Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - August 18, 2026 - 2026-08-18 17:00:00

Okay everyone, I would like to call this assembly meeting to order. Um, today is Tuesday, August 18th. Uh, we are noticed starting at 5:00 PM. We will first move through our roll call, then we'll get into our business. Madam Clerk.

Member Handeland. Here. Member Martinez. Present. Member Gerker.

Here. Member Silvers. Here. Member Perez Verdia. Chair Brawley.

Here. Acting Vice Chair Baldwin-Day. Present. I understand Member Volland is excused. That's correct.

Member Scout. Present. Member McCormick. Here. Member Park.

Here. Member Johnson. Here. Chair Brawley, you have a quorum. Thank you.

Miss Baldwin-Day, will you please lead us in the pledge?

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

Thank you. And Ms. Park, will you please read the land acknowledgement?

A land acknowledgement is a formal statement recognizing the indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity. The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lines of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land.

It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina.

Thank you. Next, we will address our minutes of previous meetings. We have 4 of them today. So the regular meeting of July 21st, the special meeting of July 31st, and the regular meeting of August 4th. Forth.

Um, is there a motion to approve these minutes? So moved.

Okay, motion by, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day. Is there a second? Second. Second by Miss Park. Um, any discussion or changes to the minutes?

Any objection to approving the minutes as written?

Seeing and hearing none, the minutes for those 3 meetings as noted have been unanimously adopted. So next, normally we would have a mayor's report So I understand, I know the mayor is not here tonight, so I'll just briefly turn if there is any update to give from the municipal manager. Otherwise we will move on. No, thank you, Chair. Just wish everyone a happy Election Day.

Thank you. So next we'll move on to the chair's report. I have just a few items of business to address. The first one is, I'm speaking of the election, I'll remind folks once again today is the last day to vote in the state primary election. Election.

If you have not voted yet, you have just under 3 hours to do so. You can do so at your local precinct, the Midtown Mall, or actually on the other side of this building. I believe until 8 PM tonight there is a polling place here. So for members and staff, you might have one last shot during dinner break if you haven't voted already. And you may wonder, people have asked, you know, how did we end up with an assembly meeting on primary day?

So typically our assembly meetings are scheduled to fall not on election days, as you'll see with the general election on November November 3rd, our regular meeting has been moved to Wednesday, November 4th. That is a practice we have done in the past as well. The charter also requires regular meetings at least 2 times per month, usually every other week, but not always, and our code sets the schedule at 5 PM on Tuesdays, so that gives a limited number of, of times that we can have our regular meetings. Our annual meeting schedule is also developed months in advance. It takes into account everything from charter required deadlines and local election dates to regular holidays and school district spring break, just as some examples.

Schedules. So it can be quite challenging to avoid or accommodate every possible Tuesday evening conflict in a month. So members, you'll see a memo proposing our usual 2027 meeting schedule that will be on assembly approval in September for the coming year. And just as one last reminder, this is a state election, so our local Anchorage election team is not involved in this election. And in fact, if you go to City Hall, you'll note that that is not a polling place today.

It was for early voting only. So if you have any questions or last-minute issues, please contact the State Division of Elections. You can find that information at elections.alaska.gov. Next, I'll mention since our last meeting, there were two more busy weekends for residents and visitors to enjoy summer in Anchorage, including the Arctic Thunder Air Show at Jay Bear, Japanese Summer Festival at Kincaid Park, the Hmong Harvest Festival at Sullivan Arena parking lot, and many other events all over town. This weekend I was honored to speak at the Harvest Festival and cut the ceremonial ribbon alongside the Hmong community, local leaders, and Hmong visitors from out of state.

It was also a great reminder of the rich and unique cultural heritage or traditions that we have here in Anchorage. I also happen to have a friend from college and his family in town, and so I got to see Anchorage again through their eyes as visitors, as all locals do when we play tour guide. They commented many times about the natural beauty around us and refreshing weather weather, but also about the great restaurants that we were able to go to, how much they love the Anchorage Museum, and how fun it is to go find a moose on the side of the road by the airport. Experiencing the Hmong Festival was also a fun new experience, learning about a culture they had only read about. Their brief visit reminded me of how lucky we are to live in a place like this, and that with even our current challenges, Anchorage has a lot to offer, especially when you see it through new eyes, folks who are visiting for the first time.

And then sadly, another sad topic. It does feel like summer, or maybe not so much today, but it has, um, but it's also already back-to-school time. So maybe sad or happy depending on your perspective. Uh, most Anchorage School District students start Wednesday and Thursday of this week, and then preschool and kindergarten folks start, uh, next week. So if you, uh, know how kids work, you know it can be hard to change routines, and starting a new school year can be difficult for students and adults alike.

So I encourage everyone to have some extra patience and grace as, uh, morning and afternoon traffic picks up around our schools. Buses are out in our neighborhoods again, and keep an eye out for kids walking, biking, and scootering to school so we can make sure everybody gets to school safely and home again as well. This Friday, August 21st, the assembly will have a work session with ASD Superintendent Dr. Bryant about the upcoming ASD Listens campaign. And we're also going to have our next quarterly joint meeting with the school board on Friday, September 18th. So with that, I'll move on to our boilerplate announcements.

So I'll do my best to move us through tonight's agenda so that we can conclude at the most reasonable hour possible. This is a business meeting. We're here to do the work of the municipality. Please help create a climate of respect in the chambers. Please refrain from personal attacks, speaking out of turn, shouting, clapping, pacing.

Please keep any signs to 8.5 by 11 inches in size. Please keep the aisles clear unless you're lining up to testify. Please don't approach the dais. If you would like to provide something and share it with members, please hand it to the clerk down there for distribution, and they will make sure that we get a copy of it. And then for points of order, I'll ask everybody to please stop speaking if a point of order is called so that I may rule on the point of order so the record is clear.

If rules are not followed, I may interrupt speakers to call for compliance. If compliance with the rules doesn't occur, then I may pause the meeting. If there's an actual disruption in the meeting, I will give a warning, and if the disruption persists or happens again, the person will be asked to leave. And then I'll also remind folks later for public testimony that when you do come forward, that we'll ask you to state your name, what part of town that you live in. Please identify if you're here on behalf on behalf of a community council, because members of the public and others have 3 minutes.

Community council representatives have 5 minutes when speaking on behalf of the council. I'll ask folks to please stay on topic. Direct comments to me or other people on the dais, and I'll interrupt you if you're off topic. And just a reminder, public testimony is the public's time to speak. Assembly members don't typically answer questions during this period, but they may address those topics or seek more information during debate.

And then one last thing I'll note, I I don't see a lot of the folks here yet who are going to be participating in item 15A, but I will note that that was the last item we ended our last meeting with, and it was my intent at the time and continuing that intent to take that up earlier than we did last meeting, so much earlier in the evening. But I'll note also that depending on the timing of our consent agenda and when we take our dinner break, if it— if the consent agenda takes a long time, we may change the order of the day to take that item up a little bit earlier. Chair. Otherwise, we anticipate relatively short items before that. And so anyway, so I've been communicating with the acting vice chair on timing.

I'll give an update after that. But just to note, the intent is to make sure that we have plenty of time for that item. And with that, I think those are the remarks. So I will move on to our committee and liaison reports, and I will start with Mr. Johnson this evening. Yes, thank you, Chair.

The next meeting of the Assembly Infrastructure Enterprise and Utility Oversight Committee of the Whole will be be this Thursday, August 20th, from 11:15 AM to 12:15 PM. And one item of business in our new business, we have from winter 2025 to 2026, lessons learned from an unprecedented winter of water and sewer system emergency. And then also we have our regular standing items on the agenda as well. That's all I have, Chair. Next, Ms. Park.

Nothing to report, Chair. Mr. McCormick. Another report, thank you. Miss Scout, nothing to report. Thanks.

Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. The next meeting of the Municipal Audit Committee, in which we will be tackling the 2024 annual consolidated financial report, is currently scheduled for Thursday the 27th. However, that is the only assembly business that is scheduled for that day, and we are currently working with the clerk and our external auditor to find a time when that can happen in conjunction with other assembly business. So please stay tuned.

For when that committee will be rescheduled. Thank you.

Okay, I'm gonna give a report, so I'm gonna hand the gavel to Vice Chair Baldwin-Day, um, and I'll give a brief report on behalf of the co-chairs for the Budget and Finance Committee since Mr. Volland is not here here this evening. Um, so the next meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee will be Thursday, August 20th, 10 to 11 AM, City Hall, Room 155. Um, the main item of business on our agenda will be an informational presentation on service areas. Um, and then I'll also note for, uh, interested members of the public, we expect to receive the preliminary budget memo or 120-day memo by the end of this month, um, or right at the beginning of September. And we have a work session scheduled for, uh, Friday, September 18th, to get a briefing on the big picture trends and what to anticipate in this upcoming budget cycle related to some of the requests that we made in a resolution that we passed on July 21st.

So folks watching the budget cycle, keep an eye out for that. Next, Mr. Perez Verdia.

Thank you. Just one announcement. Tomorrow on the 19th will be a meeting of the Housing and Homeless Committee at 11 o'clock in room 153. 5. Thanks.

Okay, next, Ms. Silvers. Nothing to report, thank you. Mr. Gerger. Nothing to report, thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Martinez.

Thank you, Chair. At the last CEDC meeting, we had a presentation on the MHOP, the Missing Middle Housing, uh, opportunity pro— platform that we're working on. And so I encourage folks in the public to look back at those notes and that presentation on our website. Also, the next meeting of the CEDC will be September 3rd, and we have one presentation scheduled so far from Ferrande, a look at the history of the economic impacts of the Ferrande activities in our community. Thank you.

And Mr. Handeland? Nothing to report.

Okay, that takes care of our reports. So next we will move on to our addendum to the agenda. Before we do that, we will address our late on the table items. So we have a few items today, most of them are supplemental. I will deal with those first.

And then we do have one item for introduction. So, and we may have one more coming on a later item on the agenda as well. So the informational reports, the first one is unnumbered AIM 2026, administration's answers to assembly questions. That's an AIM. That'll be 10F8 on our agenda.

And then the next one is a supplemental item 215A. It is information memorandum AIM unnumbered 2026 6, public comments regarding AR 2026-225, and that's a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly approving a marijuana license and special land use permit for Baltasar Holdings, DBA Sensemia. So that is some public comments and other materials to make sure that those are in the record. And one second, I will turn to our item for introduction. So I will read the title, and then as a reminder, for items for introduction We will need a first, second, and third.

There isn't further discussion, but also a reminder that we will need to set the public hearing at a specific date. So this is AO 2026, unnumbered, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly repealing and replacing Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.102 and amending AMC Section 7.15.040 to clarify existing restrictions on surveillance technology and establish new restrictions on automated license license plate reader systems, real-time crime center operations, and live camera monitoring, to limit the retention of surveillance data, to participate— sorry, to prohibit participation in external surveillance data networks, to require assembly approval for the acquisition of surveillance technology, and to provide for audit and enforcement. As I said, this needs a first, second, and third for introduction. Move to set the public hearing for the meeting of September 1st. Second.

Second. Okay, and for clarity, that was introduction and setting the public hearing. Introduction. Okay, um, so that was a motion by, uh, Mr. McCormick, second by Miss Skow. Is there a third?

Third. And third by Miss Baldwin-Day. Um, so that has been read into the record. It is introduced, and the public hearing is set for September 1st. Uh, one second.

Okay, I believe that takes care of our late on the table items. So now that we have our late on the table items in the record, then we will formally incorporate the addendum to the agenda including those late on the table items into our agenda. So I'm looking for a motion to incorporate the addendum and late on the table. So moved. Second.

A motion by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Miss Scout. Any discussion?

Any objection to incorporating those items in the agenda? Seeing and hearing none, uh, those items have been— the addendum and laid on the table items have been incorporated. And of course, for consent agenda items, folks are welcome to pull any of those if they would like. Next, we'll move on. We have two appearance requests this evening, so I will say first we will have Ms. Wisteria Johnson, and then second we will have Pastor Leon May.

So, Ms. Johnson, please approach. And then I will remind you to turn the microphone on, the button on the bottom there, and then the light will turn green on the top. And then please state your name and you'll have 3 minutes. Okay, go ahead. Good afternoon, assembly members, assembly staff, Chairperson Anna Brawley.

My name is Wisteria Johnson. I reside in District 3. I have lived and worked in Anchorage Anchorage for over 56 years. I have attended many civic community and festival events. My purpose here today is to suggest and/or request a resource via the Municipality of Anchorage to help residents to become more aware of upcoming events, annual events, and city-related events via implementation link to the munis— the muni.org official website and have a possibility of saying muni.org community events.

I'm asking and requesting for a standalone calendar event not to be merged, for example, with Parks and Recreation or Health Department. Most U.S. cities host, host an official online community event calendar directly on their municipal website specifically for the community. The website would be a resource to inform residents and visitors about neighborhood gatherings, festivals, workshops, and civic meetings. Additionally, I feel that attendance can boost local economy and foster participation and belonging to a community. Again, this would be for tourists and residents.

