Anchorage Assembly: Planning and Zoning Commission - September 14, 2026 - 2026-09-14 18:30:00

We'll call the September 14th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting to order. May we please have the roll call? Jared Garner. Here. Radhika Krishna.

Here. Scott Pullis. Here. Jeff Rahn. Here.

Andre Spinelli. Here. Alma Abaza. Here. Megan Mills.

Here. Edith McKee. Here. Brandi Evers excused, you have a quorum.

We have the minutes from Monday, August 3rd. And August 10th. Next on the agenda, may we please have the motion to approve the minutes?

Moved by Commissioner Gardner, seconded by Commissioner Mills. Are there any corrections to the minutes?

Hearing and seeing none, the minutes are approved. Next, special order of business. Any disclosures from the commission? Commissioner Polis? Yeah, I was absent for the August 10th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-045 through 2026-047.

Thank you. Any other disclosures?

Commissioner McKee? Hi, yes. The company I work for often subcontracts with Huddle, who is representing the petitioner on Case 2026-0109. However, I had no prior knowledge until I received the packet, and I have no financial gain from the project. Thank you.

I do not see a conflict there.

Any other disclosures? Hearing and seeing none, we'll move on to case 2026-0129. Will staff provide a brief presentation, please? Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Um, it's Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning. We don't have, uh, slides or anything. The item before you today is an informational item. You'll see it's a little bit overdue, at least in terms of when it was put on our task list. So I'll start with Assembly Resolution 2025-67 was adopted on March 4th, 2025, and that had some specific requests of the Planning and Zoning Commission.

And I'll read out the most salient part. The Planning and Zoning Commission should review whether district and neighborhood plans within the municipality of Anchorage should be considered advisory to the comprehensive plan. And not have the same force of law as the principles, policies, and goals set forth in the comprehensive plan, and provide its recommendations to the assembly on or before September 23rd, 2025. And then it outlined a number of priorities. So our sort of informational item for you all today is to think about this, review, review the materials, decide if you want to forward a recommendation now, if you want to set up a work session.

Really, it's up to whatever you all would like to do. I can go through some of the particulars, or actually, I guess I'll just do a high-level sort of review. In our review, we looked at— there's, you know, almost 50 elements of the Comprehensive Plan. So we have— Anchorage does a lot of planning. Some plans are just sort of like a parks plan, for example, doesn't necessarily get adopted in the Comprehensive Plan.

But a Comprehensive Plan like the Spinard Corridor Plan The Girdwood Comprehensive Plan, those items do get adopted in, so they're supposed to have a little bit more weight. So if somebody is making an investment decision or a project decision and there's policy guidance in an element that's adopted as a comprehensive plan, then it's more likely it's supposed to, you know, be stronger guidance. But again, we look at, you know, all planning documents, especially newer planning documents, are also always useful in making those decisions. So We went through— basically Anchorage does have a lot of plans. We have a lot of plans that have never been updated.

In fact, the majority have not been updated. And so it's kind of a question of priorities, I think, and resources. If Anchorage really wants to maintain this, we probably have to look at thinking a little bit more about how the municipality implements plans, tracks plans, carries through on plans. We—. From what we can tell, a lot of plans don't ever really get implemented.

And once they get adopted, then they kind of sit on the shelf, to use the cliché. So it's a big policy question. You know, it might be a bigger policy question of the Comprehensive Plan in general. But I guess I will leave it at that unless anybody has any questions.

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the chair, to staff. Thank you for this succinct report out. It was very informative. That said, I as a commissioner would welcome the opportunity to continue to discuss it in a work session and figure out next steps associated with it.

Before I leave there, however, I would appreciate a little additional clarification in the ask by the AO from the assembly. If I read Let's say just use page 17 of that staff packet as an example. The top 7 lines of AO-2025-067, the first part of it asks the Planning and Zoning Commission to review district and neighborhood plans, and then it says, and recommend whether they should be advisory to the comp plan. So Part A of the question is, can you help the commission understand what it means to be advisory to the comp plan? And then Part B, the follow-on, it says, or make policy and budget recommendations to remedy, and then the language goes on.

