately 4000-6000 square feet. He said the subdivision would provide 86 units with access onto Glacier Highway and several interior streets. He said the area was chosen for its gentle slopes, lack of sensitive habitat, and access to public roads and city water and sewer. He said that the project affects nine acres of wetlands, and there are few options to avoid the wetlands. This area was reduced from a much larger acreage, to concentrate the development in lower value wetlands, but unfortunately within this much smaller, concentrated footprint, there are few options to avoid wetlands further. He noted that several lots have been retained for preservation. The major wetland mitigation is provided by the Fee-in-Lieu of Mitigation program offered by the Southeast Alaska Land Trust. Mr. Feldt said that part of the area was mapped in the original 1992 Juneau Wetlands Management Plan (JWMP) as Category B. The current wetland mapping is new, provided under the grant and listed in the new Draft JWMP. Ms. Camery noted that this is another example of how the wetland mapping and assessments in the new draft are being actively used now, even without categories and even before final approval. Mr. Feldt said that the anadromous sections of Pederson Hill Creek are not affected by the subdivision, however some of the drainages that feed into the creek may be affected. Best Management Practices will be used during construction. The anadromous section of the creek that is within the subdivision is on two lots that will be preserved. Mr. Feldt reviewed the CBJ Land Use Code policies under review for wetlands and also rivers, lakes, and streams, noted in CBJ Code 49.70.950(c)(3) and (c)(7). Applicant presentation Mr. Chaney provided more background on the project. He said that the current subdivision footprint was reduced from a much larger area of 23,000 acres, and that the area was recently rezoned to D-10SF to support the subdivision. The area was pulled back from the Auke Lake watershed to further minimize habitat impacts. He said that the new draft wetlands study showed that the wetland study from 1992 was not accurate; wetlands were not where they thought they were, and the 1992 study did not catch the extensive forested wetlands. Mr. Chaney said that the lower area of the subdivision was being protected as a buffer to the large privately-owned wetland meadow below that. He said that pulling the footprint in from a large area led to clustering the density to reduce impacts; unfortunately this means that the remaining area has a lot of wetlands, though it’s low-value wetlands. Ms. Sumner referred to the staff report and the Corps permit and noted an apparent contradiction in the lots being preserved. Mr. Chaney clarified that the intent of Lot 15 is to leave it in a natural state; however it’s not a conservation lot. Mr. Chaney further clarified that Lots 12 and 9 are 2.5 acres, and that Lot 9, Block C, will be conserved as part of Phase I. DRAFT WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2016 Page 2 of 4 Ms. Wright asked about the plan for drainages that aren’t anadromous. Mr. Chaney explained that CBJ intended to keep as many of these drainages as open channels as possible, and to establish property lines that roughly follow the drainages. With the drainages along property lines, there would be a building setback that would automatically protect the drainages. He said this is not in the final design stage yet. Board/staff discussion Several board members noted the difficulty of providing full support of the project without the final details. Ms. Camery explained that major subdivisions come to the board at the preliminary plat stage for conceptual approval, when changes may still be made if necessary. CDD does not typically take major subdivisions to the Board twice, for both the preliminary and final plats. Mr. Campbell said he supports fee-in-lieu of mitigation and was curious about the amount. Mr. Chaney said that the amount is not yet known. Mr. Frisby asked about the Corps of Engineers timeline, and Mr. Chaney said this is highly variable. Mr. Chaney and Ms. Camery explained the 2008 Corps of Engineers Federal Mitigation Rule, which establishes a hierarchy of mitigation preferences. Mitigation Banks are first in line, followed by fee-in-lieu. Permittee-responsible mitigation, such as the on-site preservation proposed in this subdivision, is last in the hierarchy. CBJ is not getting any mitigation credit for the lots preserved in this subdivision. Ms. Camery reminded the board that this why CDD cannot use the existing JWMP, because these regulations conflict with the federal rule. Category A wetlands, for example, require on-site, in-kind mitigation. The Board considered conditions and further discussed possible measures to protect the side drainages. Dr. Geiger, with a