Community organizers, organizers who wish to, desire to submit a form, a submission form, would go to the website and provide the information that is required. I feel that an event calendar linked with the municipality would not take away from organizations that utilize websites, social media, community awareness.

I hope that this is a possibility for the citizens of Anchorage. In conclusion, I do hope that the Anchorage Community Calendar be implemented and incorporated on the muni.org website. To enhance our vibrant city. I thank you for this wonderful opportunity to speak on this topic. I look forward to a follow-up, questions, and/or a meeting with the MOA representative concerning this request.

Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for providing— or thank you for appearing today.

Yeah, one person has a follow-up question for you, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you, Ms. Johnson. Um, would it be appropriate to contact you via the information you provided to the clerk for this appearance request? I can't really—. I said, would it be appropriate for us to contact you via the information you provided to the clerk?

Yes, I am in District 3. Um, Anna Brawley is my representative, but I'll be happy to leave my number, or—. Sure, that'd be lovely. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. So thank you. Thank you. So our second appearance request today is Pastor Leon May, if you would like to come forward. And the microphone is already on.

And I know I will address up front, I know you had requested potentially 5 minutes on behalf of an organization. So I'll just briefly ask, has your organization taken a position on the statement that you'd like to make today? I didn't catch all of that.

Yes, I see in your appearance request you had requested potentially 5 minutes to speak on behalf of an organization. So I will just ask, are you representing the position of the organization today? I am representing my position and the organizational position. Okay. But I guess the— I guess in here I don't see that the organization itself is testifying, so I am going to allow you to have 3 minutes this evening.

So, alrighty then. So please proceed. The microphone is on. So just state your name and then you'll have 3 minutes. Thank you.

Alright, Pastor Leondy May I, the First River in the Desert Church, and representing the Interdenominational Ministry Alliance of Anchorage and vice senator in the MLK Foundation as well. Greetings to the chair and assembly and respect to the administration as well. I wanted to speak to the conclusion of the Martinez this situation that we've just had. I waited the last two meetings for audience participation but didn't have any. Midnight one night and 11:15 the next.

But I'm not speaking for the quote-unquote BIPOC community, but I do think that I'm speaking for the majority of the Black community. I'm not a racist, but I am a rightist. Not in the political sense, but in the God sense. And I do love everybody. About it.

But so now I want to commend, uh, Member Scott for having intestinal fortitude in the last meeting to speak to the black-white of it all, and Member Baldwin-Day for piggybacking on that and then giving a clear discourse on the whole situation that amounted to the use of discretionary funds that were approved. Member Violin spoke to the improprieties of the information in the second AR. After the whole back and forth, only it appears that the whistleblower blew the wrong whistle. It appears by way of the vote on a continued investigation that some assembly members still wanted, as some in the audience did, their pound of flesh. But I want to speak to the censure of it all.

Some may not know what time it is. It's the hour of grace. It's the hour of mercy. It's the hour of the olive branch. It's the hour of do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

And it appears that some relating to the censure discussion voted the way that they did expecting a smoking gun to appear during the next AR's findings. The truth of the matter is that it never should have gotten that far. I attended the assembly workshop on the matter and Mr. Gates laid everything out very plainly, and I still vividly see the slide on censure. There were options: censure with apology, which you did not want to ask for, censure with additional training, and censure with some measure that the body would approve. Member Volland was leaning toward going that route instead of removal, and he's to be commended for that.

That opportunity existed, but no amendments were made to the censure resolution, which may have been by God's design predicated upon what I'll be suggesting tonight. Member Martinez had been censured enough by the public Anything that the Assembly would or could do would never measure up to the public scrutiny and censuring. APOC gave an opinionated and not a factual finding, assessed a fine, and the fine was paid. That should have been the end of it. There should have never been this elongated quote-unquote witch hunt.

The Assembly took an almost unprecedented measure, maybe once in the history of the Assembly, to censure a sitting member, one of your peers, and really this did not rise to that level.

Thank you for appearing today. Thank you for appearing today. Your time is up.

Thank you, sir. Um, oh, I'm sorry, uh, Miss Silvers, uh, has a question. If you want to come back, Pastor May. Member Silvers has a question for you.

Can you please explain your request to us? I don't think you got to that part. Thank you. And sorry, before you speak, if you could please press the microphone button again so it's on. Thank you.

Go ahead. Thank you much. Yes, my request is is to ascend that censure. Relative— I would say this— relative to the Black community, many would consider that this should never have happened, if you would. And not asking for anything much other than maybe even the orchestrators of the original AR to seek investigative measures, even to the removal That probably should not have happened as well.

And our desire is that in view of all that have come out and everything that's to be stated, again, he's been censured enough and it should have been the end of it. And you did an unprecedented thing, and maybe once in the history of the assembly, to censure a sitting member. And I think the assembly should clear the smear on the member and on yourselves by drawing up another ER order to rescind the censure. I think it would be apropos for the original ones to do that, but in light of maybe not wanting to, somebody up here ought to have the gumption, uh, uh, in my opinion, to do that, to remove the blight from Member Martinez's name and the blight from the assembly as a whole. And so that's where my request is coming from.

In light of the Black community, it would be wonderful if you would do that on his behalf, but I see a blight on the whole Assembly in view of the Black/White of it all. Thank you. I appreciate you answering my question. Thank you for giving me the opportunity. Okay, thank you.

I don't see anybody else in the queue, so that concludes our appearance requests. So next we will move on to our consent agenda. To the consent agenda. So the consent agenda is typically routine items such as bid awards, new business information, reports. And as a reminder, these items do not have public hearing except for the items for introduction, which will have a public hearing at a future time as stated.

So we will go down the dais and pull our items, and I will start with Mr. Handlin today. No items. Mr. Martinez, no items to pull. Mr. Gerker? No items.

Miss Silvers? No items, thank you. Mr. Perez-Fruedia? Thank you, Chair, no items tonight. Miss Baldwin-Day?

Thank you, Chair, 10A2, please.

Okay, I have 10A2. Next, Miss Scout? 10A1, please, thank you. 10A1. Next, Mr. McCormick?

No items, thank you. Miss Park? No items, but I would like to be added to A1 and A2. OK, thank you. Yeah, we'll address that when we get to those items.

And Mr. Johnson, no items, Chair. OK, so we just have 2 items for consent agenda today, so I have 10A1 and 10A2, our recognition resolutions, and no additional items.

OK, so, so minus those 2 items, then I will ask, is there any additional items to pull?

Not seeing any comments, um, and so then I'm seeking a motion to approve the consent agenda minus those two pulled items. So moved. Second. Motion by Ms. Park to approve the consent agenda minus the pulled items, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Any further discussion?

Any objection to approval of the consent agenda minus those two pulled items? Seeing, hearing none, then the consent agenda is unanimously approved minus those two pulled items. And I will remind folks that if you were here for one of those items and it was not pulled from the agenda, then those items have been approved unanimously. So with that, we will move on to our two recognition resolutions. So the first one, 10A1, I will read it and then I'll turn to the person who pulled it.

So it's AR 2020-02, 2644, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing September as Hunger Action Month and supporting the elimination of hunger in Anchorage. This is pulled by Miss Skoup. Yeah, I'd like to move to postpone to the meeting of September 1st at the request of the organization receiving the recognition. Second. Okay, there's a motion to postpone this item to the regular meeting of September 1st, motion by Miss Skoup, second by Mr. Handlin, and I believe you spoke to the intent, but do you have any other comments there?

I look forward to hearing it on September 1st. Okay, thank you. Um, and then I'll also just note, um, this is a postponement motion, so, um, what— one second.

So the clerk says it is in order, um, that, uh, so before we take the vote to postpone, I'll just note, um, Member Park would like to be added to this, and I'll ask if any any other members would like to at this time. Uh, Miss Baldwin-Day, Mr. Johnson, would anybody object to being added? Okay, not seeing any, so we will make sure that the item is reflecting, um, all members as well as the mayor's already there listed. And, um, so then I will ask, is there any objection to postponement of this item?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then this item has been postponed to the meeting of September 1st. Then we'll move on to our other recognition resolution, AR 2026-245, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly recognizing August 18th, 2026 as Women's Equality Day and celebrating the ratification of the 19th Amendment and recognizing women who are continuing the fight for equality. So this item was pulled by Miss Baldwin-Day. Thank you, Chair. Move to approve.

Second. Motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Miss Scout. Any Any further discussion? Okay, um, any objection to adoption of this one?

Okay, and then I'll note, I know Ms. Park had indicated she would like to be added as a sponsor. Would anyone else like to be added to a sponsor of this one? Okay, I see Mr. Johnson. Okay, and again, it sounds like any objection to being added? Okay, then please direct that all members be added to that one as well.

So I believe we have, um, Miss Baldwin-Day reading and Miss Scout presenting. So folks who are here, um, I see you're coming forward, please come forward, and, um, I will turn it to, uh, Miss Baldwin-Day.

Thank you. Whereas the passage of the 19th Amendment prohibited the states and federal government from denying the right to vote to citizens of the United States on the basis of gender, it was officially ratified on August 18th, 1920 after nearly a century of protest. And whereas August 26th was designated as Women's Equality Day by a resolution introduced by Congresswoman Bella— Battling Bella Abzug in 1973 to commemorate the years of sacrifice, hard work, and perseverance women in the United States endured leading to the ratification of the 19th Amendment. And whereas women have continued to organize to exercise their rights, and from the National American Women's Suffrage Association came the League of Women Voters voters that is still impacting election turnout and facilitating voter education. And whereas in 2020, Austin Quinn Davidson was appointed acting mayor from October through June 2021, becoming Anchorage's first woman mayor.

And on May 31st, 2024, Suzanne LaFrance was the first woman elected as mayor of Anchorage. And whereas in 2022, Mary Peltola made history as the first Alaska Native woman elected to Congress and the first woman to represent Alaska in the and today 21 women serve in the 40-member Alaska House, making it the first time either the State House or Senate will be majority women. And whereas, despite these successes, guaranteeing women's rights continues to be an issue, with women facing professional challenges, domestic violence, and other obstacles to their well-being and success. While we acknowledge the progress that has been made, we encourage Anchorage to keep supporting its female constituents by remaining dedicated to furthering gender equality. Now, therefore, the Anchorage Assembly celebrates Women's Equality Day and pays tribute to women of the past, present, and future who continue to protest, advocate, and legislate for women's equal rights and equal treatment.

Passed and approved by the Anchorage Assembly this 18th day of August, 2026.

Thank you. And also invite if anybody present would like to say a few words, please feel free. Just make sure to say your name and the microphone's already on. Not required, but welcomed.

Yes, thank you. My name is Patty Ginsberg. I'm president of the League of Women Voters of Anchorage, an organization that's been around since 1950. And I just want to point out that when the league was organized in 1950, there were not a lot of options conditions for women to be engaged in civic life. And what a change we've seen.

But the work isn't done yet, as we know. Yesterday was the 61st anniversary of the Voting Rights Act. And so we know that the work is never done. We're honored and proud to sit with these other organizations in accepting on behalf behalf of the women who have stood before. Thank you.

Thank you.

This is Jessie Lavoie, CEO for YWCA Alaska. Wonderful words from the League of Women Voters. I can't add much more other than to thank you for looking to our history and recognizing that as we move forward. We have a lot of women leadership on the assembly and within the Anchorage municipality and Alaska, as this is pointed out. Um, and while things feel very uncertain and unstable, this provides that validation that we need.

So thank you for taking the time.

Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. All right, and before you go, um, we have a couple members in the queue. First, Miss Scout.

Yeah, I would, um, like to commend everyone here for all of your great work in the community. I, of course, am a huge a huge supporter of the fight for equal rights for women and also very excited about Women's Equality Day partially because it's my birthday.

So I just wanted to—. Yeah.

So yeah, that'll be in the next— what is it? Next week. Yeah. But yeah, I just wanted to thank you all for your great work and name that that this is a very special resolution for me, and, um, also name that we have 5 out of 12 people on the assembly who identify as women, so we're almost there. Thanks.

And then, uh, second person I have myself in the queue briefly. Chair Brawley, thank you. Um, so first, thank you for being here. Um, second, I will note, um, I will quote our— one of our former members, Meg Zalatel, who noted that the high point on the assembly, as far as we know, was 5 out of 11 members. So now that we have 12, we have work for 6 or more.

But of course, we want qualified people no matter what the gender. And then also, I'll note for folks who maybe noticed, you know, that we put some milestones in there from a few years ago. So I will also note that hopefully we have more of those to add as time goes on. And also, just a general call for these resolutions. A couple years ago, for example, actually, Member Zalatel, Member Branca, and I invited members from APD and AFD who are women, you know, whether they're officers, dispatchers, all staff, staff.