So is the AO looking to PCC to either/or, and if so, what is the or in terms of make policy and budget recommendations? Maybe just a quick response, and we can dive further into that hopefully in a follow-on work session. Through the chair, I think to the first question, what does advisory mean? Advisory just means that it's not adopted into the comprehensive plan, and this itself is kind of a bit confusing, right? Because if we— the community goes through a process to create a plan, I don't think people are going to just, you know, not pay attention to it because it hasn't been adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.

But technically, per code, the elements that are adopted in are supposed to have more weight, although that's not really a well-defined term. So what it would mean in practice is that many of these plans would sort of be brought to a different level, or they could be, you know, sunset after a certain time or something like that. And, you know, they could still be used as guidance. It would just— they couldn't be used for people to say, oh, we need to follow the comprehensive plan on this. They wouldn't be considered part of what that means.

Right now, the comprehensive plan is all of its elements. And to the second question, what are the budget ramifications? So this AO was sponsored by Vice Chair Zalatel, who is no longer in the body, so I can't speak exactly to the motivations of the AR, the Assembly Resolution Writer. But I think— I'm assuming that it probably had something to do with if we are going to sort of lean into the concept of full neighborhood and district plans, then what would the commission recommend for funding that so that every part of Anchorage had a plan, every part, and the planning department had enough to make sure we were implementing the plans? I think on page 10 of your packet you'll see all the areas of the municipality that don't currently have a plan.

So that would be the first thing. Say the commission decides we really want to keep neighborhood district plans and we want full coverage for everybody, thinking about, okay, as the municipality moves forward in the budget process, how can we fund these plans for all of these areas and then the updates for some, you know, for the other areas that have them. So I would assume, I think, but I can't speak for the vice chairs at ALOTO.

Um, are you finished, Commissioner Rahn, or do you want— okay, Commissioner Krishna. Um, I see the planning— I see the planning director in the queue, so I'd be curious to hear from the planning director. Director Babb. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Krishna.

Just to add a little bit more information to what Mr. McKenna Foster just said, um, when it comes to the different weight of the plans the Comp Plan versus those advisory plans. I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that once something is adopted into the comprehensive plan, it has more regulatory weight. There is language— there is a lot of language actually in like the 2020 Comp Plan for the Anchorage Bowl, the Wetlands Plan, which is an adopted element that is actually regulatory language. And if those plans— if the Wetlands plan were advisory to the comp plan, um, then that language would not have that weight of being regulatory language.

Uh, Commissioner Christian, did you want to jump back in? Sure. Um, I would also be very interested in a work session, um, and if there is an assembly sponsor currently Inviting them, I think, would be helpful, or inviting any member of the assembly who would be interested in carrying this forward after— as I see, the sponsor in our packet is not currently seated on the assembly.

Probably everyone has heard me say this many times, but I was the primary author of the Mountain View Targeted Neighborhood Plan, and so I have a lot of— there's an allusion to me in the packet. I'm the person who spent 3 years of my time in my early 20s writing that plan. Um, so, uh, I've got lots of thoughts, um, but mostly I would— I, I want to start, A, by acknowledging the huge amounts of time that some residents— I know there are residents in this town who've spent 10 years on a committee for their community council, um, engaging in a volunteer activity that they sincerely believe will improve the quality of life in their neighborhood, lead to more resources for their neighbors. So I want to acknowledge that we're looking at an enormous outlay of our residents' volunteer capacity and their time and their belief and trust in the ability of the municipality to, um, to, to care for them and their neighborhoods and their neighbors. So I want to start there, um, by, by talking about that.

Um, I think that for me, I have a little bit of trouble seeing this, um, in isolation. Um, I think we've got much larger issues that this ties into about how our plans and our budgeting process connect. Um, and, uh, I think you'll notice for those of us seated on this commission that we don't often get to see a plan after it's adopted. So we, I think, could have a much stronger process to make sure that plans don't sit on a shelf after they've been adopted for us, for, you know, municipal staff, for those community members.

And I think I would start by just saying I echo Commissioner Rahn's question, which is, um, in practice I think these plans are advisory anyway. Um, that is the way that they function. They don't directly lead to a budget allocation, um, as far as I'm aware. If I'm wrong about that, I'd be interested in hearing that in a work session, um, at least for neighborhood plans that I'm talking about. But, um, I, I don't want to create a process that leads to a similar outcome but with maybe less weight.