friendly amendment from Ms. Wright, proposed the following motion, which was approved unanimously: While we feel it is unfortunate that this project requires the fill of wetlands, the wetland review board notes that this project reduces wetland effects by (1) proposing high-density construction, which minimizes the total acreage affected, and (2) proposing the nearby conservation of high-value wetlands. We ask that as more details are developed that CBJ planners take steps to preserve the quality of stream flow through the development. Specifically, we support the preservation of open-channel stream water flow. The CBJ Wetland Review Board has no specific concerns at this time. VII. Pending Permits and Updates Wetlands Management Plan Update and Wetlands Methodology Ms. Camery updated the Board on the status of the draft JWMP. She reminded the Board that the contract and grant ended on June 1, and said she is completing final grant reports. She said that she would revise the document internally from here. She said that she did not receive any comments from the CBJ Assembly Lands Committee, Planning Commission, or Habitat DRAFT WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2016 Page 3 of 4 Mapping Working Group members at the final presentations. She said that a previous email to the Board had made a comment deadline of June 3, but she would continue accepting comments for a few weeks, noting that she has already received comments from Ms. Sumner. She clarified that she is not asking for formal comments from the Board itself, and comments from individual board members would be very helpful but are not required. She said that the latest draft includes a goals and policies section that establishes the intent to develop wetland categories, but the actual categorization effort would be delayed for some time. She said that the first priority is to complete the revisions so that the document can be approved as it is, noting that it is being actively used right now even though it has not been adopted. She said she has a backlog of other projects to address, such as the streamside setback revision, and that the CDD Director would establish the priorities. She updated the Board on SEAKFTP’s technical review of the wetland methodology and the day-long meeting that summarized the results, which Ms. Wright and Dr. Geiger attended. She said that Dr. Geiger and others had put tremendous effort into evaluating the methodology and potential methods of ranking wetlands, and that this was extremely useful information that would be integrated into the next draft of the JWMP and in future wetland categorization efforts. She said that the review team supported the methodology with just a few minor suggested tweaks, particularly a change that would eliminate the downgrading of glacial anadromous streams. Dr. Geiger elaborated on the depth of the review and said that the team unambiguously endorsed the WESPAK functional analysis as an adequate measure of wetland services. He said that he previously had serious concerns with the methodology, however now the methodology has had broad review and consensus and his concerns are alleviated. He said the Summarization Team of the technical review does not approve of SEALTrust’s approach of averaging wetland functions, and that functions need to be addressed one at a time. He said that values should not be addressed in the overall score. He recommends a function by function analysis based on ranks, so unique functions are preserved. He said that his team is still working on the final report. VIII. Planning Commission Liaison Update. Mr. Frisby described the recent asphalt plant hearing. IX. Next meeting: Regular Meeting. Thursday July 21, 5:15 pm, City Hall room 224. Dr. Hoferkamp and Ms. Wright noted that they will not be here on that date. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:50 p.m. DRAFT WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting June 16, 2016 Page 4 of 4  Community Development City & Borough of Juneau • Community Development 155 S. Seward Street • Juneau, AK 99801 (907) 586-0715 Phone • (907) 586-4529 Fax DATE: October 7, 2016 TO: Wetlands Review Board FROM: Teri Camery, Senior Planner Community Development Department FILE NO.: AME2016 0007 PROPOSAL: A Map Amendment to change 23 acres of an 83 acre parcel from Rural Reserve to Industrial zoning The applicant requests a map amendment to change 23 acres of an 82.66 acre parcel from Rural Reserve zoning to Industrial. The parcel is an old gravel extraction site adjacent to the Juneau International Airport and Mendenhall Wetlands State Game Refuge, developed in the 1970s to support the original construction of Egan Drive. While the site is adjacent to Egan Drive, physical access is via Yandukin Way. This section of Yandukin Way is located on the on- ramp to Egan