And so it's also a good opportunity for members to think about, you know, we do these every year, but if there's a way that you would like to utilize them. And I'm glad that Miss Baldwin-Day was able to invite our League of Women Voters and YWCA as well as the Women's Commission to present. And I also see our, our fearless Federation of Community Councils leader. So, so I'll just note that those are milestones, but hopefully we have more to celebrate in the future. And I see Miss Redmond coming forward.

Go ahead. I just— one comment. The League of Women Voters is not for women only, so all of you gentlemen are welcome to join us.

Thank you. Thank you. Equal opportunity to support democracy. Thank you very much. Thank you for being here.

Okay, so that concludes our consent agenda. We are running good on time, obviously, so I guess I'm going to suggest to members We do have one item left over from our previous agenda. The request from the administration is to postpone this item. Of course, that's a request, so I'm going to suggest that we do that and then we will break for dinner. And that is item 11A.

It is cooperative— it was AM524-2026, cooperative purchase from Thundercat Technology LLC, Thundercat through Omnia Partners, Omnia contract, R250609 for the purchase and installation of a real-time crime center audiovisual system for the Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage Police Department. So this item was continued or postponed from the previous meeting. There's no motion on the floor. What is the will of the body? Chair, move to postpone to the meeting of September 1st.

Second. Okay, motion to postpone this item to the meeting of September 1st by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Miss Scout. Do you want speak to that. Yeah, I think that's appropriate. We have a work session on this item this Friday at 10:40 at City Hall, so it feels reasonable to have that work session prior to entering into debate on this topic.

Thank you.

Okay, any other discussion on this? Okay, I don't see any members in the queue, um, so, uh, and also, well, members may, um, proceed to vote on on this one.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, um, AM524-2026 is postponed to our next meeting of September 1st. And I will also direct the clerk— we do have the work session scheduled, as Miss Baldwin-Day already said, so I will ask the clerk, direct them to include this memo on that in addition to the broad topic of real time crime center. So with that, um, Madam Chair— oh, go ahead, Mr. Gerker. I'd like to make a motion to adjust the order of the day to take up our dinner break after item 15D. Second.

So, uh, but so a motion, um, by Mr. Gerker, second by Mr. Hanlon, to change the order of the day. So just for clarification, basically taking up all of the public hearing items until 15 15A. So the challenge— I'm going to find that that particular motion is not in order at this time because we cannot start our public hearings until 6 PM. And so because all of those things on the agenda are public hearing items, then we could do that, but we still have a 15-minute gap. So we're the victims of our own success tonight.

Well, and perhaps victims of the code that say public hearings may not start before 6. So Um, but I will suggest, of course, um, that we can be, um, brief with our dinner break and then continue with our business. Um, so at this time, because of the pace that we're on, I'm going to suggest, um, that we would not change the order of the day, uh, to move 15A earlier. I also don't see the applicant, um, or, or, well, I see some other parties, not all of them here. Um, but as we said, the intent is to make sure that we take that one up quickly.

And so if, um, we get bogged down in other items, we will change the order at that point. So with that, we will take our dinner break and we'll be back in about 20 minutes. Thank you.

Tudes of nothing, empty plane, a highway memorial, the fill of some space.

And maybe Okay, everyone, let's come back to order this evening. We are moving on to our public hearing items, our new public hearing items. So we will start with 14A. I'll read it into the record. AO 2026-99, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage—.

Wait one second. Ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive telecommunications and electrical easement to Chugach Electric Association to replace existing overhead infrastructures with underground systems on municipal property legally described as North Star School Site. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Ms. Scout. Any discussion, Ms. Baldwin-Day? Yeah, just excited to see that we're moving forward with utility undergrounding. This is good news for everybody.

Thank you. Okay, any further discussion? Don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. This is AO-2026-99.

On a motion of 11 to 0, that item passes unanimously. Um, next we'll move on to 14B, AO-2026-101, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the non-competitive disposal of real property legally described as Lot 6A, Block 5A, Government Hill Subdivision, Plat C-197, PID 00302205, located at 921 Hollywood Drive. 5. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing— and no one signed up on the phone— uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve.

Okay, second motion to approve by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Miss Silvers. Um, any discussion, Miss Baldwin-Day? Nothing for me unless the administration would like to comment.

Okay, invitation to comment from the administration. Okay, not seeing any at this time. And next in the queue, I have Ms. Scout. Thanks.

Um, most of us received an email today from someone named Carl Johnson. Um, that brought up some questions for me about why we are, um disposing of this property rather than selling it. So I'd like to direct that question to the administration, just to understand a little bit of the background here, or to anyone who has the answer.

Oh, okay. Um, from a review of the paperwork, I guess why we're not selling it on the market. Okay, so I see, um, Um, uh, Ms. Silvers in the queue next, or—. But I want to—. It looks like Mr. Dole is in the queue, so I'll see if he's responding to Ms.

Scout, and then I'll go to Ms. Silvers. Through the chair, Real Estate Director Tiffany Briggs and a representative from Chugach Electric are here to address those questions.

Okay, yes, if I could invite Ms. Briggs and, um, Ms. Baker with Chugach Electric to come up.

Go ahead, Miss Briggs. Tiffany Briggs, Real Estate Director. For the record, um, per— through the chair to Member Scout, um, per code, Real Estate Department has the ability to direct negotiate. We don't have to put everything out competitively for bid, and in this case it made sense because Chugach already has infrastructure there and they were the logical person to sell it to.

Okay, Ms. Kelly, any further questions?

I guess, sorry, I don't want to belabor this too much. I'm mostly just curious, and this is in my district, um, why were they the most logical person or group to sell it to? Um, through the charity Member Scout, because they already have a lease and infrastructure there. Okay. And so them continuing to occupy the property by owning it.

Okay, got it. Makes sense. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Next, I have Miss Silvers in the queue.

So to clarify, you're paying $470,000 for the property and you currently have infrastructure on the property because you have been leasing the property, is that Is that correct? For the record, Trish Baker with Chugach Electric. Yes, that is correct. Our infrastructure is on the property. We're a tenant.

Okay, and you're paying $470,000 for it? Uh, that is— yes, that is correct. Okay, thank you.

Okay, um, Mr. Martinez, you're next in the queue. Thank you. Um, Director Briggs, what is the current lease value?

Through the chair to Member Martinez, I should have written this down. Um, I—. Can I get back to you with that information? I don't have it off the top of my head. Yeah, but it might be like right now, as this is a vote on now.

Give me one second, please. Right on.

And just to follow up, it'll also be how much time is left on the existing lease. The existing lease, there's still a few years left on the existing lease. Thank you.

Okay, so, um, we actually have two options. One is, um, we could take a brief break while Ms. Briggs is looking that up. The other possibility we have is we can set this item briefly aside and do our next public hearing item and come back to it. So, um, so Miss Briggs, if you— if that would be a better option. Through the chair, that works for me.

Okay, okay, thank you. Yeah, that will give you some more time to gather those answers. Um, okay, so as I said, we will briefly set aside 14B AO 2026-101. So we are in the middle of getting those questions answered, and so we'll come back to it in a few minutes. And so in the meantime, uh, we will move on briefly to our next item.

So that is, uh, wait, let me make sure I have the right item. Here we go.

That is 14C AO 2026-102, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing a 1-year extension of an air lease for the Sky Bridge spanning 6th Avenue in downtown Anchorage with 9 1-year options. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify?

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by, uh, Miss Park to approve, second, uh, by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Any discussion, Miss Park?

Um, I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. It is to approve AO 2026-102. Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, AO 2026-102 passes the body unanimously. Um, and then I guess, uh, we can also move on to our next item, and again, we'll come back to 14B in a moment. Ordinance.

So I'll read into the record: 14D AO 2026-103, an ordinance of the Municipality of Anchorage authorizing the disposal by perpetual non-exclusive no-build easement on a portion of municipal property legally described as the west one-half of Lot 11, Block 69, original townsite of Anchorage. Public hearing on this item is now open. If anyone wishes to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to approve, second by Ms. Silvers. Ms. Baldwin-Day, would you like to speak to it?

Nothing from me. Mr. Dole, would you like to comment on this?

I'll recognize Mr. Dole, Community and Economic Development Director. Go ahead. To the chair, Bob Dole, Director of Community Economic Development. This is an opportunity for— to enable development in a lot adjacent to the one that we're selling the air rights to, basically by allowing them to build closer to the property line and still have windows on that side. So by selling this at the top end of what we thought we could get for it, we will also be enhancing the tax base.

Okay, thank you for those comments. Um, don't see anybody else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item. It is AO 2026-103.

On a vote of 11 to 0, um, AO 2026-103 passes the body unanimously. Um, and so I know we're back to our, uh, before— I don't want to move into our next section quite yet, so, um, I'll just suggest we take just a couple minutes break, and then, um, when folks are ready, they can come back up and answer the question. And then, as I said, we will turn back to, uh, 14B. Oh, and I see they're coming up.

Okay, thank you. So again, for the record, we have moved back into 14B. We are in the middle of debate, um, answering Mr. Martinez's question. Um, so Miss Briggs, go ahead. Go ahead.

Okay, thank you. Through the chair to Mr. Martinez, sorry for the delay. Um, the current annual lease payment is $19,650, um, and the lease goes through 2030.

Thank you. Okay, any further discussion on this item for members? Not seeing any, um, so members may proceed to vote. Again, this is AO 2026-101. Member Johnson.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 1, um, this item AO 2026-101 passes the body. Uh, Chair, I'd like to move to change the order of the day, please. Uh, I would like to move 15A to the end of the 15s. Okay, motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to, uh, move 15A after 15 items 15B through D. Second. Uh, so motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by Ms.

Scout. Do you want to speak to that further? Yes, I believe that there are, um, there are a few folks who are interested in this item who are still en route, and I think we could dispense with our other business before we get into this one.

Okay, um, is there no one else in the queue? Um, then, uh, Um, I guess, is there any objection to changing the order of the day?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, um, then again, for clarity, we will take up 15A after we take up 15B, C, and D. So then I'll move next into our— and to note, these are our, um, the 15s are the section typically for applications for liquor or marijuana license or special land use permit for either of those, and these have public hearing items. So, uh, and the public hearing will be open on all of these. So next we'll move on to item 15B, Resolution AR-2026-232, a resolution approving an alcohol special land use permit for beverage dispensary tourism license number 6997 for Anchorage MC Holding DBA Courtyard by Marriott Midtown. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, this public hearing— and no one signed up on the phone— public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Park to approve, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day.

Do you want to speak to it further? Yes, um, that's, uh, this is a business in Midtown that is a part of our tourist economy and very, very appropriate in that setting with all the other restaurants along C Street and Tudor and that area. And I think that's good for business.

Okay, any further comments? Don't see anyone in the queue, so members may proceed to vote. This is AR 2026-234.

232. On a motion of 11 to 0, AR 2026-232 passes the body unanimously. Next, uh, we have item 15C, AR 2026-231, an Anchorage— a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly stating conditional protest Request for a public hearing on a change of use request regarding the transfer of ownership of beverage dispensary license 2895 with a bowling alley endorsement for G4 LLC, DBA The Homestead Lounge. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Okay, and I'll remind you, the button on the bottom is the microphone, so please go ahead and turn it on and then state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Mike Graber. I live in West Anchorage. I am one of the owners ownership group of, of the new G4, transferring the liquor license to.

We started this process obviously quite a while ago, bought the property about 9 to 10 months ago, transferred to us. So we believe that the business has been a good community partner for— in good business with the bowling center and the lounge attached to it. We're looking forward to continuing that, and we're going going to be investing some significant money into it as improvements for the community, and we're hoping for your support this evening so we can start with that and be on solid ground to, to move forward with that. We have one of— one of the ownership group has been the manager of that, of this business for 16 years, so we're moving forward with, with solid management in place. So thank you very Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony. Also note, um, the clerk had forgotten to start the timer, but certainly that was under 3 minutes, so, um, so thank you. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item— or yeah, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by— well, I heard two moves to approve, so motion by Miss Silvers to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day. Um, uh, any discussion on that, Miss Silvers?

Okay, um, anyone else wish to speak to this?

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then, um, members may proceed to vote on this item, AR 2026-233.

231. Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, um, AR 2026-231 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to 15D, AR 2026-236, a resolution of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly regarding renewal of municipal marijuana cultivation license M323 3267 for AK Legend LLC, aka— sorry, DBA AK Legend Gardens, stating the Assembly's conditional protest of the renewal of the State of Alaska Marijuana License 32367 for the same establishment. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, and no one signed up on the phone. Public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Johnson to approve, second by Ms. Silvers. Mr. Johnson, do you want to speak to it? No comments, Chair.

Any other members wish to speak to this?

Okay, Ms. Baldwin-Day. Thank you. So I am noting that there— that this is a, um, this is a conditional protest. How long, how long does this business owner have to meet the conditions of the, of the protest before the, the license itself is revoked?