So I would be interested in taking a look, I think, at Title 21, Chapter 2103, which is where some of this comes from, and just taking, taking a step back and having the Commission provide some recommendations, I think, more broadly to that comprehensive plan chapter, I think would be a valuable exercise as part of this. And then the second thing that I won't ask for an answer right now, but in the packet it seems like some of this was initiated due to something that I can't quite discern about the Girdwood Board of Supervisors and the Chugiak Eagle River Advisory Board needing a process by which to initiate comprehensive plan amendments or updates. So if there's some— I'm not sure if that was ever passed by the assembly or if that's still an item that needs to, you know, be recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, but I'd appreciate some more information about that at the work session as well.

I see no one else in the queue. I'll— Commissioner Rahn, were you— did you have more questions or you're done? Um, I would like to just ask a question real quick. Would it—. So when it comes to things like the Hillside District Plan saying it's okay to have gravel roads and then Title 21 saying no, in Anchorage, Alaska, we pave our roads, Would it make a difference one way or another on a topic like that one?

I mean, I could think of 1,000 different versions, but that one's pretty easy to just digest, maybe. I'll start. I think going back to the director's comment, the regulations have to follow the comp plan. That's state law, right? So by adopting something into the comp plan, you are setting up that potential conflict if the regulations vary from that.

So I would say if the Comprehensive Plan says X and then the regulations say something different, then somebody potentially could do a challenge there. I'm not a lawyer. I, I don't know anything about, you know, legal advice or anything like that. But that is, I think, where— and Hillside District Plan is sort of unique too because it has a lot of very specific stuff. For example, if you want to do certain rezones, you have to change the Hillside District Plan because the 2040 Plan says you have to— this have to align with Map 2.1 that's in the Hillside District Plan.

Complan. And so they— if it's adopted in, it does have this much more power to do all sorts of stuff, or the regulatory pieces where, um, you know, it should be X or Y. But I think because if somebody came and said, well, Title 21 or Title whatever the road title is says you have to do this, but the Complan says this, that's something that could potentially be challenged, I think, right?

But if there was an advisory, it's like, well, that's just a recommendation, right? Like you go to some— you go to a judge, you go to some higher appeal People would say, well, that, you know, that's a study or advice. But if it's in the comprehensive plan, it means the assembly adopted it. It became a piece of legislation in a way. So it needs to be followed and you have to reconcile whatever discrepancy is there.

I haven't seen that happen yet, but that's one of the things about elements of the comprehensive plan. Yeah, this will be an exciting work session full of lots of fun stuff.

So do we need an official motion, a motion to discuss at a future work session, or do we need— what does staff need?

I don't believe we need a motion. I think we just need to hear from the commission that you would like to have a work session and we can get that scheduled.

I believe that's what I heard. Anybody object? No? All thumbs up around here.

Alrighty, moving on.

May we please have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Commissioner Key, seconded by Commissioner Abaza. Anybody wishing to pull any items for discussion?

Any objections?

Hearing none, consent agenda is approved.

Next, we will move into the public hearings. I will read the procedure by which the public may speak to the Commission at its meetings.

After the staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission Rules of Procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 5 minutes.

Individuals, 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete You may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission. Any party of interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the Planning Director within 7 days of the Commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 2103-050.

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with 2103050. The notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality. If the appellant is not the applicant, The appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

May we please have the staff presentation on case 2026-0109?

Thank you. Uh, PM&E is requesting site plan approval for the Basher Trailhead parking lot project. This project is for a new paved parking lot with 52 spaces, including 3 ADA accessible spaces at the Basher Trailhead. The existing parking lot has space for only 16 vehicles and is a gravel lot. The project will also include a pathway connection and revegetation of the existing parking lot once the new one is ready for use.

The department finds that the 4 approval criteria for site plan review are met with the conditions of approval on pages on page— Conditions of Approval 1 through 5 on page 4 of your packet.

This project is much-needed safety improvement. They will also expand public access to the Hillside Trail system. This rural hillside trailhead is located 3 miles up Basher Road. Tonight, the Planning and Zoning Commission is approving a site plan for a parking lot. It's just a parking lot.

This is not a park master plan. The project is funded by voter-approved municipal bond. This project was approved by the Parks and Rec Commission. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Braun.

Thank you. Through the chair, um, staff, in the packet I noted a few references to fiscal sustainability of maintenance. Could you speak to that a little bit, please? What's the history and current proposed amenities, if any, for fee collection or other? Thanks.