Drive, therefore access to the site is allowed only from the south. BACKGROUND History. The subject parcel has an extensive history of gravel extraction, followed by recent requests to change the zoning and the Comprehensive Plan maps to allow for new uses. Following is a brief history obtained from CDD records: USECU66-04. An application for a borrow pit. USECU-85-33. A Conditional Use Permit to allow continued use of an existing borrow pit. AME2012 0011. An application to rezone the Honsinger Pond parcel to a combination of Industrial and Light Commercial Classifications. This application was withdrawn before hearing. AME2013 0007. Planning Commission Recommendation to the City and Borough Assembly to amend the Comprehensive Plan Map G from Resource Development to a mix of Industrial, General Commercial, and Resource Development in the area of Honsinger Pond. The map amendment failed to win a recommendation for approval Planning Commission File No.: AME2016 0007 October 7, 2016 Page 2 of 3 after a 3-3 vote of the Commission. This tie resulted in a denial recommendation, and this recommendation was appealed to the Assembly but withdrawn before it was heard. AME2013 0015. A request to rezone 82 acres of Rural Reserve to a mixture of Industrial, Light Commercial, and Rural Reserve. The Planning Commission recommended denial, and the denial was upheld by the CBJ Assembly. CDD has also received a Conditional Use Permit application for a motocross park at the site, which may be allowed in either the Rural Reserve or Industrial zones with an approved permit. A date has not yet been set for Commission review of this application. 49.70.900-49.70.1097 Coastal Development, Habitat, and Wetlands The 2008 Juneau Wetlands Management Plan (based on the original wetland studies conducted in the 1980s) categorizes wetlands into four categories; A, B, C and D; A is the highest value and D the lowest. The Wetlands Management Plan identifies a portion of this site as having a wetlands classification of B, in the M2 and M3 wetland units, per the attached map from the JWMP. The dredge pond portion of the site is identified as EP- Enhancement Potential. The Wetlands Management Plan does not classify intertidal wetlands, which constitute the remainder of this site. The most recent 2016 Juneau Wetlands Management Plan, which is currently in draft form, does not address this parcel. The applicant has obtained a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to fill the pond. The CBJ Wetlands Review Board addressed the parcel prior to the 2013 proposed zone change, and made the following motion at the May 17, 2012 meeting: The Wetlands Review Board recommends that the best use of this parcel would be to restore the developed portions to their natural state and to not disturb the undeveloped area. The benefits of this approach would be to increase the safety of the airport by removing the pond that attracts large birds and also to provide additional buffer for the Mendenhall State Game Refuge. The proposed zone change largely addresses these earlier board comments, because the proposal would leave the wetlands in the southern and eastern portions of the parcel in Rural Reserve status, and because the applicant has obtained a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to fill the pond. Board minutes from the May 2012 meeting are attached for reference. Staff requests the WRB’s advisory review and comments regarding the proposed zone change, specific to potential habitat impacts, to review and update the previous recommendation as needed. Board comments will be included in the agency review section of the staff report to Planning Commission File No.: AME2016 0007 October 7, 2016 Page 3 of 3 the Planning Commission. Please note that the Land Use Code zone change review process does not specifically evaluate habitat impacts; recommendations are based on whether the zone change substantially conforms with the 2013 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Maps. Zone change approval cannot mandate protection of habitat areas, and fill and grading is allowed in the Rural Reserve zoning district as well as the Industrial zoning district.  