I don't know if that's a question to the clerk or someone else.

Just a one second, I'm conferring with the clerk.

And if that's an AMCO determination, that's fine. I'm just wondering what the timeframe is for the conditional protest versus satisfaction of the conditions.

So I don't think that there's a deadline. I think that the two pieces that need to take place— the two pieces that need to happen is payment of past due taxes and completion of a site inspection. And so oftentimes when we submit these, because we submit them two weeks ago, So between— in the intervening time, you're going to approve this, and a lot of times Mandy just sends the release of conditional protest the very next day. So it's my understanding that AMCO will have a meeting sometime in September and consider this, and— but I don't know that they're there's a deadline. And, uh, sir, are you the applicant?

I'm one of the owners. Okay, so maybe that's something that you could also— and if you could please— uh, your microphone's already on. Please put your name on the record. Uh, my name is Jared Buss. I'm one of the owners.

Um, all the protests from the muni have been released. Um, we paid all the fees, and I got the document right here if that makes it easier and smoother for you guys.

No, that's great. I just wanted to be sure that, you know, we were dotting our i's and crossing our t's. Okay, thank you. So yeah, I have copies of it, and, um, yeah, as of the 13th, um, the protest has been released. So according to the email I received, we should be good to go.

So thank you. Okay, yeah, thank you for that information. Um, Mr. Gates, you're in the queue. Go ahead.

Well, it probably doesn't matter now for this this particular resolution, but just an FYI that AMCO's regulations provide a 180-day abeyance period for conditions to be satisfied if there are conditions that require some kind of action. So that's just sort of the standard time frame.

Okay, thank you. Um, yeah, and I'll note, um, just since the applicant did put on the record that those protest conditions have been lifted Um, but it sounds like that is not something that has formally made its way through our documentation. So just to be clear, it's still true, but we don't have that in our record. So one option is that we may take the time to amend this, but I would suggest to the body that the conditional protest really only exists until those conditions are met. And so, um, I think probably the simplest thing for everybody is to approve this as written, um, but noting on the record that, that we just heard that those conditions have been met.

So this protest is very short-lived. Short-lived. So I would suggest that that's the way we proceed rather than trying to amend it at this time. So, okay, um, I don't see anyone else in the queue, and I think we had our questions addressed. And so members may proceed to vote.

This is AR 2026-236.

Member McCormick.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AR 2026-236 passes the body unanimously. Um, so that now brings us back to to our last remaining item of the day, but I will briefly just ask if— well, one second.

I will just ask briefly. Just to— if the audience can give an indication if there's anybody that you anticipate we're waiting for who's relevant to this conversation. OK, we're great. OK, good. OK, so then let us move into this item.

And before— so I'll read the item and then I have some other things that I'll need to put on the record before we proceed from there. So this is 15A, AR 2026-225, a resolution of the Anchorage Assembly approving a marijuana license and special land use. Use permit for Baltazar Holdings LLC, DBA Sensimia, a marijuana retail, uh, sales establishment with license number M35490, located at, uh, 1431 Muldoon Road. Um, but so before I open the public hearing in this, I'm going to just, um, let everybody in the room know how we'll proceed from here. Um, so first is to say this is a quasi-judicial item, um, and so we are— the rules for that, um, posture that we are in apply.

First, what I'm going to do— I'm going to do a few things just in order so folks know exactly what's going on. First, we're going to reopen the public hearing because our last meeting ended with the public hearing still open. So if anybody has already testified, then there isn't been a substantive change to this. So, so if you've already testified, you will not be allowed to testify again. So anybody new would testify.

Because this is a quasi-judicial item, we will also need to make sure that any communications with the impact protected parties is part of the public record between members and, and those parties. And so, um, this is also why we have our laid on the table memo with all the communications. So before we proceed, after the public hearing, I'm going to ask that all assembly members disclose any ex parte communications with the applicant, such as the, the applicant, the attorney, community council members, through emails, phone calls, other conversations. I will have a couple of these for just for procedural, so I'm going those on the record. I will show kind of what we mean.

After we have done those disclosures, I am going to do two things. One is I am going to first bring up or request up the representative from Northeast Community Council who will be here or is here to speak to— to speak to some specific questions that were raised. The Northeast Community Council person had already testified in the hearing on behalf of the council. They cannot testify twice. As a community council, but, uh, there— I know there are several issues at hand with this, and so, um, this was in lieu of a appearance request that they had submitted to make sure that we get that information on the record, um, and, uh, can address some questions I think that will help members in debate.

Then after that, so I'm going to give up to 5 minutes, and I'm going to also, um, ask members to say, uh, there will be further opportunities to ask substantive questions. So I'll just ask if folks could, um, ask clarifying questions during that time. And then again, we can pull— we can bring folks up, anybody who's present here, to, to answer those questions more fully. So we'll do that 5 minutes, and then after that, I will turn to the applicant and their representative to provide a brief— I'm calling it a closing statement, but essentially a brief final statement for due process purposes, including if they would like to respond to anything that has been raised. Of course, the applicant did also testify, so I'm just noting that they will also have 5 minutes.

And then after we get through all those steps, then we will open debate. And at that point, certainly members are free to call up the applicant, any other parties, to answer questions and to kind of get into the substance. So, uh, so I think that's really what I needed to put on the record. So with all of that, I guess I'll see if there's any questions from members, any— anything that's unclear. Okay, so then we will open the public hearing and we will go from there.

So I'm going to reopen the public hearing. Again, this is AR-2026-225. If you would wish to testify, please come forward.

Good evening. Yep, and the microphone's already on, so state your name for the record and you'll have 3 minutes. Yep, my name is Manny Rodriguez and I'm a resident of East Anchorage. Good evening, Chair and members of the Anchorage Assembly. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight.

I'm here in support of the special land use permit for Baltazar Holdings, LLC, doing business as Sensimia, at 1431 Muldoon Road.

I understand that marijuana establishments can generate strong opinions, but I believe tonight's decision should ultimately come down to something much simpler, which is: has the applicant followed the rules, satisfied the requirements established by the municipality, and demonstrated that this property can responsibly accommodate the proposed use? Based on the information that's been previously presented, the answer is yes. Baltazar Arias has been part of the Muldoon community for approximately 25 years. Through Baltazar's Tire Shop and his other business activities, he's created numerous jobs, invested in Anchorage, developed and maintained housing, and employed people throughout the construction trades. He's also participating in a substantial new investment in the Muldoon area that is expected to create additional employment.

Sentimiya represents another investment in this community and is expected to create approximately 4 to 6 additional full-time jobs. More importantly, the concerns surrounding this location have not simply been ignored. Issues involving the nearby park and school boundaries have been raised, reviewed, and considered. According to the materials presented, the Anchorage Planning Department has actually reviewed those concerns and recommended approval because the application satisfies the applicable requirements. And that distinction matters.

The assembly established rules that applicants, property owners, businesses, and neighborhoods know what standards must be met. Once an applicant satisfies those standards, we should be very cautious about moving the goalposts simply because the proposed business may be controversial. This vote does not require anyone to personally support marijuana. It requires us to decide whether a lawful business that has gone through the required process and met the established standards should be treated fairly and consistently.

Other marijuana establishments in the surrounding area have received approvals after satisfying the municipality requirements. Baltazar is asking for that same fair and consistent treatment. Uh, for those reasons, I respectfully urge you to evaluate this application based on the applicable regulations, the planning department's recommendations, and the merits of the application itself. Baltazar Holding has gone through the process. The requirements have been addressed.

Now, I politely ask the assembly to provide the same fair consideration that we would expect for any other compliant applicant in Anchorage. Please vote yes and approve the special land use permit for Sensemea at 1431 Muldoon Road. Thank you for your time and your service to our community. Thank you. Thank you for testifying.

Next person— I don't see any questions, so thank you. Next person, please come forward. Yes, Nathan Martin from Northeast Community Council. Just wanted to have a point of clarification quickly. You said that somebody from the Northeast Community Council has already submitted testimony.

Is our letter of opposition— is that counted as our testimony, or—. So somebody participated in the public hearing at the last meeting? I think it was you. Um, no one to our knowledge has testified at the public hearing. Was there somebody else who testified on behalf of these community council?

Not to my immediate knowledge, and if so, I would be curious to know who that was. If it— uh, we did send an email. I don't know if that is being counted as our public testimony or what that is. We just want to clarify. No, just for clarity.

So, um, the— yeah, somebody providing public testimony would be verbally in the meeting.

Yeah, it sounds like, um, Miss, uh, Pamela Rager testified on behalf of the council. Pamela Rager is here in She's here to speak for herself if you'd like her to come. Okay, well, so for clarity, um, okay, so I apologize if we— I'm not sure how we mixed up if you guys hadn't already testified. So I would suggest I'm still providing a 5-minute, um, because that's what I said I was already going to do, um, but that would be for someone speaking on behalf of the community council. So if someone has already testified as an individual, they wouldn't be able to.

If they haven't testified as an individual, I don't— I think Um, it sounds like second. Can I—.

No.

Okay, one second, we're just verifying from the record. You're going to have to get me back there. I can't get that.

Ms. Rager, sorry, since you're up here, can you clarify, did you testify on behalf of the council at that time? I did not. Okay, um, we did have council members who sent in, but no one representing the NECC spoke at those hearings. Okay, so in that case, and thank you for clarifying that. So in that case, I think there was a mix-up on our end as we were preparing.

Wait one second, I have a message from the attorney.

Okay, so, um, here's, here's what I think. This would probably be the best path forward. So, um, Miss Rager, if you already testified, then we would ask you to not testify again. Um, Mr. Martin, if you're here to testify on behalf of the council, um, then, then So let's have your 5 minutes here instead of at that separate time that I had mentioned earlier. Sorry, we were mixed up on who had testified on behalf of the council.

May I ask for a point of information? Can you restate what you just said? Yeah, so the communications that we had earlier was based on a misunderstanding. The council itself had already testified. And so that's why we were trying to find an opportunity for you to respond to questions that had come up up in regard to the community council.

So because that appears to not be the case— but Ms. Rager, you have already testified personally in the last meeting, is that correct? No, this is the first time I've come to speak on this. It's the first time that the council has come to speak on this. Okay, thank you. So, um, sorry, we're clarifying because there was a typo in the minutes.

So you weren't at the last— at our last meeting? Not you, Nate? Not me. Okay, so, okay, so then in that case, um, I think we're— there was something that we thought was, uh, an incorrect spelling of your name, so I think we're clarifying that it must have been somebody else. So sorry for the confusion here.

Um, one second as the clerk comes back. I think just to say you will have an opportunity to speak on this item. Just give us a couple minutes to work this out. I don't remember Pam being here last time. Okay, thanks, Pam.

So we would be willing to let that go in.

Okay, thank you. Sorry, we— I think we figured things out. So both of you are able to testify. Only one person can speak on behalf of the community council. So, so whoever would like to identify, that person would have 5 minutes on behalf of the council, and then whoever is not speaking for the council will have 3 minutes as an individual.

Okay. So I will let you figure out who would like to speak next. Do you mind if we step back and let someone—. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Yeah. And then when you're ready, please approach and then just specify. Thank you. Yeah.

Sorry for the confusion. Please come forward, sir.

Um, so state your name, and I am confident that you will have 3 minutes, so please go ahead. All right, my name is Richard Gregorin. Purpose to being here is I'm the immediate next-door neighbor of Baltazar on just south of his, um, property line. And, uh, I own a healthcare facility next door, and I'd like to speak against an additional marijuana license on Muldoon.

As a property owner, I feel that we already have enough representation for marijuana on Muldoon. And, uh, the traffic, the foot traffic that goes through my property would not benefit by having a marijuana establishment next door to me. And my clientele being health-oriented is not in favor of that marijuana activity. Um, one of the things that the mayor is hoping to provide is a new improved face of Muldoon area, and I think that we have enough representation of marijuana already. On Muldoon.

Uh, Baltazar's property is right next door to a playground, and we're in the traffic area of a, uh, school, uh, middle school. And, uh, for those reasons, I'd like to personally vote against having an additional marijuana dispensary on Muldoon.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Also note, um, we started the timer a little bit late, but he was able to finish his testimony before 3 minutes. So, um, next. And, uh, I assume you're speaking on behalf of the council. I just want to clarify what we agreed to.

Yeah, sorry, I was a little bit rumbling. What are we doing right now? Yeah, and yeah, again, I apologize for the mix-up. That's okay, we're working So, yeah, if you were speaking on behalf of the council, we're still in the public hearing, so you will be able to provide testimony for 5 minutes. As I said, because of the mix-up, originally we were going to have an additional 5 minutes, but that was a misunderstanding on my part.

So, but as I said, it's still true that when we close the public hearing, members are free to bring up individuals, representatives from the organizations to answer questions. So, so we will proceed. Like that. So if you want to give your time—. Because there are two material issues we kind of want to talk about, and that's why I want to make sure that we'll be able to cover those.