Um, well, there's a condition of approval, uh, number 4, conditional approval number 4 on page 4 of your packet, this is provide a long-term maintenance plan that outlines which department will be responsible for maintaining the parking lot throughout the year, including snow plowing, snow storage. Um, uh, so, uh, should the, uh, the site plan be approved tonight, uh, they'll produce that, uh, um, uh, document. But, um, did that get at your question?

It did. I guess a quick follow-up. I haven't looked closely enough at the plans. Is, is there a pay kiosk on the site plans? Uh, no, there is, is not.

Uh, finished, Commissioner Rohn? Commissioner Mills. I've got two questions for you. The first one, does this conflict with the Far North Bicentennial Master Plan? I just want to clarify if there, there is a conflict or if these are in alignment.

Through the chair, I looked at that plan and I did not see a conflict. Okay, my other question, just I guess for clarification, all of our knowledge, um, at what point is a traffic study typically recommended or required in one of these projects? Um, well, in terms of zoning and, uh, Title 21, the zoning code, the municipal traffic engineer can invoke a traffic impact analysis at any time with any permit.

And this project doesn't trigger that, is what I'm understanding. Oh, um, it's my understanding that we have comments from the Municipal Traffic Department with no objection here in the packet, and they did not ask for a traffic study. Okay.

Hearing, seeing no further questions for staff, we will ask for the petitioner's presentation.

Good evening. Um, I would like to give a presentation. I would like to reserve 7 minutes for rebuttal, please.

There's 5 minutes. I want to reserve 7, please. So I'll only—. Do you want to reserve 5? Reserve 7, please.

Oh, 7. Okay.

Thank you. Um, good evening and thank you for your time. My name is Lucy Barenko. I am a public engagement specialist with Huddle. I'm here on behalf of the project team of PM&E for the Basher Trailhead project.

I'm alongside Tom Garrett with PTS, who is a civil engineer.

So I think Francis did a wonderful job explaining the project, but the purpose of this project is truly to improve access, safety, and capacity and the overall functionality at the Basher Trailhead. The existing trailhead has longstanding parking and circulation challenges, and the project provides an opportunity to create a safer and more functional facility while continuing our close coordination with the community and agency partners. Um, as Francis had mentioned, this project was funded through two different bonding, uh, one in 2025 or 2025 and then again in 2026 for the, uh, construction phase services.

We began the planning and public involvement process back in 2025 and continue to refine the the design through the 35% and the 65% design phases. We're currently at the revised 65% design and anticipate construction in 2027. Through public and agency involvement, there has been a significant part of this process. We've received more than 400 responses to the community survey, held numerous stakeholder meetings, presented at numerous Basher Community Council meetings, and coordinated with Alaska State Parks and other municipal agencies, held formal public public comment periods at both the 35% and 65% design stages. All of that input, input has directly affected and guided what you've seen in your packets.

Most importantly, this plan is consistent with the Chugach State Park planning, both the State Park Management Plan and Access Plan, to identify needs to expand and improve this trailhead, including parking, trailhead connections, and visitor amenities. The Access The master plan specifically identifies this location as a large vehicular access point, and they recommended 40+ cars.

So the proposed improvements I won't go over. As Francis already mentioned, it's a 52-space lot. We had originally designed 6 ADA spaces, and we're looking to reduce that to 3, still keeping a total of 52 spaces. There'll be trailhead signage, bike racks, trash receptacles, one vaulted restroom, passenger loading zone, and connection to the existing state park trailhead trails. This is just a drawing that shows the revised 65% design with the grading, and then this is a 3D model that kind of shows the relationship of the trailhead to Campbell Airstrip Road and the existing trails in the area.

I just want to say thank you very much for your time. And we are happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions for the petitioner?

Commissioner McKee.

Hi. Thank you. I have a couple of questions for you. We received a comment from the public asking about traffic studies. I know it was shared that it's not required, but, um, so I'm asking if, if a traffic study or a count of vehicles using the area was done and what the results were, if it was done and when it was done, if it was done.

Um, thank you. Through the chair, Commissioner McKee, there has not been a traffic study done for this, as, um, Francis from the planning department had mentioned that we did talk to municipal traffic and they did not recommend or request a traffic study. We do not have any traffic counts from the area other than observations made by the community that we've received information. So, so that— so community comments are how the number of parking spaces were determined?

