Kodiak Borough: Planning and Zoning Commission Regular Meeting of September 16, 2026

Welcome to Planning and Zoning regular meeting. Good to see a nice crowd here. For the regular meeting of September 16th, 2026. I call this meeting to order at 6:30 PM. Will you please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Roll call, please. Ms. Williamson. Mr. Dagan. Present. Ms. Craig.

Here. Mr. Neff. Here. Mr. Delgado. Here.

You have a quorum.

Thank you. Okay, can I get a motion for the approval of agenda?

Make a motion to approve the agenda. Second. All in favor? Aye. Chair, we have a— there's a request to move the CIP list discussion to the end of the agenda, so we do need an amendment before you vote on it.

Right, right, right. Okay, gotcha.

Chairman, can I get a motion to do that? Yes, Chair, I'll make a motion to move the CIP to the end of our agenda. Agenda. Do I get a second? Second.

All in favor? Aye. Okay, all in favor of the motion as amended?

Aye. Okay, all right, let's see.

All right, can I get an approval, a motion for approval of the minutes?

I make a motion to accept the minutes, approval of the minutes. Second. All in favor say aye. Aye.

Okay, time for citizen comments. Looks like we got happening crowd here today. This is awesome. Okay, citizen comments are limited to 3 minutes per speaker. To make comments, call local number at 907-486-3231 or toll-free at 855-492-9202.

Comments are for general topics only. Anybody else can just come to the podium and sign in, please.

You are now answering the call from the public. Good evening. Thank you for calling the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please state your name for the record. Jordan Clay.

Hi, Jordan. Just so you know that this is during public citizens' comments. Thank you.

Chair, can you ask if anyone has a question or comment? Ms. Clay, do you have a comment to make that it's a general topic only? Yes, I do. Um, it's about the, the development of this leaf area, and I was just saying I was opposed to it. And it would cause irreplaceable— Miss Clay, I'm so sorry to interrupt you, but this comment section is only for general topics only, nothing discussed at the public hearing.

Oh, okay. Are you—. If you're watching live, you can call back during that, the appropriate time. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

Oh, okay. Okay, seeing no general topic, nobody wants to comment on anything, we will move on. And so—. Oh, general comment, okay.

You state your name for the record, please. Are you ready for me? Yeah. My name is Nick Zabo. I've lived alongside Beaver Relate for over 25 years.

I go to sleep— oh, are you ready for the, uh, silly playing part? Um, no, this is just for general topics that are not being discussed tonight. Okay, that's all right. Okay, so moving on, we're going to go to the big topic tonight, looks like. Case 27007, Administrative Request for Disposal of Portions of Borough Properties, USS 3468 and 3467, Lot 1.

Okay, can I get a motion?

I move to approve Resolution Number FY2027-007A. Second. OK. Can I get a staff report, please? Yes. Thank you.

The Borough Manager submitted an administrative application for borough land disposal for portions of U.S.S. 3468 And U.S.S. 3467, Lot 1. Staff has reviewed the application against approved plans for the area and the 2008 Comprehensive Plan. Staff recommended that portions of the subject properties be retained.

Staff has created findings and resolutions for both disposal, which is the Resolution A. That is on the floor and also for retention with Resolution B. Proposed findings have been incorporated into the two proposed resolutions and are also located within your staff report. Title 18 requires that the Commission review borough land disposal to determine whether properties are surplus or not, and based on that determination, a resolution is required either for disposal or for retention of the subject properties. These resolutions are recommendations to the Borough Assembly who will have the final say on disposal of any borough property.

If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer those. Any questions for staff?

Seeing no questions for staff, we will move on to citizen comments. Okay.

Anybody like to comment on this case? Call 907-486-93231 or 855-492-9202. If you're in person, please come to the podium, sign in, and state your name for the record, and go ahead and say your say.

Good evening, members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. My name is Nick Szabo. I've lived alongside Beaver Lake for over 25 years. I go to sleep with the haunting call of a loon and wake up to the honking of geese in the morning. Beaver Lake is teeming with wildlife—deer, bears, beavers, muskrats, rabbits, almost 50 species of birds and waterfowl.

Most of it is watershed bordered by steep slopes. It's going to be very expensive to build here. This is not cheap housing. If you want to If you're interested in starter homes, you ought to look at what the city's doing across the street from the Beaver Lake property where you have flat land. It's all clear-cut and it's ready to go.

You— a lot— a large portion of it is watershed. When you start dealing with development of watershed, you call into federal and state regulations. There's a lot of mitigation has to be done if you start building on watershed. So this isn't going to be an expensive— this isn't going to be an inexpensive development.

If you— most of these lots would have to be clear-cut, and then we all know what happens when we clear-cut. All the trees adjacent to the clear-cut get blown down. You can look at Near Island for an example of that.

Um, and the clear-cutting creates erosion, which is going to affect the occupants of the lake. You have a 350-page packet that has many reasons for not disposing of this property. I hope you have a chance to review those reasons because they're very well thought out and make very clear that this should not be developed as housing. Please listen to your staff. I think the best use of this land is to designate it as a park.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Dana Karras, and I've been into those woods several times. I'm a member of the church right across the street and been involved with that property for years. We own several of the lots and somehow we didn't get a notice and not that we know of that, so we couldn't get anything written, put in in time. Is the deadline past for written comments? It's a question.

The deadline for written comments is today. And I will say that for disposal of property for review by the Planning and Zoning Commission, there is not a requirement for notice. And so staff did notice based on adjoining property owners, but there isn't a requirement from the code for notifications of the Commission's review of a disposal. Well, again, I— some others are here who have a stronger position in with that those properties being church leadership, but I can speak for all of our members that we're opposed to it. Also know that there is a beaver living in that lake right now.

Friend of mine saw it and he got a video of it. Another friend used to trap muskrats in there, so I know they're there. I agree with Nick Szabo. I'm sure he knows exactly what he's talking about. I think it's important that the borough not pass up an opportunity to set this land aside and retain the property rather than dispose of it because, you know, parks and preserves shouldn't just be the vent— responsibility of the state.

We have a— it's a beautiful place. It's— if you let that go, it really changes the nature of our borough. I mean, we're already looking at losing a lot of the property out by the rocket launch. You know, what's that going to be like for Kodiak? And then we lose this too.

You know, that is the gateway to the land behind it, which is all wonderful wilderness. And I think for the culture and the nature of our community. We just need to retain it. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Pat Zabo, and my husband frequently gets the first word. So you'll be hearing from me some of the things that you heard from him, but I think you also will be hearing similar things again and again from everyone that you hear from tonight.

First is that— oh, I didn't say I support the staff's recommendation to retain the subject properties. You will hear again and again that building houses in the Beaver Lake area isn't going to help with the community's need for affordable housing. Building houses to deal with Beaver Lake's wet land and slopes is going to place that— price that housing way beyond the means of anybody looking for affordable housing. So I think not only does the proposal not solve a problem, it creates it by what was mentioned, the degradation of the watershed. The minute that that protective ground cover is removed, runoff from the slopes will start along with the runoff that you would get from pieces of construction debris and yard runoff.