Um, one is as a council responding to comments that were made at the prior meeting, which we weren't there for, and then the other one is our actual position as a council. Okay, so those are the two separate things. Thank you. So I would recommend providing your position, and then I think if, if no other member asks the questions, then I commit to answering asking those questions. Okay, so then I'll just put our, uh, for the purposes of—.

Second. Go ahead. Sorry, so just to be clear, so you are speaking on behalf of the council? I'll be speaking on behalf of the council, and if you have any further questions, which I hope you do, uh, especially about last meeting, then I'm going to have our president Pamela Ragar come and speak to those questions. Does that make— does that work?

Yes, thank you. So, so just for clarification, then you will have 5 minutes to speak on behalf of the council council. And again, we have, I think, already discussed— we'll have opportunities to dig into these matters further. So, okay, wish me luck, everyone. All right, so, uh, the Northeast Community Council has an official opposition to the special land use permit, and mostly because we have several different concerns, the first of which is addressing the failure of the applicant to abide to prior commitments and overall inadequate community engagement applicant in a 2023 MOU we ratified with the NECC.

And actually, this was my first engagement with the Northeast Community Council personally, which required Baltazar Holdings LLC and its operating team to engage with the community council and its residents and the property owners within the 500 feet. We've attached that to this document, and it was supposed to be quarterly engagement after February 2024. The applicant agreed to do that, but the NECC— and I've been at nearly every meeting since— we have no record that the applicant ever came back until March— February 2025, when there was a revision to his application, and he appeared for another vote on nearly the same proposal and didn't show up since, over a year later. And then in 2023, due to ineligible members of the community voting in these resolutions on very sensitive topics, the board resolved to institute member verification so that eligible members could vote, and it was discovered in retrospect that several non-qualified non-council members did in fact participate in those, uh, those votes that may have made a substantial difference. Either way, in 2024, the council did make a verification process, and we made it very rigorous on our track to not only keep up with who is in our community but also for the purpose of board elections, how often they come and if they meet the standards for becoming board members.

And so because the applicant failed to abide by the MOU, did not maintain meaningful engagement with the NECC despite our attempts, the applicant was allegedly unaware that the council had already begun collecting names and addresses to verify voting eligibility. And in last meeting, which will come up, uh, the applicant said that he had no idea. Well, of course, if he had not been engaged in the council, he would have no idea that verification process was there. And of course, additionally, it was actually published in the prior meetings that voter verification was ongoing, and several, of course, his, his supporters were prepared to establish their eligibility, while some allegedly were not. Um, so we've been doing our best to raise up those issues and make sure people are aware.

And in March 2025, at the meeting, we did in fact vote against the MOU with the establishment. We also, in the same meeting, we passed a resolution asking for the same separation distances to 1,000 feet for marijuana SLUPs and requesting improvements instead of the 500-foot to be treated more like Eagle River, uh, to have those carve-outs and protections the same as that community does as well. And that actually did pass, so we do request that the municipality look at extending those boundaries. There's also some unresolved site traffic, parking, and landscaping deficiencies The property is in a very challenging environment. We did pass out a handout with a map on the back.

You can see that it's pretty congested right there. There's— the proposed retail store would occupy a pretty tiny lot that's with an active tire shop. They're building a car wash there now. There's one tiny road to turn into. On a normal day, it's not easy to find parking there as it is.

There's a lot of landscaping issues, and as we know, Muldoon is notorious for vehicle fatalities, unfortunately. So we know that this is a sensitive issue in terms of our overall infrastructure in that particular location, material safety issues in that area. So, and then lastly, we do believe as a community council that the proposed location fails the separation and compatibility requirements with the code. We, we have walked it, um, we have been out there myself and several other community members this week with our fitness watches, and we're walking from door to door and we're saying, this does not make sense. We don't know who came up with these numbers.

And somebody said something recently and we said, oh, we should actually check that because I don't know that we did originally. We just took everyone at their word for it. And us not being professionals but rather volunteers and, uh, in love with our community, um, we just said, hey, let's check this out. Something doesn't smell right now that we're looking into this. So we discovered that from lot line to lot line to the playground and its abutting parking lot, it is absolutely less than 200 feet from that lot line to lot line.

Across the street, there is public housing, which is a protected use, which has to be 200 feet lot line to lot line. Um, there is also a religious assembly, which I don't know exactly where the lines are, but could be 470 feet away, or it could be as much as 550 feet or more. I have no idea because I'm not exactly sure. Again, we're not experts, we're asking you to be our experts here. And we would urge the municipality to look into these things, check into material omissions, and then provide a clear basis to reject this.

Thank you for your time. Thank you. Um, and I imagine we will have more questions for you in the future. Um, in the meantime, there is one person with a question. Mr. Handel.

Excellent. Yeah, I have a question, and maybe this is for the administration. Is the distance for the 200 feet, is that lot line to lot line in the ordinance or in code?

Thank you. So, um, I would suggest that that is a relevant question, but we're still in the public hearing, and so if it's a question for the administration, I'm going to suggest we take it up during debate, if that's okay. Okay, that's fine. Yeah, I imagine that will— that topic will come up. Okay, no further questions.

So then let's finish the public hearing. So I'll ask if anybody else wishes to testify, please come forward.

Okay, I see a few more folks. And then just one more reminder, apologies again for the confusion that someone had not actually already testified, but if you have already testified, for anybody coming up. So, okay, so please state your name on the record. You'll have 3 minutes. Okay, my name is Brenda Mills.

I'm a resident of the Northeast Community Council area. The first time I attended a Northeast Community Council meeting, I was genuinely impressed. I'd never seen that level of participation in local government. Residents asked thoughtful questions, raised concerns, challenged applicants, and worked together to improve projects affecting their community. That experience left such a positive impression on me that when the opportunity later arose to purchase a home in Northeast I didn't hesitate.

I already knew this was a community where people cared enough to participate, and I wanted to be part of it. Over the several past several years, I've observed this application process. I've had the opportunity to watch Baltazar participate in this process. I've seen him come directly from his tire shop or remodeling job, still covered in sheetrock dust, because participating mattered enough that he showed up. I've watched him attend meetings, answer questions, listen to concerns, and continue engaging with the community despite delays and changing circumstances.

Now, not everybody supports this proposed use, and that's okay. Meaningful public participation doesn't require agreement, but it does require fair process. Um, through my own public service on the Anchorage Planning Board, I've developed an even greater appreciation for the responsibility that comes with making these decisions. We have to distinguish between what the evidence establishes and what someone believes may happen someday. Future possibilities may eventually become relevant when they become actual plans, applications, approvals, or other competent evidence.

Until then, they're possibilities, not existing conditions. Every applicant deserves to have their application evaluated accordingly and to the applicable criteria, the facts actually before the decision-making body not according to hypothetical future circumstances or whether the proposed use is personally popular. Baltazar has spent several years participating in this process. He's engaged with this community and continued pursuing the opportunity to build something for himself and his family. As a fellow immigrant, I respect that perseverance, but I'm not asking you to approve this application because he's an immigrant, because he works hard, or because I admire his determination.

I'm asking you to give him a fair decision. Our land use process depends upon consistency. The question should be whether this application satisfies the standards applicable to it based on the facts and evidence before you, not whether someone can imagine a different use for this area sometime in the future. I respectfully ask you decide this application on that basis. Thank you.

Okay, thanks for testifying. All right, next person please come forward.

And the microphone is currently off, so please press the button on the bottom, and the green light turning on means it's on.

Yes, on the bottom. And yes, and then once the green light turns on, that means the microphone is live. So I'll ask you to state your name, what part of town you're in, and you'll have 3 minutes. First, I want to thank you for the opportunity to address, uh, the assembly. My name is John Kirschbergen, and I'm in favor of the dispensary.

I have a lot of fellow combat vets as myself that live in the Molduden area close to the VA hospital. For obvious reasons, um, this would benefit us greatly, and I just wanted to say I put this thing together last minute, but I've been a customer of Baltazar Tires for 20-plus years, and he provides a great service to our community, our East Anchorage community. And I believe he will be able to manage and maintain this cannabis dispensary as responsible and successfully as he has Tire shop. And one word is fences. There's such thing as fences if, you know, for privacy or whatever.

Anyway, that's all I have to say. Should I turn this off? You can leave it on if you like. Okay, so thank you for your testimony.

So next person, please come forward. Again, microphone, turn on with the button on the bottom, and when the green light is on, it's on. Yep, go ahead. And then state your name, what part of town you're in, you have 3 minutes. Hi, my name is Baltazar Arias.

I go by Junior just because, you know, I'm the son of Baltazar here. And I came here with a different perspective to give you guys, the members of the board here. I might sound like a broken record, but I want to emphasize a little bit more of the facts here. Whether you personally support marijuana or not, Anchorage has set up laws and regulations that allow business operations to continue. And I know there's been a lot of concerns over the proximity to the park and the school, but these concerns are valid.

And knowing my dad, that's something he takes really serious because that's something— he doesn't consume marijuana himself, but he's investing in the business opportunity as it is a growing business here in Anchorage. And if we have the rules in place and they need to, they need to mean something, and business owners should be able to read the requirements follow them, and trust that their application will be treated fairly. Which the last few years, it felt like it— my dad has not been treated fairly by the Northeast Community Council. And, um, he's been investing in Muldoon for pretty much as long as I've been alive, over 25 years. And that's— I've been born, um, and raised here in Northeast Community, or Northeast Anchorage specifically.

He's, uh, invested in housing construction, other projects across Anchorage as a whole as well. He continues to put his money into Muldoon area, and this project would of course create additional full-time jobs. At the end of the day, I just want people to trust that Anchorage's permitting process is fair and consistent. So tonight I'm respectfully asking you guys to support the local investment and stick with the process that's already in place and vote yes on the land use permit for Bald Star Holdings LLC, doing business as SSMILA, at 1431 Muldoon. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony. If anybody else would like to speak— I just would like a question answered. Sorry, ma'am, have you already testified? I just want a question answered. Yeah, are you going to push this through when he hasn't had a meeting to suffice the MOA?

Ma'am, this is out of order. This is the public testimony, so this is not a time for for the public to ask questions of members. So we have not started our debate, and so I can't predict what the body is going to do. And so we will come to that. I thought you were going to just deliberate on it and there was going to be an end tonight.

Yeah, ma'am. So I need to make sure the podium is free for folks who need to testify. So I know you would like an answer to your question. I am not able to provide that answer to you at time. It's not the right time in the meeting, and I cannot predict what the body is going to do.

I'm sorry, but I just— That's okay. Stay tuned. It's a— whatever is going to happen will happen soon. Um, okay, so anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. And just to double-check, sir, you did not testify last meeting, is that correct?

Madam Chairman, Jerry Weaver, uh, members of the assembly, I'm here as a character witness for, uh, Baltazar, personal friend I grew up in Anchorage, came here in the mid-'60s, lived in Muldoon when there was very little, if anything, there. Still own property there.

I want to tell you that, uh, Baltazar is a hard-working individual. I knew him 30 years ago when he was changing tires under a tent. He moved on. He gradually built up his business. He developed other businesses.

He's a man of his word. He has integrity. And for some people to impugn that integrity, especially from the Northeast Community Council, is appalling. So I— the department has reviewed the application. It meets the standards.

You should approve it as proposed.

Be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I don't see any questions from members. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward.

Okay, thanks. And also ask, if you do intend to testify, it's helpful if you can line up so that we have an idea how many folks are willing to testify. So microphone's already on. Please state your name and what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes.

Uh, my name is Adam Martinez. I am a resident of the Anchorage Hillside. I am, um, the manager at Balthazar Tire Shop. So forgive me here, I'll try to fire hose you guys. Uh, so I don't want to totally focus on the character of Balthazar.

Um, he's a hard-working guy, everybody talks about that. I think I just want to kind of point out his responsibility that he takes as a business owner. Me personally, I see him very often. He comes by the shop to check out how things are going, how things are, make sure that we're maintaining a level of integrity to the community, to our customers, to our neighbors. Uh, we've been working on our parking lot.

Our area has shrunk with the car wash being built next door. We have focused the last 4 months entirely on working on our parking lot situation. So the neighbors, you know, whether or not they actually care about that, the parking situation is being worked on.

Um, he, uh, he's just a— he gives great opportunity to people. I'm a testament of He's a great business owner. He's a— maybe not— maybe, you know, the community council saying, you know, having a hard time getting him there. That guy's busy, you know. I don't really know how else to say it.

Super busy, super hardworking, super involved. But he'll give you the shirt off his back. You know, he's helped my family immensely.

He's helped every other member of our team.

You know, he's just a good—. He's a responsible business owner. And, you know, I'm here in favor of it. You know, he plans to grow his business and what he does. And as that continues to grow, he'll continue to give opportunities to people like me, you know, who otherwise would not get any type of opportunity to create a life for themselves.