No, the number of parking spaces was determined based on the Chugach State Park access plan as well as the— what the site could reasonably handle, as well as the funding, as well as what we had heard through the public process. And then, um, let me see here. So The, the primary, like, the, the poor sight distance when entering and exiting was one of the leading, um, concerns. Was— I'm assuming the design accounts for sight distance verification, uh, through the chair, uh, Commissioner McKee. Absolutely, that was one of the major concerns of the existing parking area was the poor sight distance, as the existing, um, driveway is at the top top of a hill.

I do have the statistics for how the site distance has been improved, if you would like those numbers.

Sure.

So for the existing driveway, the existing site distance looking to the west is 280 feet. At the proposed trailhead driveway, it would increase to 445 feet. At the existing driveway to the east, it's only 106 feet, and at the proposed, it would increase to 393 feet. Great, thank you. You're welcome.

And then one of my other questions is, um, one of the other higher-ranking concerns of the area based on the survey results was that crime or car break-ins. Does the plan include anything to help remedy that potential issue? Thank you. Through the chair, um, Commissioner McKee, um, we worked with the community to understand a lot of the concerns, as there are a lot of concerns with most trailheads and break-ins and those and the such. Um, we are proposing a gate to, uh, be included as a part of this for management purposes.

It hasn't been decided, um, how that gate will be managed, but it is standard practice in case that lot does need to be closed in the event that there is significant concerns. We also worked with the community to understand the site distance into the parking lot, not wanting to design a parking lot that was hidden from the roadway but that people could see into for safety, as well as looking at designing all of the drainage and the snow storage away from the roadway, between the roadway and the parking area, to again make sure that entrance and exit out of the driveway is safe, as well as viewing into the parking area also allows for increased safety and visibility of the parking area. So I just have a few more questions. So one of the other comments was that a parking lot webcam or lighting— are either of those amenities able to be included, or are they included? Um, through the chair, I'm sorry, could you repeat the question?

Um, A couple of the amenities that were high-scoring was, um, the addition of a webcam or lighting to help deter crime. Were either of those able to be included, or could they be added later? Through the chair, thank you for the question, Senator— um, Commissioner McKee. They were absolutely considered as part of this project. We did work with CEA to understand where electrical could potentially be brought to the site.

After preliminary evaluation of where electrical would need to be brought and how far, it was determined that it was fiscally infeasible to bring power to the site. However, it is something that could potentially be added in the future if it is so desired. Thank you. And then the— I have two questions left. So on the— in our packet, we've got the Basher Trailhead existing conditions, and it shows a fuel break zone that runs very parallel to the road, but the proposed parking lot is kind of more perpendicular.

Was it considered to kind of use that fuel break zone for the parking, and that would potentially help reduce the amount of clearing that would be required? And would also kind of like what you mentioned earlier increase the visibility of the parking and potentially deter crime?

As much as anything, the location of the parking lot—. Can you please speak in the mic? The location of the driveway drove— driveway access and site distance drove most of the design and then based on balancing cut and fills and costs and, uh, accounting for the, the, the number of spaces.

The—. There was a short meeting with a gentleman from the fire department, and he was quite pleased with the design. He thought it would benefit safety for the area. I can't remember the particulars, but he was quite pleased with the design. Thank you.

And then my last question is on— we have trail plan and profile, it's sheet 11 of 32 in our packet. Um, so I mean, you're within the ADA compliance with 5% max being the maximum allowed between the ADA parking spaces and the trail that connects them to to the existing trailhead. Is there any opportunity to flatten that and make it a little bit less steep? 5% Is, is difficult to navigate for people who are using mobility devices.

Did say the design criteria was a maximum of 5%? It is, and you're at 4.9%. I'm just asking, I mean, you've met the criteria, but yeah, could it be improved to make it a little bit easier for somebody. 5% Is still fairly steep. Oh, okay.

I suppose it could be looked at. Yeah, it's just, it's just a comment.

Thank you for your explanations. Thank you.

I'll just quickly add that the grades get much steeper than 5% anywhere around this area outside the parking lot. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. These, these are more questions.

Um, I, I think these will be relatively quick, but I've got a couple that are somewhat related. But I guess first, just to confirm, did you all have any concerns with the recommendations that the Planning Department included, um, for conditions of approval or advisory comments?