That contamination of the water in Beaver Lake then flows down the watershed to Dark Lake, Island Lake, and Mill Bay, negatively impacting the quality of the water in the two lakes.

Oh.

Runoff would also cause the level of the lake to rise. And in the past, when the level of the lake rose, it blocked the flow of the water coming through the Salif Lane ditch, which is part of the watershed coming down from Pillar Mountain. And when that water was blocked, it flooded our properties on Salif Lane.

I hope you'll understand as you listen to all of us say the same thing again and again that not all land is suitable for construction. I hope you'll recognize that Beaver Lake's steep slopes and wetland are best suitable for recreation, that you'll adopt your professional staff's recommendation and vote for retention.

Thank you. I do have a phone call, so before it drops—. We're now answering a call from the queue. Good evening, thank you for calling the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please state your name for the record.

My name is Brett Holford.

You're free to make your comment, Mr. Holford. Yeah, I'm personally against this, mostly because of the wetland aspect, and also because of that is all the way up Salish Lane is almost a salmon stream. And to take on that steep slope into construction, it's just going to be a waste of time and money. I believe this is— I personally think it should be turned into a park and make a great park for this town. But I just— I know you're going to hear lots of other comments against it.

I just want to put my vote in there and say there's a lot of things that involve that little strip of land, and construction would take all that away from everybody. So thank you.

Thank you for your comment. Mr. Holford, go ahead. My name is Mike Williams. I'm a resident of the Mill Bay Watershed.

That projected use of that land, bearing the fauna in there and the flora, is like putting a square peg in a round hole. I believe the health of the watershed would be jeopardized, and all that effort that Smokey Stover and his Boy Scouts did back in the '40s to establish the salmon stream would be extinguished probably forever.

You're not going to get inexpensive housing is what a lot of people are talking about. I think it just dovetails in with the watershed to have greenery at least on one side of that park. That's what I got to say. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Vas Niu. I'm a resident of the— in Salif, and I'm a co-pastor for the church across the property we're talking about. And just want to address the community, the questions. I just want to submit— I guess it's a deadline, right?

I missed the notice letter, but I would like to submit the questions. If it's okay, go ahead. Right, I'm just gonna go through the questions briefly.

Uh, first is a wetland delineation.

Like, I have— it's just question— it's a question like I have Professional wetland delineation been performed on a portion of proposal for disposal? If not, why should board dispose the land before knowing exactly what is— what exactly where the wetlands are, as many people commented? Another one is, yeah, as you heard about, we have a very cute beaver couple in the lake, in the Beaver Lake. And we actually happened to be, took videos of many days, how they, you know, roaming around, you know. And also shoreline buffer, what's the minimum natural vegetation buffer between future development and Beaver Lake would be necessary to preserve shoreline wetland and wildlife functions?

It's mostly like questions, right? And development capacity.

I will just submit these questions as a— is a deadline, right? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you for your questions.

Is there a sign in here?

Okay, I am a 40-year resident of Salif Lane. I have been through this process. This is my third time, exact same issue, exact same piece of property. Um, starting, starting back with the extension of the road of Salif, when, uh, when it— when the community realized that that whole track of woods was going to come out. Of course, that created quite a hullabaloo.

And, uh, you know, and the conversations were had, the meetings went down, and The big concern was always the lake, even from the get-go. So it was agreed that the— that greenbelt that was established would be maintained to protect the lake, to protect the drainage. The drainage is very, very precarious there. If that lake comes up at all, we're in trouble up on those upper houses on Salif Lane. We're in big trouble.

So it wasn't really that much of a stretch to do that because that lot— those lots aren't really that great for building on—big, steep thing. The ones in the lowland are boggy. If you've been around building Salif and Lane, some of those houses are sinking because of the bog, because it's not good ground up around the drainage area.

And this whole system is depending on—it's really precarious. I mean, it necks down, of course, at the ditch on Salif Lane and then continues on down from there. And I think that ditch is, uh, is— I think that the lake is, is filling in as it is now. Um, as I look at this development map right here, what I see here is responsible development. And right now, this area is done.

There's 90— you squeezed in with the new city portion, you've cleared out area, there's 95 homes in in there. I counted them up on satellite image today. Right, there's 95 homes that you provide in there. Some of them are HUD. Some of them are state-assisted housing.

Some of them are private housing. And the trade-off for that deal is we were promised that green strip. And that green strip is also— it's part of the community. It gives the community a good air. It gives it a good place to go.

It gives a place for all those people who live in those houses to go and walk, do what they want to do, walk the dog. It's a good area. Most places when they do development, they, they require a green area for exactly that reason. Um, what we're talking about here is privatizing access to that area, giving special people access to that area rather than keeping that area in the community for those 95 houses that are there. For the 50 houses that are around me, that brings it up to about 150 houses.

That green lake, that green area was put there to service those houses and to service the health of that lake and to service the health of that ditch, of the drainage there. And you— that land's not that suitable for building, really. It's very suitable for filtering, holding water, slowing down water, preventing erosion. That's what it's appropriate for. It's doing its job right now.

I hope we can kill this here right now for the third time, and I hope we can kill it for good, because I'm kind of tired of coming back and spending all day thinking about doing this. Thank you. Thank you.

We are now answering a call from the queue. Thank you for calling the Planning and Zoning Commission. Please state your name for the record. Jessica Edelson.

Go ahead and move forward with your comment, Ms. Edelson. Okay, I just wanted to say I live over on Bonaparte, which is right across from Sea Leaf, or right off of Sea Leaf, and I'm so sorry to interrupt you. If you have the, the live going, it's going to give us feedback. We can't really understand what you're saying, Ms. Edelson. Okay, I had you on mute.

So I don't think there should be feedback from that. It's not playing. Oh, okay. I'm just letting you know.

Okay. Well, I would just like to say that I oppose disposing of the land because I use it for recreation regularly.

That's all.

Thank you.

Okay, anybody else like to make any comments?

Hi, I'm Jared Lawrence, a new resident buying the house on Beaver Lake, 2310, and I'd like to cite my upset anger and frustration with the idea that all of those woods would be gone. We've lived here 10 years before. We spent half the time maybe happy in those woods, picking berries, playing around in the trails. And it's great for the kids. Every time I go out there, I see kids out there having fun and just doing what they're supposed to be doing.

If we get rid of that, you know, where are they going to go? We're just going to push them further away, and then these houses become like a city, and then all these kids have nowhere to play. That's all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Patricia Griffin, and I've lived on Salif Lane for over 40 years. I might be unique in that I get on my boots and walk around the lake quite a bit because you have to go through that area there. And my problem is erosion. Long ago, we used to ice skate where the weeds are. And there's a lot of erosion, especially since the four-wheelers have been coming down from the other side of the lake, pushing everything towards where the building is going to be.