And, and I, I truly believe he'll continue to do that with this. And it's not gonna— whether or not we can get it to be passed, it'll— he'll still continue to do what he does. But, uh, this would greatly help us as a team and as a family to continue restoring what we can in the community. You know, he's a part of it. Loves it.

He loves the work. He loves his family. I mean, he's a, he's a, he's a responsible business owner, and I think that's what matters. Thank you. Okay, thanks for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. Microphone is already on. State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have— Good evening, everyone. My name is Kachi.

I'm here in support of—. Sorry, ma'am, if you don't mind pulling the mic. Yeah, thank Thank you. Mr. Arias is known and respected by his customers, neighbors, and fellow business owners. He is the type of person who treats others with dignity and respect in both in his business and personal interactions.

He demonstrates integrity, accountability, and genuine commitment to his community. I also like to acknowledge the effort that Mr. Arias has put in the process. The best of my knowledge, he has worked diligently to follow the requirements established by the muni and the planning department. He has invested significant time, resources, and effort to satisfy expectations placed before him to ensure that he follows the proper procedures. I also am aware that there are other cannabis, um, business, and, and one is opening up, which is the Cannabis, um, and there's the just as close as St. Patrick's, the shelter, as this gentleman mentioned it.

All I'm saying is it's all about fairness. Why is it that they're able and he's not? I know you're not answering those questions right now, but— and this process, I think, is all about fairness.

And yes, he says— they're saying they don't want another one. But okay, there's multiple business— there's 4 or 5 restaurants. What's the difference? What's one more company? Anchorage is growing.

I mean, they're— it's a very successful business, um, and Mr. Baltazar is very well known. He's respected in the community. Um, I just think it's all about fairness. If you're gonna look at him as trying to— why not the other businesses that are open? There's one that hasn't even opened yet, and they're going to be opening soon.

I think it's all about fairness, and just take that into consideration.

Thank you. Okay, thanks for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is already on. State your name for the record, what part of town you're in, and your You now have 3 minutes.

Okay, I'm Andres. I'm also from East Anchorage. I'm—. Or Baltazar is my dad. I have grown up in my— and my dad too, and my brother, my mom, all here in Northeast Anchorage for essentially— for us, me and my brother, all our lives.

My parents moved here around 3 decades ago, I think, but since then they've been contributing to the economy and the community at the same time up until today. Also, they continue to participate here. Um, I'm here to support the, the proposal, and there are a few points I have here that I wanted to bring up. Um, I wanted to say that specifically the property he has that's currently the tire shop on Muldoon has been there for around 20 years now. So he's been part not only of the Muldoon economic activity but also part of the community as well.

I remember as a little kid seeing the, the current building on the property being built or reconstructed, and it's been there ever since. And since then it's been expanded into an even bigger and more active business than before. I also wanted to note that part of the current property that's to the north used to be an adult media store, if you will, which I think you could argue In my view, is more controversial than a dispensary, but that's another argument to be made. And again, he used that area, expanded his business, and has made now what is a thriving tire shop business. He's shown his work ethic and commitment to working and following the rules, and he's very work-focused.

I can attest to that. Not only in the tire shop business, but across different industries and businesses as well. He used to be a taxi driver here in Anchorage, before working at the tire shop or creating the tire shop. Um, and now, um, he's exploring different economic, um, avenues, um, seeing where the market's calling. Um, I want to reiterate what's been said over and over is that he has been following all the necessary requirements and laws that are stated in this, um, application.

Um, these, um, from what I saw online, the attached document, one of them is from the planning department staff analysis. It's 139 pages. Um, it directly addressed many of these concerns regarding proximity to, uh, parks and schools, and all of these, um, concerns have been repeated now. Um, and despite a lengthy and honestly personally confusing process, uh, from the community council and arguments to be made too about whether that fully truly represents the community in terms of accessibility, availability, and awareness, fairness, another argument to be had. I think the important thing to distinguish is that he's been following all these carefully designed rules by the city and the state, designed to ensure, designed to ensure safety.

Um, after Alaskans voted over a decade ago to legalize recreational marijuana, the city and the state have set out these rules, and my dad has shown his commitment to following this process fairly. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. And you did not testify last time, is that correct? No.

Okay, I'm not as good with faces, so that's why I'm asking. Um, uh, so, uh, microphone's already on. Please state your name and you'll have 3 minutes. Go ahead. My name is David Aboubaid and I live in 15— I have my house in 1550 Beaver Road.

I just—. Honorable members of the assembly, I just want to testify in the character of Baltazar. I know him for— I know Baltazar for over 20 years.

I know him when he was driving a cab, way before he built his shop.

Baltazar is really an example of living the American dream with his hard work and honesty.

If you ask even customers go to his shop, they would come out and pleased and compliment him. He follow the rules and regulations of the city, and they all have been done and inspected. I trust the city Building Safety for what they do and what they inspect and what they approve, as well as the Health Department. And I just want to emphasize the fact honesty and decency would go with the character of Baltazar.

And I'm ready for any question.

Thank you for testimony. I don't see any questions for you, so thank you for being here. Thank you. Okay, next person please come forward, and just give one moment and we will move the microphone so that it can be accessible.

And the microphone is already on. Yeah, one second.

Oh, sorry, if you can press the green button on the bottom, Travis will help you Here they go. So please state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Irene Schachtel. I have been a— I have lived in Alaska for nearly 30 years.

I was born in Arizona, but I prefer snow to tarantulas. Anyhow, I have a plethora of nephews and nieces, and some of them are in the military. I am a lifelong Democrat. I am pro pro-police and I am pro-military.

I believe that there should be no, um, there should be no dispensaries anywhere near schools. The only thing we should smoke is salmon. And if you need pot for medicinal purposes, you should go to a doctor and get a prescription. And that is where I stand on that. I seriously believe that our children are our future.

Don't— it's not— I'm not trying to be a pun there, but our children are our future, and they cannot be our future if you turn them into zombies with drugs and ruin their livers. We need them to be healthy, and we need them to be able to— in the global arena against, you know, other countries, we need them to be able to do their jobs and to be the future that we need them to be. And that's all I have to say about that. I am a concerned auntie, and I want our kids to have the best that they can have. I love Alaska, and I'm going to stay here until my last breath.

I love Alaska, I love America, I love NATO, and we need Earth to be healthy. We need our children to be healthy. Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

Would anyone else in the room wish to testify? Please come forward if so.

Anyone at all?

Okay, yeah, so one second while we get the podium set up.

Thanks. Okay, uh, go ahead, state your name, part of town you're in, you'll have 3 minutes. Go ahead. My name is Stephen Callahan. I'm from, uh, well, from the U Med area.

I'm representing myself tonight. Okay, uh, real quick, I worked on the initial expansion of Baltazar's Tire Shop, and there was a comment that was submitted regarding landscaping I was landscape architect for that expansion, and that those trees and shrubs were installed, and it did pass the Municipality of Anchorage zoning inspection. He did get a certificate of occupancy for that project. I believe that's where this marijuana shop is going to be placed, is in that building expansion onto his tire shop. Uh, it was a showroom area, and that was done a number of years ago.

Since that time time. I'd also like to point out that, um, there was a replatting action. One of the issues with the property is it had, uh, split zoning. I believe it was B-3 and residential. Since that time, I believe that that has been taken care of through the replatting action, and the property lines have changed.

A number of other people were looking at this property for putting in a marijuana shop. So if Baltazar wasn't going to be doing it, someone else more than likely would be trying to put in a marijuana shop. There were issues with the split zoning that precluded it from becoming a— for the marijuana use. But with the removal of the split zoning, I believe now that it is compatible with the marijuana sales use. Um, that's really all I can think of off the top of my head.

Um, whether the landscaping's still there or not, I don't know. But once again, it did pass the municipality of Anchorage landscaping requirements.

Yeah, that's all I can think of.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Um, anyone else wish to testify, please come forward if so.

Okay, say your name, what part of town you're in, you have 3 minutes. Uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage. I'll keep this one short. So, um, yeah, when I had a car at one point in time, I had my tires switched there and it was an enjoyable experience, uh, and it was one of the least expensive places in town and they did good work. Um, Baltazar's shop is pretty much well known in the community and it's supported and he's got a good reputation And so what this really boils down to, if we look at it, is does community council outweigh the interests of a business owner, and where do you draw the line?

I'll tell you this. There's a number of community councils in this town. Some are known for being very open and conducive atmospheres, and some are ruling with an iron fist. And so there's 3 in town that are kind of sort of known for that. And I have not been to Northeast Community Council, but there is a rep. And so, uh, what do you do?

Do you deny somebody the opportunity to do good work within their community and they have a reputation, they keep it? Or do you deny them because the community council tells you we don't want this? Um, I guess we'll find out here real soon. But yeah, Paul Starr's got a good rep.

Thank you for your testimony. Would anyone else wish to come forward and testify at this time? Please come forward.

I'm here to help.

Okay.

Thank you, and I'm sorry for the confusion. Yeah, real quick, so just to So clarify, microphone is on. Please state your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes. Go ahead.

So I'm Pamela Rager and I live on the northeast side of town. And I've been listening to this, so I'm just speaking straight to you. It's a little upsetting because this is not about a personal— this is not against a person. At least for me, it is never against an individual. It's about an issue or a policy or procedure that has not been followed.

I've known Balthazar for many years, and I know he probably doesn't remember me from way back. His children played soccer. One of my children was a coach of his kids. I've watched the man work hard. That is not the issue.

The issue to me is that I walked that area. You have public housing straight across the street, a complex, not a building, a full complex. You have a playground right next door. You have a health clinic right there. I think that those are important things, and so I just want to share that.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you for your testimony. Anyone else wish to testify, please come forward. Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing none, and no one signed up on the phone, public hearing is now closed. And again, as I remind folks, next I'm going to— well, actually, before we have— one second.

Okay, sorry, just checking. So, um, so just very briefly, um, again, statement to clarify what we're going to do. We did hear testimony from Northeast Community Council, so we're not going to have them speak at this time. But again, we will have opportunity to ask questions and to get into the substance of these matters during debate. And then, but we are still going to hear from basically a closing statement or an opportunity to respond to the testimony from the applicant.

But before we do that, we're going to take care of disclosures. And so for members, in this case, it is not a conflict of interest. It is to disclose any ex parte communications, meaning any communications with the applicant, community council, in their posture, you know, in this particular situation on this topic outside of public meeting. So, so I'm going to briefly go first, but if anybody else needs to make disclosures, please just get in the queue. Um, my disclosures of the communications were essentially, uh, on August 4th at our last meeting.

After that meeting, I went and spoke briefly with the applicant and their representative, not on the substance but just on the procedural, explaining what had happened in the end of the meeting, just talking about what would happen at the next meeting, not on the subject. Uh, and, uh, my other disclosure is today You probably saw me out there. I was again speaking with the applicant and representative again just on procedural matters, not on the substance. And then I did not have direct communication with the, um, with the community council folks, but worked on, on that through staff essentially. But it was again on the procedure and the discussion tonight.

And then the other thing else I forgot to say that the attorneys reminded me is, um, in addition to if you had any communications. You also need to disclose any independent investigation, meaning did you go to the property? Did you, you know, we had a previous case where dealing with smells, things like that. So did you do any kind of other looking into this independently? So anybody that needs to make those disclosures, please do so.

Mr. Gerker. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have two communications to disclose. On August 4th, a member of the, I assume it was the Northeast Community Council, reached out to me privately about the testimony from the attorneys for Mr. Balthazar. And then on August 12th, another member of the community reached out just about general concerns about the application.

And then I guess as far as independent investigation, I Googled I don't know if that needs to be—. I Googled the, the map and the distance between the lots, but that's it. Okay, thank you. And I should clarify, we, um, you, uh, I should have— the clerk reminded me you don't have to give detailed information about your investigation, just if there was anything substantive or if you got new testimony. So next, Mr. Handeland.

Thank you. I've got a disclosure. Uh, Nate Martin texted me about this. That was about it, just talking about how they were submitting a resolution. Okay, thank you.

And I did no investigation. Okay, thank you. Uh, next, Miss Baldwin-Day. Yes, I would like to disclose that on my way to pick up my dry cleaning, I did take a small detour and, um, just like look at the perimeter of the property relative to the adjacent park. Thank you.

Thank you. And next, Ms. Silvers.

Um, yes, I looked at the various distances involved, um, and I did forward some testimony from the community council to be put on the record. Thank you. Yeah, and I'll note the AIM that was laid on the table tonight does include a lot of communications to all members, so that's also a fair Forgot to say that before. Uh, next, Ms. Park. Um, I don't know whether it's relevant, but a community member, uh, who just— who supports Mr. Balthazar did text me and ask me how I would vote on this.

Thank you. Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Uh, I exchanged greetings with, uh, the owner and the legal staff at the last meeting. Here within the chamber.