And your mic is off.

Um, if you're referring to the department recommendations, um, there's the 5 recommendations on page 4. Yes. Yeah, I'm sorry, through the chair, um, no, the project team does not have, um, any issue, um, accommodating, um, these recommendations. Okay, thank you. And then, and then a question about one of them.

There's the, the request to clarify if the bicycle parking that's listed as 3 racks, or just— which I guess would correspond to 6 spots, or just 3 spots. And I was wondering if you knew the answer to that and if you could elaborate on how you all determined the number of bike parking spots to include in the design.

Through the chair, thank you for the question, Commissioner Gardner. Um, it is going to be 3 bike racks, of which you can park a bike on either side, so potentially 6 bikes could be parked at the trailhead. Um, in terms of the number that was determined. I believe we had consulted with Title 21, but I'll defer to, uh, to Tom.

I don't have a good answer for you in terms of how the number of bike racks were determined for this site. Do you all know how the number compares with other parking lots that provide access to the the trails in that area?

Through the chair, I'm sorry, could you clarify your question? How—. I guess I don't, I don't know offhand what bike parking spots are available in other parking lots, um, accessing the— if any. Okay, it looks like I'm seeing heads that suggest that there's none that other folks are aware of, so thanks.

Um, Mr. McKenna Foster. I just want to note, relevant to our previous discussion, um, so two plans mentioned, I think it was the Chugach State Park Access Plan, I believe that's a state DNR plan, and the Chugach Access Plan. Uh, Chugach Access Plan went to the Planning and Zoning Commission in 2013, but it was not adopted by the assembly, so it never became an element of the comprehensive plan. It was tabled in I think March 24th, 2015.

So, uh, question from Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, the chair. Echoing my prior question of staff, would appreciate some information on the background and current thoughts around long-term fiscal sustainability of maintaining this looks to be significantly improved facility that's going to draw hopefully a lot more users in a safe way. Um, before I let you answer the question, I will point out commonly known knowledge that Prospect Heights serves many of the same destinations that Basher does. Prospect Heights is, I believe, a fee-for-use state parking lot, so maybe consider that in your response. Thanks.

I think I know how to work that button. Through the chair to Commissioner Aron, thank you. Kent Colhays, Public Works Director. In the construction bond which was alluded to, there is a $70,000 annual increase to the tax cap, and that $70,000 will be dedicated to maintenance of the parking lot. Maintenance right now is planned to be managed by the project management engineering department It'll be almost certainly done through a contract.

So snow removal, trash removal, all that would be done through a contract. And that $70,000 annual maintenance appropriation from taxpayers is perpetual.

Real quick, while you're up here, does PM&E maintain the, like, the parking lots just below this, South Bivouac, North Bivouac? Or any of those others? Uh, thank you for the question, Mr. Chair. They do not.

Um, CASA is a relatively new, um, program in the municipality, and right now it lives in PM&E, and we're working with the administration to probably finalize that. Uh, the other parking lots in the area they refer to down lower, I believe, are maintained by Parks and Recreation. Thank you. I see no further questions for the petitioner. Oh, Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, thank you, through the chair. Uh, design question, apologies if it was asked and answered. The access driveway is of interest, um, as this lot hopefully is well used. What's the consideration around ensuring that the access driveway maintains accessible for emergency vehicles? Other lots in the area with long driveways do frequently have cars parking in the access drives themselves.

The gate has a Knox box on it to allow emergency vehicles to open and close the gate to access the site. Does that answer your— is that the answer you're looking for? No, let me rephrase. On the site plan, there's a long narrow access driveway. Are any boulders more boulders or bollards or any other parking deterrents along the driveway proposed?

If not, why?

No, there are no more deterrents, just the gate.

Thanks. And to clarify my question, just making the point that if the lots are all occupied in the parking lot, if all the stalls are occupied, what are people going to do?

Uh, through the chair, Commissioner Rahn, um, that is a great question. Um, at this time, there, uh, are other accessory parking areas in Far North by Centennial Park that would be, um, accessible for people to utilize, as there will be, um, yeah, um, there is no parking on the roadway on Far North by Centennial Park, so people would have to utilize other trailheads in in the area.

Sorry, but to answer your question, the driveway is— is a driveway, and so there wouldn't be accommodations for people to park along, along that driveway.