And I really don't think that destabilizing that piece of land would be a good idea at all. I remember when they put the road in, they paved the road on Salif, and the big discussion was there wasn't enough room between the level of Salif, the ditch, and the lake. So please think carefully before you do anything crazy putting in new housing and ruining old housing along with all the wildlife issues that are wonderful there. Thank you. Thank you.

Brownwyn, I would also make a request that the last two guests also sign in. I don't believe they have signed in.

So this would be something for the Chair to remind. Okay.

Hello. I could talk about the value of the open space, but I've only got 3 minutes, so I'd like to talk about planning and zoning. You're here tonight with a major decision before you, whether to recommend this land near Beaver Lake for disposal to the Borough Assembly. After listening to the work session last week, it sounded as though a few members had not read the staff report, which recommends retaining the property and not disposing of it. I hope that you've all read the packet, read the staff report, read all the comments, because there's some really good critical and informative data in there.

Community Development staff have analyzed these parcels for you and recommended retention for several reasons. The first is to follow the Comprehensive Plan and the Subarea Land Use Plan, both of which define this area as open space. The second reason pertains to the history leading up to that. This area was initially zoned RR-1 and then rezoned to public use, and then later on even a more conservative natural use. This decision was carefully and purposefully planned, and it was not accidental.

The idea of developing this area was long, long ago set aside. The third reason that staff gave was this area's wetlands. They presented findings that suggest that development of these properties would require extensive drainage, wetland mitigation, already adding to the high costs of development. So to summarize, staff findings tell you that environmentally and economically, it doesn't make sense to develop this area. I'd like to remind you that this is not the guessing and zoning commission or the hoping and zoning commission.

You're tasked with using data, surveys, or studies to make informed and knowledgeable decisions about all cases that are brought before you, whether they're for private citizens or the borough government itself. We must all be held to the same standards. The PNZ isn't an arena to just use gut feeling and hoping that maybe somebody else has done or will do the evaluating that you haven't. Right now, the data before you are the comprehensive plans and the staff report, which recommends retention of these parcels near Beaver Lake. The comprehensive plans can be changed, but they require you to put in the time and effort to do so.

Decisions that are inconsistent with those plans for how to use our lands should not be made in haste or prematurely.

If you don't have a data or report from other agencies, such as the Borough Lands Committee, showing that they studied out their decision to propose this land to be sold, you cannot assume that they did. You're not assuming in zoning. If there was such a report, you, if anyone, should have it in hand. You're allowed to request any information that you need to make an informed decision. And say that, no, I can't in good conscience recommend this disposal because I don't have data that actually supports it.

If the general idea is to open up land until we have affordable housing, I ask you, where's the study that you're utilizing that shows how much land is needed and how many homes need to be built to ease the reported housing crunch? With the homes that are already being built by the U.S. Coast Guard and Kiha, how does that factor in and affect our current needs? What is the price for an affordable house? What will the homes on this particular land cost and sell for? And will it satisfy the ever-hungry cry for affordable housing that you're hoping it is?

Why is our population decreasing, but the need for housing seems to be increasing? How much will be enough? Where's the clear plan? I will wrap it up. If you have data and you're utilizing it, it should be shared with the rest of the commission and public, but so far I don't see it.

Until you have answers to these questions and more, then as the Planning and Zoning Commission, it would be irresponsible of you to suggest that should this land be disposed of, and I urge you to recommend retention of these parcels to the Borough Assembly. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

My name is Leisha Sweeney, and this is Amaya Sweeney. I did submit some comments, but I wanted to reiterate it. I don't know if you guys have read them out loud prior. This area was rezoned as a natural use, as she was mentioning, specifically to ensure that it would remain public open space under both borough ownership for the benefit of residents and future generations, as in my daughter here. Additionally, the Kodiak Comprehensive Plan identifies this area as national— natural use, reflecting the community's longstanding commitment to preserve its environmental and recreational value.

Development of this land would require substantial infrastructure improvements and could result in significant impacts to local biodiversity. The existing forest plays a critical role in maintaining soil stability, which is particularly important in our coastal climate. Forest clearing increases surface runoff, contributing to flooding and sedimentation in nearby waterways. Such as Dark Lake, which I live on, and Island Lake, which I know some of you guys live on. These impacts would threaten the surrounding ecosystems, including salmon, which we frequently see jumping around our area, spawning habitat, and areas used by numerous bird species, which we are very involved in right now.

My daughter is heavily a bird— bird gal. This area is heavily utilized by residents for recreation, outdoor activities, wildlife viewing, and traditional berry picking. The loss of this public open space will diminish opportunities for residents and youth to connect with and enjoy the national— natural environment that is integral to our community's character and quality of life. Furthermore, disposing of and developing this land would result in the loss of value— valuable ecosystem services, increase vulnerability to the effects of climate change, and reduce the resilience of our local ecosystems. Protecting this area is essential not only for safeguarding wildlife habitat and water quality, but also for maintaining the environmental benefits and recreational opportunities that residents currently enjoy.

For this reason, I respectively urge the Planning Commission to deny the proposed land disposal and preserve this area as a public open space consistent with its natural use designation and the goals of the Kodiak Comprehensive Plan. And I hope that my, my husband, who used those woods when he was young, can also share those with my kids as they grow old. So I— please do not dispose of this. Thank you.

Um, hello, my name is Patrick Callahan. Uh, first off, I want to say thank you, Commissioners, for your public servants, and, um, I know that you guys are in a really tough spot lot right now. As a resident of the borough, I would also like to apologize because I feel that this has been dropped in your lap and should have never even have made it to you, because I feel that the Lands Disposal Committee violated their own guiding principles in protecting public use lands. This was researched— I don't even want to know how many tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars has gone into the decades worth of research, soil samples, zoning, everything. It's, it's been talked about, it's been fought about, it's been looked at, and you continuously have the public come out and speak against this.

You have all of the data, all of the research, everything at your fingertips to show that this land is not a good option for development. There are a lot of options. There's the Menashka option, there's a lot of vacant land around Kodiak that maybe we can incentivize people to sell or we can incentivize them to develop. But this property is not a good option. I live on Von Scheele and Dark Lake, and I can tell you that I routinely have to fix my retaining wall because that lake swells as it is with the drainage that is already there.

And we're already in building 25 additional houses up at the top of the hill there. And that, that drainage is going to come down. I, I would strongly urge you, please read all of the data, read the 350-plus pages, and not everything's even in there. Please look at all of that information. Please make an informed decision.

Protect this land. It's planning and zoning and the borough's responsibility first and foremost to protect Property that has been zoned public use, that is, that is absolutely your job and, and our job as stewards of the land and as our community. You've heard all of these amazing comments, all of these people pleading with you, asking you, showing you the history of this property. Please protect this property. Please protect the way of life of Kodiak.

Look at other options. There's a lot of other options. Secondly, I would like to remind, just as recent as 2019, this was brought up to Planning and Zoning, and it was voted 4-0 unanimously to not move this forward. There was soil samples done, there was plotting, zoning research, studies performed, environmental impact studies performed, Trails Network was consulted, and they looked at all of that data and they voted it down unanimously, 4-0, as recent as 2019. And all of these residents are spending hundreds of hours educating and bringing forth information to protect this property.

