The Juneau planning commission has suggested that the Assembly to veto an ordinance that would regulate property development in the areas of downtown Juneau which are susceptible to landslides or avalanches.
The residents who spoke at Tuesday’s meeting were all in favor of the new policy, arguing that it could result in new financial costs for homeowners.
span style=”font-weight 400 ;”>”Does it make me sleepy in the night? Is there an opportunity that there might be a landslide, or avalanche? Sure,” said Deputy Planning Chair Mandy Cole. “But I’m not sure if I’m able to outweigh the concerns of one side.”
The majority of properties located in the downtown area of Juneau are susceptible to avalanches or landslide-related disasters. The city’s policymakers have been wrestling with the issue for decades and the city hasn’t rewritten its the land use code to address these hazard zones from the late 1980s.
The ordinance was proposed to modernize the code based on the hazard maps of 2021, that were created using modern technology.
The law doesn’t ban construction of new homes however, it does make it more difficult. Owners of properties in avalanche zones could construct new single-family houses. However, any additions, such as an in-law unit or larger buildings such as a building for apartments, are not permitted.
In landslide zones, any developments, even single-family homes, will be banned. The reason for this was that the avalanche is generally thought to be more likely.
But the ordinance provides methods to bypass the restrictions. Property owners may petition the city council to change the boundaries of the map or obtain permission to do so.
The channels were designed to find a middle way between total prohibition and completely unregulated society. However, residents such as Mary Alice McKeen questioned whether they were real. The appeals would require consult with civil engineers which could be expensive.
“The city will bear the burden, and the financial burden of analyzing the site’s specifics and placing that on property owners” she explained.
Some commenters feared that the new law could cause lending institutions less likely to do refinancing or give out loans.
The span style=”font-weight 400 ;”>”My Westridge condo is my home it is my retirement home and also my life’s investment. If I adopt the map, it will cost me the loss of my house and could even Juneau,” said Mary Ellen Duffy.
A lot of the debate revolved on the comments that commenters interpreted as the map’s shortcomings. The maps show hazards based on neighborhood, rather than property. Many people felt that the risks to their homes was not in line with what maps indicated for their neighborhood.
One resident was absent to sign the ordinance as well as the maps. Albert Shaw made loss of life the main argument. He spoke of the mudslide in 1936 which killed 15 people on South Franklin Street.
The span style=”font-weight 400 ;”>”I’m one of the last ones standing in front of the mud against the cold storage in 1936,”” Shaw said. “It caused death to a number of people. .”
Shaw stated that he was the one to make his own unsuccessful attempt to formulate a policy while an elected City Council member following his participation in the Avalanche that struck the Behrends neighborhood. He encouraged the commission to look at the risk much more seriously.
“Just that nothing has happened in the past 60 years doesn’t mean that something can’t take place very soon,” he said.
In the end, the commission considered that the concerns of opposition to the ordinance outweighed the potential benefits for security of the public.
“span style=”font-weight 400 ;”>”We have had discussions about security, risk, hazard the housing market, life in crisis hardship strategies for mitigation. What’s available? What’s reasonable?” Cole said. “There’s an unmapped map which addresses the safety issue for me, at the expense of all those other considerations that .”
The discussion mostly omitted the new language in the ordinance which requires an explicit disclosure of hazards potential renters or buyers. The commission could suggest disclosure of hazard for members of the Assembly in a different option.
The Assembly will be the final decision-maker on the policy proposal. They will take into consideration the planning commission’s recommendation in a subsequent session.