Final point: consider some signage so simple as "No parking" in the access driveway. Through the chair, thank you.

Now I see no further questions. You have about 6 minutes and 50 seconds for rebuttal. We will open the public hearing. Anyone from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

You'll need to press a button to turn the mic on. There you go. Hello, my name is River from South Anchorage. Can you repeat your name? River Ramulya from South Anchorage.

Spell the last name, please. R-A-M-U-L-Y-A.

U-G-L-I-A. Thank you. Sorry, is this on the Basher Trailhead? Yes. Oh, okay.

Is there a general comment period later? No, this is it. This is your time. Okay, well, I can relate it to the Basher Trailhead if that's all right. One second, please.

Sorry.

He's new here. Okay. Sorry, now, now we're ready. So, um, I, I understand that there are some really important conversations going on with the way we use our public lands. Access to public lands is very important, but I'm mostly here to talk about— less— I'm less interested in the capacity of bike racks at trailheads right now than I am about what's going on with respect to housing access, emergency housing access.

I'm also a little bit worried about what's being done to zone for data centers. So we all know that data centers are cropping up all over the United States, and for one rack of data centers, it costs about $250,000 per year to operate. A single bed in the city of Anchorage costs about $40,000. To operate based on a quick Google search. So I urge anybody who has any control or power over what kinds of things get built in this city to prioritize housing.

45 People died outside in 2025 alone. That's more people than are in this room right now. And that only includes deaths that met the city's official criteria for what counts as an outdoor death. And I would say the existence of such criteria speak to serious moral and ethical dysfunction among those responsible for ensuring housing options for all living in Anchorage and elsewhere. So I encourage this body and any other governing body such as the Assembly— so even if this body doesn't have power over those things, and I think it does to some extent, I recommend you forward any and all recommendations you can to prioritize, um, right now on the precipice of a cold winter, making sure that rather than spending so much time wondering about bike racks and server racks, we're actually looking at beds and housing.

Um, 45 is too many. 20 Is too many. 1 Is too many. It's unacceptable to me, and I'm not in a position to change that, but I can show up here today and recommend with every fiber of my being that that should be the priority of this commission. So I, according to a Google search, that zoning code is B-3, but my Google search also said that this commission wasn't meeting today, it was meeting sometime later this week or next week.

So please don't build more data centers, please build more housing. For example, zoning housing that allows for smaller homes that aren't classified as accessory dwelling units. I think it's ridiculous that we need 2,000 square foot homes in order to build a small home on the same plot of land. Thank you. Thank you.

See no questions. Anyone else from the public wishing to testify, please step forward.

Hearing and seeing none, we'll call the petition— oh, we have— sure, we have phone testimony.

Hello? Hi, um, uh, Mrs. Mauer, this is Francis McLaughlin, um, calling from the, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, meeting. Um, uh, good evening. Would you like to testify tonight? Yes, I would.

Thank you. Cool. I just want to say that, uh, you have, uh, 3 minutes to speak, and your time will begin now. Thank you. Okay, thank you so much.

Um, I'm not—. Um, uh, Mrs. Mauer, this is Francis McLaughlin, uh, calling from the, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission, uh, meeting. Um, uh, you gotta tell her to turn off her—. Hi, I'm sorry, I think there's a delay with the broadcast on YouTube. Am I live now?

Yeah. Um, so there's—. Sorry about that. No, it's cool. If you, if you mute your other screen, then you'll be golden.

I just did. Cool. Yeah, thank you very much, and thank you for taking my call. I am not sure if there are other members of the Basher Community Council there. Um, thinking that there may not be, um, I thought I would bring up some of the concerns that have come up during some of our meetings, although these opinions are my own.

Um, in general, uh, we support the project as, uh, members of the Stockton Heights community. I'm not speaking on behalf of the community council, although I do think there is broad support for the project. And our family owns two of the parcels that are adjacent to this proposed project. We do recognize that there's inadequate parking at this popular trailhead system that's access to a larger trail system. Some of our concerns are already addressed with respect to the traffic study.

We do feel that it is indicated given the volume of traffic on the road and the potential increased vehicular traffic, which presents a a significant safety concern both for other vehicles as well as recreational traffic such as bikers and pedestrians. It's already a very narrow, poorly maintained road with significant safety concerns. Um, we had also expressed consideration of a possible bike path to move some of this recreational traffic off of the road, and it was not considered as part of this project. Site distance was also already addressed as far as entering and exiting. So that's good.