Let's be done with it. Let's put it to bed. Let's support the staff's decision to retain this property and protect it. And please move beyond it and find other options and force the Borough Assembly to make the hard decisions to come up with the comprehensive 2045 plan and give us a long strategic goal to fix housing and the ability for people to live here. Thank you so much, and I really appreciate your time.

Thank you, Patrick.

Hold on really quick, let me get my notes up. Good evening and thank you for your service on the Commission. My name is Robin Callahan And I'm a 30-plus-year resident of Kodiak. I have some teachers back there. And I'm also a lifelong Alaskan.

I'm here to comment on Case 27007. And like everyone else here, I support preserving the land that buffers Beaver Lake as natural use. I live at the end of Von Scheele and witness where people come and park constantly.

Year-round, every day, all different types of use from kids on bikes to grown men with RC cars and everything in between.

As discussed at the last P&Z work session, as you know, the borough and the community of Kodiak are currently developing a new comprehensive plan. It is intended— Plan 2045 is intended, the way I understand it, to guide land use for the next 20 years. In addition, there's the recent Kodiak Economic Development Corporation Housing Action Plan, as was developed by multiple local stakeholders and calls for a strategic and intentional process for evaluating borough land to determine which parcels are most appropriate to handle our housing challenges.

I will say, as a mother of 5 young adults and I've worked in real estate and construction here in Kodiak for years. I'm in education now, but I deeply recognize Kodiak's very real need for affordable housing, and I appreciate the commission's desire to support solutions. But this disposal request really concerns me. Um, like I said, that is visited daily by locals of all ages— young elders, berry picking, everything in between. And again, as many have referenced in your packet, there's over 350 pages of history attesting to the community and ecological value of this area as natural space.

It also documents many challenges related to development that will impact the purchase price or rent cost for brand new residential construction. Therefore, we cannot reasonably expect that this land disposal will alleviate our housing challenge. Changes. If only it were that simple. I just don't understand how that's penciling out.

So please consider the recent staff recommendation and decades of documented public comments and research and vote to retain this land at this time. Let's honor the comprehensive planning effort that's being done right now to ensure that we can make careful choices about releasing public land for development. I don't think anyone is arguing that that does need to happen in some way as part of the solution. But land is valuable— a very valuable resource, and once it is gone, it can't be replaced. So thank you for your time and careful consideration.

Thank you, Robin.

Hi, I'm Ryan Kitka, and I am strongly opposed to the disposal of this land. I would like to keep it. I've been in that area for, oh, what, 12 years now, something like that. I've been in Kodiak for over 20. So anyway, thank you.

You're welcome. Thank you.

Anybody else?

Good evening, everyone. My name is Tonya Neo, and I'm a pastor, one of the church in Siliv. Anyway, just listening everybody, I really appreciate for everybody's voice and I'm here living in Kodiak for 5 years, over 5 years, and I really come to love Kodiak a lot. And the way people take care of this land is such a beautiful land. And maybe my testimony is here opposing of this case of— what is number?

27007, Or Right, so, um, um, I think for us as a church community, part of this land is represent such an amazing creation. And by looking outside, we don't see it as a house in another neighborhood, you know, we see it as a place for people to go maybe meditate or using there for recreation to spend time with kids, to pick berries. So, and I feel like, um, to just simply put in another neighborhood there is maybe not the best option for the place where people using the— people using the land for so many years for recreational reasons. And I think that Alaska is so big or maybe different places that you can find to build affordable housing, which is also— I'm not opposing that, but it's also, if people need housing, of course we have to take care of this one way or another. So, but, um, but as somebody who taking care of people, I think we also have responsibility to take care of what surrounding us.

So, and here's my just little speech about that. Let's save the trees and save the area and protect the environment for families and for people who live in those neighborhoods. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, thank you for letting me make a little comment. I did submit a report via the online email system. I don't know if it made it in your packet, but I did submit it. My name is Heather Burke. And I live on Denali Court.

And one thing I would like to ask is we were not notified because according to the letter, it would not impact our home. And I feel like that that is quite the disservice to think that a natural resource that's— I can't figure out how far it is, but it's about less than 15 seconds for me to run from my driveway to the edge of the area that you're speaking about, and I feel like that would greatly impact my house and my property that we, that we live in. Um, of course, we're new, sort of new to the area. We've only lived here for 8 years, so in comparison to some of the other testimony that has gone on tonight, I'm fairly new to the community. But, um, I do wonder what the plan is once you dispose of it.

Um, according to a lot of chatter on social media, which we all know can be true or false, um, they think that it's going to solve some housing crisis that we have and, um, it's going to make lots of new homes for people. And I'm curious what that really would look like once you dispose of it. Um, what happens after that? And I don't know the plan. I'm not an environmental, um, specialist, so I don't know the impacts of erosion and all the things that other people have already, um, made comments about.

However, I do walk it on a daily basis. Um, there's never a day when my shoes are not muddy, so I can attest to how mushy it is back there. And there's actually bridges back there because it is so mushy. And I wonder what that would cost. I think other people have mentioned that.

What is the cost of— if you dispose of it and homes want— need to— or homes are going to be built on the land? So I think there's a lot of questions that the community and the people that live in the area that you're speaking about have. It would be beneficial to maybe have more discussion if that's what the decision is. However, I am very much opposed of disposing of this land, and I am in favor of keeping the land as a natural resource. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

I think that about does it.

All right, thank you, Ella. Yeah, I know it's not easy getting up there and talking in front of everybody. Y'all did a great job. I'm very impressed.

Um, we're going to close the public hearing and open it up to commissioner discussion. Mr. Chairman, can I speak for a second? I just wanted to— there was a couple of questions in the comments, uh, So the step that you are at now with the Planning and Zoning Commission is reviewing whether there is a public purpose for the property and making a recommendation to the Assembly. It is on a little different track than what the Lands Committee did in terms of what they recommended to the Commission because— or excuse me, to the Assembly, which they recommend disposal, but also what method of disposal. And in that case, they recommended their method of disposal that was recommended was through the request for proposals step that is outlined in Title 18 of the Borough Code.

What I would say is if the— if whatever happens from the Commission's recommendation, it goes on to the Assembly, the Assembly will make the final decision on the disposal. As part of that disposal for request for proposals, they will have to have that request of proposals written at the time of their resolution approval. I will suspect that before the Assembly does that, they will have at least one or more work sessions to discuss what should be in that proposal. So that would answer some of the questions that were asked today of the Commission, which is kind of out of your purview right now. It's more in the purview of what the Assembly is going to be doing in terms of how they're going to dispose of, potentially dispose of the property and so on.

So I just wanted to kind of clarify that. The other thing I said earlier about notifications, you know, in terms of the Commission's part of this, there isn't anything in Title 18 that requires notice. We did notice to property owners that adjoined the property and properties in question, uh, and I know there's been some notice notifications that maybe other people had done with some comment sheets that some didn't have the correct email address for the Bureau, and so I think, you know, they may not have gotten comments into us because of that. But any comments we received through our email, either through personal— either through specific staff emails like mine or, uh, Bronwyn Curry or the Secretary, or anything that came into the Community Development email, you have received those either attached to your agenda item or you receive hard copies today if they came in after the packet was published. So I just want to make that clear for you and have that on the record too.