I think we said hello to each other. Thank you. And Ms. Scott? Similar to Member Park, a community member who supports Mr. Baltazar texted me as well. Okay, thank you.

I don't see any further disclosures, and that satisfies the record. So just to be clear, this is what we need to do if there's quasi-judicial items and why we are judicious about reminding folks to not have external communication. Okay, so now that that's out of the way, then we will move next to our— oh, sorry, Ms. Silvers, did you have an additional disclosure? Okay. Oh, no problem.

Okay. So next we will move on. As I said before, we get into debate, we will give the, the applicant and their representative, not each but together, up to 5 minutes to briefly make a closing statement, respond to anything that has been said in testimony. And again, I'll remind members The next step is debate, and then we'll have plenty of time and opportunity for questions. And so this is really their, their time to make a statement.

So I will invite up Ms. Waltsin and Baltazar, if you'd like to come as well. And again, you will have 5 minutes.

Please go ahead. Thank you. My name is Jana Waltsin, attorney for Baltazar, who's here to my right. Great. Thank you for taking the time to hear this.

I wanted to just hit a couple things and make sure— did you— do you have my memorandum that I sent with exhibits? If not, I have copies, but I want to make sure that you have it. I'm going to briefly go through it. Um, the last, the last public hearing, there was a committee member that said that she owns the location that this application is for, 1431 Muldoon Road. Um, I You can be assured that the RES Lands Trust owns this property and is not owned by somebody else.

So I just wanted to put that to rest. The second piece is the August— or the May— the March 24th, 2026 Cook Inlet Tribal email, which it talks about the Denshin Lab and whether that's a protective use. So just to assume it is, even though youth center isn't called out in Title 21, it is is called out in the Alaska Code. So just for the relevant purposes of discussing whether or not it would meet, and just assuming it does meet the actual sensitive use definition, the two relevant distances to look at are the 200-foot separation distance measured from the closest points of the two lot lines. You can go on the GIS map and you can see my exhibit where it exceeds 200 feet, lot line to lot line, closest point.

And then the second distance to look at is 500 feet, um, measured by the shortest, uh, shortest practical pedestrian route. Again, if you look at my Exhibit A to that memorandum, you will see from the Anchorage GIS mapping system that identifies what the Muni has identified as sensitive uses, which it has not identified this as a sensitive use. I'm just assuming for the sake of this purposes, um, that it is so that you can see even if it was, it is 1,271 feet shortest pedestrian route per the Anchorage Muni, um, mapping system. Um, there is no sensitive use located within the, the separation distance. I believe Director Appleby is here, um, and she can speak more to her staff report, but I wanted to, um, talk about the playground.

Um, we had some testimony that said that they went out and walked it with their smart uh, smartwatches. It's hard to look at it that way because you need to look at the GIS muni mapping system and put the layer on that shows the parcel lines. So there is another parcel in between the playground. The green space is its own separate parcel. So while that may look like one parcel because there's no improvements on it, um, it's not.

And so you need to look at the GIS mapping and map it from there. And so that's why we hired a professional surveyor to to make sure that we understood the distances, and that's at page 61 of your staff report. And so that straight-line parcel-to-parcel shortest, shortest direct route, as the crow flies, as Mr. Weddleton used to say, is more than 200 feet, and the actual shortest pedestrian route is 733 feet point 8, and that's in your staff report at page 61. I did want to, again, I know I mentioned it last time, but reiterate that I had an error in my public engagement management report. I said that this MOU was voted on, um, and again, I have an error here too, of February 2025.

It was actually March of 2025. February was when it was actually introduced, and March was when it was actually voted on. Um, since I only have a minute and 30 minutes left, I want to skip to the, um, discussion about whether or not verification was, was done before the March 25th uh, community council meeting. Well, we uploaded all the, uh, agendas and all the meeting minutes into AI. We've got some pretty high-tech AI these days, and it was discussed in 2024, March of 2024.

But the very first time, according to our tools, um, that it was actually listed on the agenda as this type of getting a voter card and showing a lease and all that stuff, uh, was actually the March 25th agenda. Um, which is the agenda with that the MOU was voted on. And I also wanted just to call your attention to, um, something Nate spoke to earlier, which was the 2023 MOU that was approved with a different manager. And so I think that really calls into question, is it a location issue or is this a who issue? Because this location was approved by the Community Council in 2023, um, with an MOU.

And then when the who was going to operate it changed changed, that's when the, the vote changed, uh, that's when this concern changed. Um, and again, um, the March 2024th, uh, discussion about this, the verification wasn't— was about a year before they actually implemented it from what we can see in our records. Um, but again, I think the first time was actually used was March of 2025, and I know there's some assembly folks there that may remember that meeting. So thank you so much, and we're for comments and questions. Okay, thank you.

Um, so, uh, again, I'll ask members to hold questions just for the moment. So we have done our public hearing, we've done our disclosures, we've done our statement from the applicant. So, um, yeah, so now I think we are at the moment of debate. So I will, uh, just ask, what is the will of the body?

Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Scout to approve, second by Mr. Martinez. And I will note, um, just again because people get confused about the approval, that is the only way that we can start debate on an item.

So do not take— okay, um, we might be having some queue issues, uh, so okay, so, so yeah, if you're not able to get in the queue, then— oh, strange.

No. Okay, okay, perfect. Okay, great. So, um, knock on wood, uh, system is working. Okay, so we have a motion by Miss Scout, second by Mr. Martinez.

And, um, uh, first I'll ask, uh, Miss Scout, do you want to speak to it further? Then I'll move through the queue. No, I'd love to hear from the representatives of the district. Okay, Ms. Silvers, you're next.

All right, I have a lot of questions. The first concern that I want to speak about is with the community engagement piece. Is there somebody here that can answer questions about that?

Yeah. Yeah, and also ask, just because in general I know we'll have Community Council questions, probably applicant questions, possibly admin questions. So folks want to stay close to the mic, that'd be helpful. So, uh, yeah, go ahead. Okay, so, um, on page 27 of this packet, it states that you will continue to engage with Northeast Community Council and residents to address any concerns.

Um, I can see, uh, here in a meeting where the MOU failed to pass, that was in March. So I guess my first question is is, since that failed— and I know that you've spoken a lot about how the vote went and that you don't really like how the vote went, but I think kind of regardless of that, I don't think that really matters because I think it's clear regardless of how the vote went that there are community concerns. Is that clear to you that there are community concerns? Yes. OK. And so since that March meeting, have you met with or reached out or communicated with the community council?

No. Okay, so on page 27 where you said that you would continue to address community concerns with the community council, that has not been done? Well, we had the April meeting after that. Okay, and so the April meeting, that brings me to my next set of questions. Um, I, I see you're in your testimony that you sent in today that claim that substantive conversation took place.

And then I actually read the transcript, and it appears from the transcript that— I can't hear anything, I'm not sure I'll be able to participate in the meeting, I still can't hear you. It appears that people couldn't hear until 20 minutes after it started. By that time, Somebody had said, "Oh boy, bye-bye." Apparently somebody had probably hung up because of that. Also in the transcript I see somebody asked for a written copy of the changes that were made. The answer was zero changes made.

Then later on in the transcript, And then the plan changed, um, and so there was no copies of anything to give to anybody. Um, you're, you're Ms. Welton? That's right. And so it looks like you stepped in at, uh, 12:20 according to the transcript. Um, it says Baltazar wasn't here, his staff didn't know what was going on.

Uh, what about those people that left? Um, nobody knew what was going on. They said no meeting was going on here. And so what it sounds like, it doesn't really sound like you had a public meeting. It sounds like you had kind of a little bit of a show.

Yeah, this, this, it, the meeting happened. Yes, it didn't get organized and kind of brought together until 12:15, 12:20. It was in the tire shop, right? It was on location. And so when you hear somebody say, oh boy, I gotta go, there was his staff there going and helping customers as well.

So this, it did happen at the location. We didn't close the tire shop down for the meeting. Perhaps we should have picked a different location. We just thought it made more sense to have it at the location. And that particular day, um, I was late because my nanny had to go to the hospital that day.

And so I was also watching a 3-year-old— well, 2-and-a-half-year-old at that time— and a 6-month-old. So I was late. My paralegal Brenda was there on the Zoom. Um, but yeah, I came in late. I guess I'm just going to say that if nobody could hear until 20 after, if people were sent away because nobody— when they arrived on time because nobody knew what was going on, if there was no paperwork talking about the changes—.

But there was no changes. Well, that's what you—. There, there was. But then later you said there was a change. There was a change in management, correct?

That was right, but they were asking— the question was—. Sorry, if I can just ask one speaker at a time. Thanks. Sorry. If I understood you correctly, the, the question raised from the community member was what has changed about this since the March 2025 vote from the Community Council, and I said absolutely nothing has changed about this application from March 2025.

And so if I'm referencing a change, that must have been from a question that came from the 2023 previous community council meeting where yes, there was a change from 2023 to 2025, but from 2025 of March to 2025 or 2026 of April, there was no change. Okay, so I'm just going to say I don't see anything in here about, um, them saying a change from the community council. I, I just, I, I think that this— I don't know that I would consider this a public meeting that meets requirements by code, just looking at this transcript. So I'm just going to say that. I'm not going to ask any more questions about it, because I think I've got my questions answered.

Now I'm going to move on to my next concerns. And my next concerns really have to do with the distances and the way that the measurements were taken.

Taken. So the Planning Department code compliance checklist form says on page 8 that for playgrounds, distance is measured from the equipment and not from the parking facilities. However, municipal code states that measurements shall be measured to the edge of the playground or athletic field, including abutting parking lots. And so I did include in in this packet a Muldoon plan for Chanchinew Park, which you can see there's a playground area that has age-specific playground equipment as well as a junior cyclist track and a parking lot that serves it that abuts the whole thing. And one of the questions that I asked to the administration at the same time as I I asked who verified the measurements was why wasn't it measured to the abutting parking lot or to the junior cyclist track.

I will say that the administration did not answer my question. I still have that question. I don't know if anybody from Planning is here that could answer that question.

But when they did answer the other question, which is who verified the measurements, they sent measurements, they answered the question with measurements that were actually 100 feet shorter. So that's just from one email. I got measurements that were 100 feet shorter from what was in the packet.

And so I don't know that any of these measurements have really been verified. Is there anybody from planning here that can talk about that? Yeah, it looks like we have Elizabeth Appleby. And another staff member from planning.

So go ahead and, yeah, make sure the microphone's on. Go ahead. Thank you. If you can both identify for the record. Thank you.

Okay. Hi, Elizabeth Appleby, current planning manager. I have Ari Gupta, he's a senior planner in current planning and was the staff planner for the staff report. So I'll try to answer as best I can the distance questions.

I suppose specifically for the, the playground. So park is not a listed protected use, so it's, uh, and there is also not an athletic field on the site. The, the skating ribbon is not considered an athletic ribbon. The planning department, we did find a shorter distance than, uh, than was listed in the application, but it still met code. We found 690 19 feet, which is still over the, the 500 feet by how you walk.

It is 200 feet by parcel boundaries. I did go through and I looked carefully at the comments submitted by the Northeast Community Council in the AIM where they had 5 different measurements. Uh, in researching those, I, I still feel that this meets the separation distances is in code.

Okay, but you didn't measure to the abutting parking lot or the junior cyclist track, which is— it's an engineered surface part of the playground designed for children's play. So for the, the parking lot question, we've historically interpreted that for athletic fields, and because there's not an athletic field on the site, um, we, uh, we We did not include the parking lot because of that. But the code says playgrounds. It doesn't say just athletic fields. It says playgrounds.

OK, so I'm very confused. I guess my next question— so I have another question about the 200 feet. And I guess I would like to start with asking, when I look at this map, map, it's hard for me to tell, but it looks questionable to me. The building that the cannabis shop is going to be housed in, is that building and all of its setbacks housed within the middle Baltusore lot, which is 1431? And, um, through the chair, Member Silvers, I'm not sure which map you're looking at.

I think you're just referencing the, the property line map, it would be, it'd be within the tire shop building. It's, there's, if you're looking at the map, there's like a little smaller square parcel. That's where it would be. Yes, so the smaller square parcel is 1431, and so my question is, is the building that the cannabis shop going to be housed in entirely within and its entirely within the lot named as 1431? It—.

The cannabis shop would be within that lot. I guess I'm trying to flip to see if I'm understanding the setback question.

Okay, there I mean, I suppose the, the marijuana shop is within the, that small parcel there. I, um, I guess I'll try to— I guess let me know if I'm not quite answering the setback question because I'm thinking like property line setbacks. This building that has the address 1431, is it entirely housed within this lot? And the reason why this is important to me is because I, I'm also looking looking at the 200-foot rule. And I'm going to be honest here, the only reason why this passes the 200-foot rule is because Chanchanoo Park is split into 2 lots and Baltazar is split into 3 lots.

