Kevin Cross
25:12 - 25:39
"In regards to the public testimony, removing Section AC, unfortunately, I think even if we were to do that, just to justify, it would only be for entertainment purposes because it exists on the state plat, which supersedes us. So unfortunately, dealing with that issue is not something that we can handle. Even if we removed it, it would still still exist. Therefore, I am moving forward with it unaltered."
“In regards to the public testimony, removing Section AC, unfortunately, I think even if we were to do that, just to justify, it would only be for entertainment purposes because it exists on the state plat, which supersedes us. So unfortunately, dealing with that issue is not something that we can handle. Even if we removed it, it would still still exist. Therefore, I am moving forward with it unaltered.”
- Speaker
- Kevin Cross
- Timestamp
- 25:12 – 25:39
- Community
- Alaska News
- Captured at
- July 2, 2026
From the transcript
This also will allow for additional park space to be developed in the area. In regards to the public testimony, removing Section AC, unfortunately, I think even if we were to do that, just to justify, it would only be for entertainment purposes because it exists on the state plat, which supersedes us. So unfortunately, dealing with that issue is not something that we can handle. Even if we removed it, it would still still exist. Therefore, I am moving forward with it unaltered.
Related Coverage
A Knik Arm bridge easement survives — and so does the debate
The Anchorage Platting Board kept a Knik Arm Crossing easement on a Port of Alaska plat, preserving the option for a long-debated bridge linking Anchorage and the Mat-Su.
by Walter AlaskaNews1mo ago2 min readAI