Okay. All right. Thanks, Chris. Okay, Craig, you want to start off? I certainly can.

Democracy shines bright tonight in Kodiak. I want to commend each and every single one of you who came to speak your mind. This blessed right that is ours in this nation, you are doing it, and I commend you for that. And likewise, I need to do my part as well.

When this first came to us, it came to us as a pressure to try and solve a problem that is chronic perceived to be chronic in our community. So I challenge each and every one of you to partner with us and to partner with our government agencies to find these places that we can expand upon for our housing crisis, if we consider it a crisis. I will be voting no on this to move it forward for discussion. Disposal, thus preserving it as staff has recommended. Thank you.

Tracy. I am—. Can you please speak into your mic? Thank you. I feel the frustration of this comes up, you know, every 3 times in like 40 years.

I feel that the borough really needs to put an end to it or move forward or do something. So I feel like it needs to go to the borough. So not necessarily to build houses on it, but I think that it needs to go to the borough so we can finally put some resolution on this instead of, you know, 10 years down the road we get it back, you know, or 20 years down the road we get it back. So if that's a yes vote, then I'll vote yes. I think the borough needs to finally figure out if it's going to be green space or if we're just going to keep getting this property back in another 10 years.

So I'm going to vote to pass it forward to the borough. Thank you, Tracy. Joe?

I think from hearing all of the comments, reading all of the comments, I'm different because I, I'm from here. I've watched the degradation of our lands over the last 62 years that I've been here. And seeing a proposal to do more of that, especially in the area that it is in, in the wetlands, I was not aware that there were salmon coming into this area. Now that I am, it is even more clear to me that we shouldn't be doing anything with this. And I, like many others, think that we should close this thing off for good and not let this come up again where we— I mean, we need the buffer zone to protect the lake, protect all the animals, the fish, the birds, the wildlife, the people that live around there.

Watching what happens with bears and stuff as we grow and we take over the wildlife's land, we tell them, we say, this is ours and we can do what we want with it and expect the animals to just go along with it. It causes more problems. This is a little bit of free space where they can, they can hide out and be natural.

There aren't many places that we can build, but where there are, we should be doing it. We shouldn't be destroying one ecosystem to make humans happy. So I'll be voting no. I would hope that this will be the last time that this comes up.

Thank you. Thanks, Joe.

I have to say, I really appreciate all the comments. I I would say the case is very convincing for retaining the land. My problem all along has been that the Lands Committee theoretically studied this out, and they did have a mandate from the borough to find lands, and for some reason they decided that was a preferable land. So I guess I would be in favor of entertaining a motion to postpone the vote. Vote.

So we heard from the Lands Committee a little bit more explanation from them why there's no other land available that would be better suited to development than that. I wonder if anybody else would be interested in that.

There is another perspective, if I may, Chair, which is that we're down to 4 individuals on our Planning and Zoning Commission. And so it may be wise to have a fully seated Planning and Zoning Commission, thus delaying this decision until we have the full representation of our citizenry. Food for thought. Is that a motion to postpone? Well, I certainly could draft, propose one, but I would want to go to when we have a full 7 members, and I don't know when that will be.

That could be a long time. So we have an election that's coming up. I will not be seeking reelection. Thus, I have no idea when is a good time to move it forward. So either we vote it and shut it down now, postpone it, or something else.

Any thoughts?

I don't think postponing it will do any— make any difference.

I think if we're going to listen to the community, then that's not going to change, so I don't see any sense in postponing. I would rather just vote now.

Yes, Chris. Mr. Chair, just to remind the Commission that you have to have 4 votes in positive to pass a motion. It kind of sounds from the discussion that you are split even, 2 to 2, I think, from what I can tell. I am not saying that is, you know, for sure.

If that is the case, it is probably worthwhile thinking about postponing the meeting. I will say you have another A new member that was approved here in September who will start in at the October meeting, so that'll give you another member. Uh, Athenas was not able to make the meeting today. Unfortunately, we were— we had some Zoom issues, and so she wasn't able to join you for, uh, this evening's meeting. My understanding, I believe she will be here at the meeting in October, so you could postpone it to then.

Chair, I make a motion to postpone this this decision until October regular meeting. Do I get a second? I second. All in favor say aye. Aye.

No aye there. I guess that didn't work. Chair, I would like to remind you that this is not a voice vote. You do need to call a roll call for this vote. Okay.

Thank you.

Are you calling for—. Oh, can I have a roll call? Okay. Thank you. Mr. Neff?

Yes. Mr. Delgado? No.

Mr. Dagan? Yes. Ms. Craig? No. Motion fails 2-2.

Oh, can I take my motion back? Can I say yes?

Again, I will remind the commissioners, if we don't have 4 votes in positive for a motion, the motion won't be approved. It is really not acceptable. A motion won't be approved. Okay, forget it. Okay.

Well, seeing how we are at— I really would feel more comfortable getting the full information. I appreciate all the information we had. It is very convincing, and I tend to agree with the audience, but I don't feel it'd be responsible to totally write off the hours the land committee's done and not say they're just a bunch of total idiots either.

So given that we're kind of being forced to call a vote on this, however, I think I probably will vote in favor— favor or against— or in favor of retention on this because I do know that I have seen all the issues. I live on Island Lake myself. I've seen many of the issues that people are talking about, and I, I really like the idea of the housing being increased there, that there may be a need, greater need for that use. And many other things that were brought out were very convincing points and good arguments for retaining the land and So at this point, I would say let's go ahead and do a roll call vote. Mr.

Chair, I would just point out that the motion, the original motion that was on the floor is for disposal of the property, to recommend disposal to the assembly. So that's the one that's on the floor right now. Oh, okay. So we're voting for no. So if someone wants to— if someone wants to— amend that to replace the Resolution A with Resolution B that you have attached to your agenda item.

Resolution B is written for retention, recommendation of retention of the property.

So a member could make an amendment to the current motion to replace Resolution A with Resolution B. Oh. If the thought is you want to vote on a motion for retention of the property.

Either way, we will come up with the same result, will we not, whether we vote for or against?

So we have to have a resolution to go forward to the assembly one way or the other. So either recommending retention or recommending disposal. As I said, the current motion is recommending disposal. I mean, you can go through a vote on that one and to see if it passes. If not, then you would have to make a new motion to try to resolve this case.

Yeah, I don't think I'll bother with that. Okay. Anybody have a motion to— Retain the land. I'll make the motion to retain that land. Yes.

So, uh, so Commissioner Delgado, just— it needs to be an amendment to replace Resolution A with Resolution B since we're voting on resolutions here. I'll make a motion to replace the Motion A with B. Second. Okay, can I get a roll call?