Another issue that we've been concerned about is security and police monitoring versus placing an increased burden on the Neighborhood Watch volunteers, many of whom are at risk when they are monitoring this area. I was happy to hear that there's a proposed gate, yet I am concerned about adequate police oversight of this facility. We have had at least 2 homicide investigations We have had vehicular fires, numerous fire break— numerous break-ins, um, as well as significant furniture dumping and trash dumping at the existing parking lot. So we'd like to make sure that with the increased, um, activity there, that there is some additional monitoring, not falling to volunteers from the neighborhood, um, and also preventive overnight, um, parking. Um, we are glad to see that restrooms and trash were added, but again, we'd like to make sure that they're monitored.

And that emptying of trash or removal of associated trash that does not go in the can does not fall to neighbors, which we often, um, help to clear trash from this parking lot that attracts a lot of bear activity. Um, lastly, we would like to request and make sure that once this project is approved, that any staking is done prior to beginning excavation. With the recent firebreak, we are very concerned that the work was done without any staking done, and the existing work we believe was done outside of the scope of the approved project, projecting into other areas, which was a significant concern and destroyed existing trail systems. So we'd like to make sure that we're minimizing the impact on neighborhood— neighboring properties, as well as septic systems and forest buffers. Thank you.

I'll take any any additional questions offline if you have any, but I do appreciate your consideration. Uh, thank you. Your time is up. If you had, uh, any brief comments you wanted to finish, I'd be—. I guess—.

Nope, that's it. Thank you. All right, I see no further questions. Thank you.

Thank you, Mrs. Mauer. Good night.

Okay, um, we are done with public testimony. Anybody?

Last call for public testimony, please step forward. Petitioner? You have 6 minutes and 50 seconds for rebuttal.

Thank you. The project team has no rebuttal.

With that, we will close the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state your motion?

I move in case 2026-0109 to approve the major site plan review for the Basher Trailhead parking lot project, subject to the conditions shown on page 4 of the staff report.

Thank you. That is seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Commissioner Rahn, would you like to speak to your motion?

Thank you, Chair. I do intend to support the motion. I concur with staff's findings, um, in that items 1 through 3 in the staff packet, um, those standards are met. I similarly concur that for approval criteria 4, the standard is met with the conditions of approval. We did receive comments from members of the public, both in support and reflective of engaging in the process.

I'll put it that way for now.

What I heard tonight was a petitioner's presentation that showed a responsiveness to the community in iterating design through 35% and 65%, being informed by public comment to provide amenities of interest. I would like to commend the project team and all involved for the speed at which this is moving forward. The community spoke through a ballot initiative, and we're much closer to seeing something happen here. Than we otherwise could have been. With that, I'll yield, and again, intend to support the motion.

Thank you. Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Commissioner Pulis. Yeah, I intend to support the motion. I'll add, you know, that, you know, Just like the previous commissioner stated, many public concerns were addressed, including downsizing the proposed number of stalls compared to the original design and maintaining roadway visibility of the lot for safety. A lot of the additional amenities requested by the public were not included because of fiscal constraints. They can't just do everything.

The project was voter-approved, municipally accepted for ownership, and bonded for 20 years of maintenance. And we heard no real agency opposition to the project in close coordination with MOA, the traffic department. Additional amenities such as fee parking, no parking signs, etc., are actually things that can be easily added to the site in the future with additional funding found.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing and seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

That motion passes.

That concludes the public hearings. Next item on the agenda, Title 21 discussion.

Does staff have any Title 21 discussion they'd like to bring forward? Uh, we are bringing another informational item in, probably in the next meeting, but a subsequent meeting, just looking at a number of the AOs related to Title 21 and some of the impacts we've seen, especially in zoning and land use review and on sort of all sides of it. So looking at a lot of the work you all have worked on and what the impacts have been. So that will be probably in October. At the next meeting, you will see another informational item about the right-of-way management strategy.

Thank you. Anything from the Commission?

Any commissioner comments?

Uh, Director Babb, nothing? Oh, saw your hand in the air. All right, we'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

That is moved by Commissioner Baza, seconded by Commissioner Mills. Any objection? Hearing none, we are adjourned.