MINUTES WETLANDS REVIEW BOARD REGULAR MEETING May 17, 2012, 5:15 p.m. City Hall Room 224 Meeting Summary Board Members Present: Hal Geiger, Ron Berg, Andrew Campbell, Brenda Wright, Jerry Medina Board Members Absent: Lisa Hoferkamp, K Koski, Dan Miller A quorum was present. Staff Members Present: Nicole Jones, Ben Lyman, CBJ Planners Public Present: Diane Mayer, SEAL Trust Meeting called to order at 5:18 p.m. II. April 26, 2012 Regular Meeting minutes were approved, no corrections identified. III. Agenda was approved. IV. Public Participation Diane Mayer of Southeast Alaska Land Trust reported to the board that the workshop with Paul Adamus was well attended and extremely pertinent. There were 26 people present that represented consultants, agencies, UAS, etc. V. No Board Comments. VI. Agenda Items Honsinger Pond Discussion Ms. Jones provided a brief introduction of the Honsinger Pond and why the topic was presented for comment by the Wetlands Review Board \. Mr. Lyman went into greater depth detailing the function of the CBJ Comprehensive Plan update and identifying the many parties involved with the Honsinger Pond and their interests. The main points that were covered by Mr. Lyman were: 1. Honsinger Pond is on the Capital Improvement Program WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting May 17, 2012 Page 1 of 3  a. $750,000 has been set aside for purchase of the Smith/Honsinger Property in Fiscal Year 2012 (See Attachment 7) b. Parks &Recreation staff are unsure what to do with the property 2. This property has been identified by Southeast Alaska Land (SEAL) Trust to purchase. a. A change in the Land Use Designation may impact the purchase price. 3. The property is currently zoned Rural Reserve with a Comp Plan Land Use Designation of Resource Development. 4. The current property owner is interested in putting industrial uses on the property which spurred this discussion a. For the property to be rezoned to Industrial it needs to be supported in the Comprehensive Plan, which is currently Resource Development. A rezone to Industrial would not be supported without a Comp Plan Land Use Designation change. 5. This is a complex project with many interests. Staff is trying to capture the many sides and offer a recommendation for the best use for the public and the community. Board members asked about the current use of the property permission from the property owner to hunt on the property. Mr. Lyman responded with ordinance information regarding shooting within a certain range of a road, and explained that the arrangement that the property owner had with individuals hunting on the property was between the hunters and the property owner. A Board member questioned why SEAL Trust was interested in the property. Diane Mayer of SEAL Trust provided a handout of the wetland types (See handout titled “Honsinger Pond—Carstensen 2003 Wetlands Classification”). Ms. Mayer described that SEAL trust is an In-Lieu Fee sponsor and has money from the airport mitigation funds to spend on properties around the airport project. SEAL Trust is to acquire and protect 227 acres of wetlands. The first priority is the Mendenhall Wetlands (which includes the Honsinger Pond property) an important wetland area that is immediately adjacent to the airport. SEAL Trust had met with the previous owner, Fred Honsinger, and then his heirs with no response. feedback. The property is now owned by Spike Bicknell who recently approached SEAL Trust abut buying the property. Ms. Mayer provided an extensive list of the unique social and environmental qualities of the Honsinger Pond property including: scenic, wetland values, bird area (national & international migrating area), the pond itself (ADF&G reviewed). Much discussion occurred around the scenic corridor qualities of the property. Ms. Mayer stated that if SEAL Trust purchased the property they would likely donate the property to the city. If the property was donated to the city, it would be possible for the area to be a scenic corridor overlay map. If Mr. Bicknell did not sell the property to SEAL Trust, SEAL Trust would still work with Mr. Bicknell to put a portion of the property into a conservation easement. MOTION: The Board unanimously approved the following motion made by Ms. Wright: WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting May 17, 2012 Page 2 of 3 The Wetlands Review Board recommends that the best use of this parcel would be to restore the developed portions to their natural state and to not disturb the undeveloped area. The benefits of this approach would be to increase the safety of the airport by removing the pond that attracts large birds and also to provide additional buffer for the Mendenhall State Game Refuge. CBJ Ditch Maintenance Photo Comparison between 2011 & 2012 Ms. Jones went through ditch maintenance comparison photos between 2011 and 2012 of Betty Court, Garnet Street, Lupine Lane, Threadneedle Street, Trafalgar Street, and Whitewater Court. She noted that the photos were taken one month earlier than last year and that the Juneau growing season was just getting underway. Generally, the photos showed growth after ditch maintenance in 2011. VII. Pending Permits and Updates 1. None. VIII. Planning Commission Liaison Update. IX. Next meeting: Thursday June 21, 2012, 5:15 p.m. Airport Site Visit. We will meet at the Airport Dike Trail parking lot. The meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:45 p.m. WRB Minutes – Regular Meeting May 17, 2012 Page 3 of 3