Mr. Delgado? Yes. Mr. Dagan? Yes. Ms. Craig?

No. Mr. Neff? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion fails 3-2— 3-1, excuse me.

Okay. It looks like we are back to what? You are back to the motion on the floor, which is for for disposal, recommending disposal to the Assembly. That's the one that's before you still.

So it sounds like we need to get more people to vote. It's not like we really have an option, right? Because we got to have a solid motion one way or another. Yeah, you have to have 4. So I mean, that's why, you know, that recommendation for postponement was made by Commissioner Dagan.

I make a motion to postpone this vote until October when we have 2 additional Commissioners. Second. Roll call vote, please.

Mr. Dagan? Yes. Ms. Craig? Yes. Mr. Neff?

Yes. Mr. Delgado? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion passes 4-0.

All right. Thank you.

All right.

So I will make an announcement so the folks in the audience know what happened. Okay. Yeah. Exactly. So what the Commission just voted on was to postpone action on this item until October when they will have 2 additional members present.

So, Tonya—. You don't have to. That is a great question. She did a good job. I mean, they have already had the public hearing and closed it, so technically what is before them is a vote on the on the motion before them, which is at this time is for disposal unless someone wants to amend it.

But they wouldn't have it open for public hearing again since they did close public comment. Chris, would general comments be allowed? Would individuals of the public be able to come and testify and their general comments? Yeah, you would have needed— when you're in your postponement, you would have needed to say that it was going to be— the public hearing would be continued for the next meeting. But that's— since it was closed for your deliberation, you technically could open it back up, I guess, at the next meeting and have it still under public hearing.

But right now you don't have to. Right now you could just go straight into voting. Okay. We would have to make sure that the two members that join you Next month, they would have had to on the record state that they've listened to this, you know, meeting. In other words, they've watched the YouTube video.

So let me ask you this. Can we resend the vote that we just had to amend it so that we can allow for public comment next October, the next meeting, so that we can get the other commissioners on the record? Yes. Uh, Commissioner Dagan, you are not allowed to resend a vote. You guys are more than welcome at the at the next regular meeting to make a motion to put it back for public hearing.

Okay. So we can take care of that order of business in October? Correct. Thank you. Yes.

It would just be like we amended the agenda. You would move it from old business down into the public hearing, just like we did for moving the cases around tonight. Thank you. You're very welcome. And we'll make sure it's noted— that we notice the public hearing as usual, that this case is on it.

So, right. Okay. Moving on to Case 27-008, request a rezone of Cliff Point Estates Oceanfront, ADN Track B, ADN Track C, and Cliff Point Estates ACN ADN 3, Track D. Common addresses 5471, 5470, and 6169. Can I get a motion, please? I move to approve Resolution FY2027-008.

Can I get a second? I would ask that the Commission hold on until everyone is out so we can hear this for the record. Thank you.

I will second that motion.

Staff report, please.

Good evening, Commissioners. The applicant has proposed 4 separate subdivision cases in one rezone case which went for public hearing in July of this year. All were approved in the same month as the public hearing. The applicant has stated that they want the majority of the properties within the Cliff Point area to have the same zoning designation to create uniformity within the Cliff Point community. Oceanfront Kodiak LLC has requested that Cliff Point Estates Addition Number 1, Tracts B and C, and Cliff Point Estates Addition Number 3, Tracts D, all be rezoned into a zoning designation with a greater area requirement, the Sea Conservation District of 5 acres.

The larger area— sorry, area condition will keep the integrity of the proposed zoning district and the surrounding areas. In addition, it also gives the future property owners more room to maneuver their potential developments. KIBC 17.50 is already existing code within the Sea Conservation District to prevent clearing, filling, excavation, or structural development within a 50-foot buffer barrier adjacent to any Anadromous streams. I know this was brought up a couple meetings ago, so I do want to reiterate that. This request is in line and compliant with the future land use maps.

In addition, there was another question regarding, um, land use allowed within the Cliff Point area, and we did provide you with the covenants that does protect that area, letting them know that you can't have certain businesses and such. So I know that was a concern, so we do have the covenants before you and in the case packet. Um, staff does recommend approving the proposed rezone and forwarding Case 27- SB 1008 onto the Assembly for final approval.

Thank you, Bronwyn. Any questions for staff?

Joe? I have no question, I guess. The only thing that I have is the concern, as I mentioned before, is the small buffer zone for the stream. Also, I— as we just got done talking about affordable housing, I wonder if the big— making the lots bigger is going to make it more affordable to people here in Kodiak. My wish would be that when we do land sales or people do build houses, we make them so that regular Kodiak people, longtime residents, get to— or can afford to buy into that land, because it's almost as if you're choosing who you want to live on the island.

And if you make it too expensive for regular people, then it almost defeats the purpose of talking about affordable housing. But those are my only concerns, and with that, I'll be voting yes, though. Chair, can I make a comment to Mr.— Commissioner Delgado regarding that? I think we were supposed to go to public comments first, weren't we? No.

There wasn't any comments? That comes up. Because that's kind of not really a question. That was kind of a discussion. Correct.

I appreciate that. Correct. I just wanted to give him a little bit more information on a few of his concerns, if that's allowed. Okay, thank you. Um, the Conservation District, I know it does have that 50-foot buffer, but in addition to that, it also has protection for how much lot of a Conservation District you're even allowed to clear.

So that might help keep an additional buffer. Yeah, I just wanted to point that out because it might help a little bit keep more of a buffer between that Anadromous Stream area and where their potential development is on that particular— the few particular lots that they this does affect. So I just wanted to address that with Mr. Delgado. I'm glad you reminded me. I do remember seeing that.

Yes, sir. Okay, no questions for staff. We're going to go ahead and open up for public comment. Doesn't look like there's anybody here. If there's anybody who'd like to comment, please call 486-3231 or toll-free 855-492-9202.

If you are in person, please come to the podium, sign in, and state your name for the record.

Seeing no comments, we will close the public hearing and move into Commissioner discussion. Any discussion, further discussion? No. Oh, okay. I did like Joe's point about making lots bigger.

It does seem like it is a little backwards for providing more land and stuff. Might be a better way to do things in the future. But anyways, I don't have anything else to say.

Okay, can I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, sir. Mr. Craig— I'm so sorry, Miss Dagan, I was staring at Craig's name. I apologize for that. Mr. Neff?

Yes. Mr. Delgado? Yes. And Mr. Dagan? Yes.

Would anyone like to change their mo— their vote? Motion passes 4-0. I apologize, Miss Craig. No problem. All right, thank you, Bronwyn.

Okay, we'll move on to Case 27-009, Capital Improvements Projects Priority List for FY 2027-2031.

Mr. Neff, we did move that case to the end, so your next case will be, uh, 27-TAC-010, the variance for Mr. Anderson.

Um, okay, moving on to case 27-011, request of Variance to reduce the required number of parking from 8 parking spaces to 2 regular. Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, you got the one before that is one that we're on, 27-010. Oh, that's the one we're on.

Okay, I'll figure it out.

Okay, here we go. Case 27-010. -010, Request variance to reduce the front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 foot 16 feet and reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet for the new build allowance for Pisac Shack River Block 1, Lot A, common address 4689 Pisac Shack Road. Staff report, please. Or excuse me, uh, can I get a motion?

I move Move to approve Resolution Number FY2027-10. Second. Okay, staff report please, Chris. Yes, thank you. Uh, the applicant requests two variances to allow construction of a cabin on the property at 46889 Besag Shack Road.

The existing property is substandard in lot size and is unusual in shape compared to the other properties in the in the surrounding area that are zoned RR-1, and the subject property was created before the current zoning regulations, which require a larger lot for property without access to public water and sewer. The requested variances include a request to reduce the 25-foot front yard setback from 25 feet to 10 feet, a request to reduce the 20-foot rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet. The staff analysis begins on page 2 of your staff report and Proposed findings in support of the variance are on page 4 of the staff report. Again, if the Commission disagrees with the staff recommendation, they will have to develop findings in opposition. In the alternative to that, the Commission could postpone action on that to allow staff to create a resolution in opposition.

I will say at the work session, there was some discussion about— how sewage was being handled. Uh, the applicant stated there will be a storage tank associated with this structure. This cabin is under 200 square feet in area, so it's very small. We also received a comment, uh, today on this case, and so that was also placed in front of you. And I think the primary concern there again was also sewage for the property.

And again, that the applicant has stated It would be handled by a storage tank. I believe the applicant is here if you have questions for public hearing. If you have any questions of me, I will be happy to answer those.

Any questions for the staff? Chris, you mentioned that the comment was in the packet. I am looking through it. Not in the packet. It was a hard copy.

We printed it and gave it to you, yes. Okay. I believe either yesterday or today, I believe it came in.

Okay, we're going to open the public hearing to anyone to comment. Case 27010. If you'd like to make a comment, call the local number at 907-486-3231 or call toll-free at 855-492-9202. If you are here in person, please come to the podium, sign in, stay State your name for the record.

Okay, we're going to close the public hearing and move into commissioner discussion. Anybody have anything they'd like to say?

I think that the applicant did a pretty good job of explaining what it was he was doing there how it was going to be accomplished. So I agree, I'll be voting yes.

Okay, thanks, Joe, for your comment. Can I get a roll call, please? Bronwyn? Yes, Chair. Mr. Dagan?

Yes. Ms. Craig? Yes. Mr. Neff? Yes.

Mr. Delgado? Yes. Would anyone wish to change their vote? Motion passes.

4-0. All right. Okay. We're going to move on to Case Number 27-011, request variance to reduce the required number of parking from 8 parking spaces to 2 regular spaces, 2 loading dock spaces, and 1 ADA-compliant parking space for ATS 49, Track N-17B, common address 419 Shelikoff Street.

I move to approve Resolution FY2027-011. Second. Can I get a staff report, Chris? Yeah, this is Brahman's case. I'll have her present that to you.

Uh, yeah, you guys are going to hear from me a lot tonight. Okay. Uh, good evening, Commissioners. The principal use within the I Industrial District consists of land-intensive commercial uses incorporating certain types of manufacturing, repairing, and assembling of goods, particularly those related to the fishing industry. Seafood processing establishments are permitted within the I Industrial District.

Within Kodiak Island Borough Code 17.175.040, which is off-street parking, industrial or manufacturing establishments have a parking requirement of 1 per 700 square feet of gross floor area. The proposed structure is a total of 5,250 square feet, bringing the required amount of parking on the lot to a total of 8 spaces within the— with the required loading space. Staff reviewed other industrial-zoned parcels in the surrounding area, finding that this lot is significantly smaller in lot area. Directly east and west of the subject parcel are 2 industrial-zoned lots. Both lots are over an acre in parcel size.

Comparing that to the 0.658 acres on 419 Shellecroft Street, it shows it's significantly smaller in lot size. In addition, the subject partial— parcel has a substantial amount of lot located in the open water.

Okay, any questions for staff?

All right, we will open up the Public hearing for anybody who wants to comment on Case 27-011. If you'd like to make a comment, call the local number at 907-486-3231 or toll-free 855-492-9202. If you're here in person, please come to the podium, sign in, state your name for the record.

Seeing no comments, we'll move on to Commissioner discussion. Anybody want to talk about it? I would move that we do a roll call. Can I get a roll call, please? Yes, Mr.

Chair. Miss Craig? Yes. Mr. Neff? Yes.

Mr. Delgado? Yes. Mr. Dagan? Yes. Would anyone wish to change their vote?

Motion passes 4-0. Thank you, Bronwyn. Okay, no old business. New business. First up, Mr.

Chair. Oh, excuse me. CIP. We got to get back to the CIP. Oh, wow, I really— why did I do that?

Oh, my papers got out of order. Let's see. Let me move this one to the end before we go. Okay.

I lose my page.

There it is, I found it. I lost it for a while, sorry about that, guys. Okay, introducing Case 27-009, Capital Improvements Project Priority List for FY 2027-2031. I move to approve Resolution FY 2027-2031.

27-09. Okay, can I get a staff report please?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Before you is FY— is Resolution FY 2027 Tax 009 related to the Capital Improvements Program. This encompasses the entire 5-year span of this program runs. At last week's meeting, you guys deliberated and moved all— I believe it's 18 projects and into their preferential order.

I know we did do things a tad differently this year just because we had come into some more information as staff kind of absorbed this responsibility. So at this point, I just wanted to make sure that I did capture every— the numbers in the correct order. I did have it run through a couple different people to make sure we all had the same numbers on the same projects. So if you do see any issues, please let me know and I can make a clerical fix on that.

Any questions for staff?

I trust Brownwyn to be thorough as she is, so I believe it to be a good list. All right. Move on to public. We will open it up for public comments.

If you'd like to make a comment, call the local number at 907-486-3231 or toll-free number at 855-492-9202. If you're here in person, please go to the podium, sign in, and state your name for the record.

Seeing no comments, we'll open it up for commissioner discussion. Any discussion?

Mr. Luscombe. Okay. I'll just say that it was a long and hard process. It's much different than when I first came to the Planning and Zoning, so I appreciate all the effort that staff has put into learning how to do this because I remember when I first got here, many people didn't even know what a CIP list was used for. We've come a long way, and I appreciate you guys' work.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Commissioner. Can I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Neff? Yes. Mr. Delgado? Yes. Mr. Dagan?

Yes. Ms. Craig? Yes. Would anyone wish to change their vote? Motion passes 4-0.

I'm so sorry with the mix-up with you two tonight. You're not messing up nearly as much as I am. Mr. Chair, can I— I have a I was in— have been in communication off and on by text with Commissioner Williamson since we were trying to let her know about our Zoom problems that we had. She asked, and I told her I would talk to you all before you got to the new business, if you want to postpone the two elections until she's available.

And again, you also have a new member next month. I told her I would discuss that with you before you went to those two election items that are before you, because you have the one for, you know, voting on a new chair and also recommending someone to my chairman. Okay. That's after this next case, right? No, you're done with all your public hearing cases, so it would be new business.

I thought we haven't done the parking one yet, have we?

Yeah, you have done that. Oh, okay.

But I just wanted to bring that to your attention, uh, because I did, uh, she— we did talk— I did talk to her by text and she wanted you to consider that. Well, that sounds fair. I mean, I'm, I'm— I'll entertain a motion to that effect if somebody wants to do that. So you'll need to call your—. Both of those items and, and go through, uh, oh, okay.

Second up in business, we have— oh no, that's not— that's the wrong one. Okay, uh, I lost my paper again.

Okay, okay, old business, no old business. First up, new business, we have election of chair and vice chair. I will open up for nominations for chair. Chairman, I make a motion to postpone this until October. Second.

Can I get a roll call vote, please? Yes, Mr. Chair. Mr. Delgado?

Yes. Mr. Dagan? Yes. Ms. Craig? Yes.

Mr. Neff? Yes. Would anyone wish to change their vote? Motion passes 4-0. Okay, I think we're going to— all right, second up, new business.

We have recommendation of Commissioner for Lands Committee. I think I think once again I would entertain a motion to postpone that.

I will make a motion to postpone this one as well. Second.

Can I get a roll call vote, please?

Mr. Dagan? Yes. Ms. Craig? Yes. Mr. Neff?

Yes. Mr. Delgado? Yes. Would anyone like to change their vote? Motion passes 4-0.

Okay, we've got two planning and zoning case result letters signed and approved. And, uh, director's comments? Yes, thank you. Uh, speaking of approvals, the Cliff Point subdivision cases have all— all four of those subdivisions have been recorded with the State of Alaska, and then that first rezone that was associated with those properties has also been approved by the Borough Assembly. Regarding Plan 2045, if the Commissioners have any comments or questions related to the Land Use Chapter, please send those to me by the end of next week.

Week. We will be placing the drafts of Chapter 1 and Chapter 2, I believe it's October 8th, for work session with the assembly. So if you do have comments in either one of those chapters, please send them to me by the end of next week so I can include any of that before I add that to the work session. And then we also have some information on the multi-jurisdiction multi-hazard mitigation plan. We have the annual review that we're currently conducting.

At the link here before you in the director's report is to the emergency planning page. There is a community survey there that we have out for the public to use. I would encourage the commissioners to take the community survey as well. City Community Development staff has also contacted local governments and other agencies for status updates on specific mitigation action items that are identified in the hazard mitigation plan. And once the all-public engagement portion of the annual review is complete, Community Development staff will create an annual report and we will present those findings to the assembly at a work session fall/winter time, probably November, I would think.

And other than that, I have some information here for the American Planning Association. As you know, in your bylaws, you're required to have 4 hours of training every fiscal year. And I did give you some information. I'm going to add this to the director's report every month so you can have some links that you can go to and do training on your own, and so you're not beholden to, you know, have training at your work sessions, although we will have a work session training next month in October since we don't have any cases filed for the October regular meeting. So we'll have some training at the work session, and, and we'll also, uh, be planning on going over, uh, Chapter 3 of the— of Plan 2045, which is an important chapter because it's the housing chapter.

So we'll be talking about that. But what I have for you here at the end of the Director's Report are links to 3 different articles on specific planning topics. One's on tourism planning, one's on short-term rentals, and the other one's on housing reform. And these will provide you some information. If you do read those, please email Kristen and let her know that you completed those, which one you completed, and we'll be able to log that in towards your your 4 hours of training.

And as I said, we will have some training next month's work session as well. If you have any questions, please let me know.

Okay. Commissioner Commins.

Certainly. I will start us off. So again, I am glad to see that our citizenry stepped up to to make their voice be heard tonight. Chris Browne, Christine, thank you for your service and for how you guided us through that process. I'm glad to see that we do have that First Amendment right to speak our minds and to stand on principle.

As to everything else, I'm glad to see that we moved the people's business forward. And that we were able to make our decisions for what we could make. And I look forward to the decisions that we will make next October— or next month— next October. Thank you.

Tracy. Thank you, everybody, for all the work you did, and I appreciate everybody coming. That was awesome, and I look forward to our next meeting in October. Thanks.

Joe?

Everything they said.

It's good to see so many people show up. I wish it would be like that more often, but, you know, I'm glad to see that they do. We get to see what people really care about when we see that kind of a show-up. Turnout. I see in some of the comments that were sent to us have been well thought out, researched, and I'm amazed at some of the stuff that they found.

I wish that they would run for some of the commissions and the boards, the assembly, because they're doing all that work, you know, and I appreciate it. It helps me to make my decision, and it's good to see how engaged people really are. So thank you all for that.

Yeah, it was— thanks, Joe. Yeah, I agree. That was really a lot more exciting than we usually have with all the comments and everything. And yeah, I appreciate, Tracy, what you said about sending it to the borough, that maybe that would be the final nail in the coffin. Really rest to know that they don't have to deal with this.

They could have kind of a permanent, semi-permanent. Parkland, there's a very good point. Um, and so many other people, everybody were— there was a lot. LoJo said there's just so many well-thought-out points and discussions. Very, very, uh, very good.

Congratulations, kudos to everybody involved, staff included. And, uh, that being said, um, Mr. Chair, can I just make a statement real quick? Sure. Through you.

So this is through the chair. I just wanted to clarify, you are going to have a regular meeting next month because, as you remember, you did postpone the elections and you also postponed action on the land disposal. So you will have a regular meeting, you just won't have any new cases on for that agenda. So just to make that clear. Oh, okay.

Thank you.

So, Chairman— Yeah, go ahead. —A request for consideration. In the agenda setting for next month, can we set back the items that are going to be long So that way we can get those decisions out of the way for the public that may show up for those votes that we'll have. I guess that's kind of a question for staff. You guys usually figure out the order.

I don't know how you do it. So, um, at this point, as Chris stated earlier, this case that we did postpone or continue on to next month's, it won't be in the public hearing. You guys will make a motion to move that into the public hearing. Okay, um, I believe they can amend the agenda at next month's meeting, correct? If so, it would normally be under old business because you did close out, uh, public comment.

But if you want to open it back up in public comment, you can do that when you're considering the agenda and, and move it up to the public hearing, and it would be the first thing you would hear. Okay. And you wouldn't be doing elections until Because the elections would fall under old business now. Correct. Okay.

Because they were new business this meeting. So the hearing— that hearing, if you move it up to the hearing, it's going to be the first case. Wonderful. So thank you. Okay.

I think my paper has got the wrong dates on it. It says the next regular meeting and was in September. I think you must— on my paper that you gave me. The next regular meeting is going to be October 21st, 2026, and the next work session will be a week prior on the 14th of October. Okay, thanks.

Very welcome, Chair.

Um, okay, yeah, my papers said different, but anyways, okay. Um, okay, can I request a motion to adjourn the meeting?

Make motion to adjourn.

Get a second? I second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Meeting is adjourned at 8:07 PM.

Yeah.