But if you actually look at the closest Chanchanoo parking lot to the closest Baltazar lot line, which it seems like the business kind of COVID all 3 lots, it's well under 200 feet. And so somehow here we have interpretations of code or something, I'm not exactly sure what, that is really allowing something to move forward. When the distances are really in question.

I suppose, are there any additional questions that I could answer?

No, I think I would like to remand this, move to remand this back to P&Z for, to look at this again with my questions in mind. And I also believe that another community meeting, an actual community meeting where people are there, they're prepared, could take place. And I'll give just a point of information. So the— this marijuana cases don't go to the Planning and Zoning Commission for a recommendation before they come to the assembly. They come just straight here.

So it would be, um, you, you would, uh, basically deny it if you wanted to make that decision, and then it would be brought back here. Okay, thank you. Yeah.

Okay, any, uh, further questions, comments, Ms. Silvers? Okay, uh, next in the queue I have Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you, Chair. Um, I, I have my own, I have my own set of questions. Um, I think my first question is to ask counsel perhaps to clarify for us what standards we are using when we make a quasi-judicial decision of this nature.

Our first performance law question of the night. I'll turn to our attorneys, whoever would like to answer, and they might need a second to think about that. Mr. Gates.

Oh, well, the standards for this special land use permit for marijuana are outlined in our code sections, and the staff packet report actually tracks those standards. Uh, I could read them out for you if you would like. There's a little list, um, No, I think that, that is sufficient for me. So in adjudicating this, we are looking at the code compliance checklist that is pages 7, 8, 9, and 10 of Attachment 1. Is that a correct characterization?

Um, well, I need to look at those pages. One moment.

Yes. Okay, excellent. Um, my—. Pardon me. So this goes through both Title 10 criteria and Title 21 data type checklist.

Okay, excellent. Thank you. I do have a clarifying question for Planning. I noticed that there are two conditions that are provided on page 2 of the— page 2 of the resolution, lines 30 and 32. I'm seeing that there's a requirement to provide a Title 21 compliant parking plan to MOA Traffic Engineering and also provision of proof to the Planning Department that the site complies with Special Limitation A of AO 2018-97.

As I understand that, that is landscaping along the western and eastern boundaries. I'm wondering how that will— how that gets verified. Like, how does that proof happen? And then what is entailed in that Title 21 compliant parking plan?

And do we know or do we have an idea of what the progress looks like on developing both of those things?

Through the Chair, Member Baldwin-Day, Elizabeth Appley and Ari Gupta from Current Planning. So every approval that we do for marijuana and alcohol cases and other types of cases, so it'll say it's approved with these conditions and then you reference two of those. So they cannot file their Notice of Zoning Action, or we call them NZAs, until they have provided proof to us that those conditions are met. So if they— it's basically somebody at the planning department has to receive verification. So if we never receive proof that the landscaping meets the special limitations of the zoning district, or that there's a— it would probably be traffic would tell us that they found the parking plan compliant.

So that includes ADA spaces distance for dry vials, and that we need that proof in order to file the NCA. If we don't get it, then it just basically the conditions aren't met, so they can't move forward to record the NCA to open. Gotcha. Thank you. And I suppose this would be a question then for Ms. Waltzin.

What is the progress progress on items 7 and 8 in the conditional list.

So since it hasn't been approved yet, um, they're hiring people to look at that. And landscaping was, was installed years ago, but it might need to be freshened up. But the parking plan, uh, we're working on hiring somebody to do that. And then my understanding from this process that I've been in many times is that planning— or the zoning code enforcement comes, actually looks at the plan, checks it off, makes sure all the right parking spaces, where the placards are for ADA, and then signs off on it. And then that's how we get our lift to get our NZA.

That's how we get that recorded. That's how we go get our marijuana business license and business tax registration. So it's all really done by code enforcement.

And then one additional question for you. As I understand it, the— there was actually a professional surveyor that was hired to do the distance determination to the sensitive locations that are named in our— in the staff packet that's before us.

Are those—. So those are the distances by survey. Right. Do you happen to know if those distances are precisely the same as what is contained in the Muni GIS software, or is it possible that those might be different based on a surveyor being on site versus GIS layers? I always assume that surveyors are more precise.

I use the GIS mapping a lot to help kind of suss it out, and if it's within like 50 feet, I'm always like, ooh, I'm not gonna rely on that 'cause maybe my cursor moved and we need to get a survey. Survey. So I would assume it's more precise. That's what surveyors do. But that is what we relied on is the actual survey from the professional surveyor.

Okay, thank you. Planning, did you have something else that you were going to say before I moved on? If you had another bit of commentary to add, please feel free.

I'll let Ari Gupta just speak to— he wanted to note just the stamped nature of the plans. Hello, um, the Anchorage Planning Department. I'm a senior planner. So with respect to the parking plan, that's something that traffic, municipal traffic, brought up. We would require a stamped plan from them to essentially show compliance.

Secondarily, for the landscape plan, we would also require a stamped landscape plan. That's pretty much it. So yeah, thank you. Thank you. And then the, the last thing, um, that I, that I'd like to ask, uh, and this I think could be for, for Councillor or whomever else might, um, want to weigh in.

As far as the, the required community meeting including notice and meeting summary, this is listed as a, a requirement in our, in our checklist. What are the What are the specific parameters around that community meeting, and do any of the 5 community meetings that have been listed or relayed to us with respect to this license comport with that requirement?

Whomever would like to take a stab. Thank you. So there is nothing in code— and Planning can correct me if I'm wrong— that says a meeting gets stale. It is their policy to, you know, I guess this is the first time we had heard of it, but it's their policy if it's been more than a year then to do another one, but it's not actually in code. So we did 5 actual publicly noticed ones, 3 actually publicly noticed ones before this, and 7 community meetings altogether.

So we— and to answer your other question, it's a mailer where we identify the license the name, the date of the meeting, how to attend, where to go, and then we physically mail it out from a list that we obtained from the muni to residents and, and property owners within businesses within 500 feet of the actual proposed location. So we did that multiple times. This last April one, the 7th one, was only because of requests from planning that it had been more than a year from our last mailer. And so that was April of 2026? That's correct.

Thank you.

And, um, I suppose I'll speak for the Planning Department. It is in Chapter 3 of Title 21 where it states the required information we need for a community meeting. So that's where the mailers— and then it says what has to be put on the mailers to advertise the meeting, and it says you need to have summary. It is actually a requirement for it to be done within a year. You can ask for a 6-month extension from the director, but that actually is a requirement.

But we, we did find that the application met the requirements in Chapter 3. But that's all I wanted to add. Thanks. Thank you. And that's Chapter 3, 105.

Thank you. And, and ma'am, I know you're approaching— you're not— you don't You don't have the opportunity to ask questions at this time.

Sorry? Oh, okay. Well, you're welcome to speak to others in the audience, but not on the record.

So— sorry, I am saying you are welcome to speak to others in the audience, and I misunderstood your action. I thought you were coming to the podium. So please feel free to speak with others if you would like, but— I think Mr. Gates was also in the queue. So sorry, we're trying to answer questions from staff at this time and the applicant. Oh, well, I was going to mention what Mrs. Appleby described about the community meeting.

It's sort of laid out in several subsections in code as to what's required. It does encourage to use the community council, but it's not required to use the community council meeting for the community meeting, but it's required to notice the community council of a community meeting if it's not there. I just thought I would point that out, the flexibilities in code a little bit. It's in Section 2103, and that's referenced in the marijuana special use permit section. And then I think my final Question is just with respect to separation.

So, um, as— so the measurement standard for separation is either the shortest practicable pedestrian route from the entrance of the facility to the closest lot line of the protected use area, and then there's a lot line to lot line secondary measurement. But in the case of a playground, it's measured to the nearest equipment. Is that correct? Gotta love Title 22. 2021.

We love it.

Uh, hi. Yes, Elizabeth Appleby, Current Planning. So I'm looking in Chapter 5. It's actually under the use, uh, where it actually describes the marijuana use, where the distance requirements are. So marijuana establishments have to be separated from the protected land uses by 200 feet, and that's the straight lot line to lot line.

And then they also have to be located 500 feet away, but that's measured, uh, with the, with the walking distance. And then there's a list of protected uses, and then those are all defined in, in code. So as I was looking through some of the, uh, the additional information submitted, I— some of the concerns didn't meet the use definition, or I could see pretty quickly from, from my estimation on the GIS software that they would meet the separation distance. Okay, so, so just to recap, community meeting— community meetings have occurred. The most recently publicly noticed meeting was April 2026.

We have documentation that that occurred. We have documentation that the site meets our existing criteria and code for distance from protected uses, and that in fact the distance from the nearest playground exceeds the Title 21 requirements.

And the only remaining questions in the, in the conditions set forth that the applicant has direct control over are the Title 21 compliant parking plan and proof that the special limitation compliance with respect to landscaping is still being met. Am I correct in that summary? Um, I can say that, that yes, that is a correct summary of the information provided forward from the planning Department. Excellent. Okay, thank you.

Okay, any further questions? Okay, uh, next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Appleby, I just have a follow-up question for you, just to parallel what Member Baldwin-Day was just describing, but a little more granular. How many ways do we measure things?

I suppose through the chair, Member Martinez, I suppose I'm not sure how to answer, I suppose. I mean, we follow what is specified in code from the door.

I mean, I suppose there's always like—. Let me be—. So let me follow up with that, and maybe it'll help, maybe it won't, but Um, even here there are a few measurements that we're using, but do we use different measurements? Are we using feet, inches? Are we using different units, or are we using a standardized unit of measurement in the first place?

Uh, through the chair, this is Aarey Gupta with the Anchorage Planning Department. We use feet, uh, primarily because that's what's defined in Title 21. Additionally, if this were to make things easier We have geographically— geoinformatic system, GIS data that we use to gauge distances. Sometimes they are not as accurate, but for as a thumb rule, we go with the surveyors' estimates because they do measure with monuments and with exact distances instead of the GIS, which can be maybe plus-minus 10% error in terms of just projections and things like that. Thank you.

To continue to follow up, have all previous marijuana licenses come before the same process utilizing the same measurement standards? Through the chair, yes.

Now I wanted to be clear because individual members of the public may have our arbitrary standards. We may say it seems this way to me, or it seems other ways, but the definition of the standard that you, you utilize is in code.

Through the chair, yes.

Okay.

I don't think I have a follow-up question for you, but I have a statement just on the matter. Thank you for, um, for that.

I do have a little background on this, and so I would just share it, uh, to my colleagues. Um, this item has come before the Northeast Community Council on multiple occasions. Um, in 2023, I was the president of the community council, outgoing president, newly elected member of the assembly. And so I do recall the meeting, uh, where there was another operator. Um, it was a partnership between Balthazar and Good Cannabis at that time.

And I do recall there being a positive disposition from the community as it relates to not necessarily Baltazar, but as it relates to the other business providing a known reputable cannabis distributor. See, because Baltazar's a tire guy and a hard worker, but what does he know about cannabis was the question. The community had an answer because Baltazar was looking for a partnership at that time. And the community, as best as I can recall, approved that at that time based on that partnership, based on all the code requirements being passed at this— as well, but it's really on that partnership. 'Cause I recall when the partnership failed.

I recall when it collapsed, and it raised serious concerns, myself included. I recall when it— because now the question still came back to what is this particular person at the community level, how do we know what he knows how to do a business versus we had a provider that we trusted at that time, or that we seemed to have trusted. I don't think anyone actually investigated whether or not the other operator, or the potential partner, had a great track record. I think there was assumptions that they knew what they were doing because they had other businesses already. But that assumption didn't pass on to Baltazar when that partnership dissolved.

The planning paperwork essentially remained the same. The ownership and management model changed.

The building didn't change, from what I understand. What did change, though, is that there's new construction of a car wash on the north side of the building that a year ago you would have had a direct line of sight from the park it to the tire shop, which is no longer a direct line of sight because there's a new structure going there as well. Um, and that's just a little context because from my understanding, our role is to first, I guess, trust but verify. And so we trust our departments to do this work, and we have that obligation to verify. And I think that's as fair for colleagues to to that as well.

But consistency in process seems really important here. It seems, it seems like, I don't know, uh, I, I don't recall another operator who has basically followed the, the protocols who have had the same resistance and how that resistance has changed based on variables that are not germane. What I mean by that is the distance didn't change, the ownership is in the same place, the community remains the same. The partner changed. And so I don't really get why that changed the outcome of the community council, except that people felt some kind of way about that.

And I do recall the meeting that was on the record of the 25th. I'm in the minutes, very good minutes for that meeting, talking about wildfire and food security. But I do recall the meeting having a very challenging vote process. I don't want to fully describe it because I'm not present at that time in the past today, but I do recall there being multiple votes taken and there seemed to be a change of of the result at some point. I do recall that meeting being one of the few meetings where the community council started IDing people to qualify them to be able to vote in the process, which I guess every community council can determine that, but there was some resistance to the amount of people that came from the community to support Balthazar, with— it was perceived as suspicious.

And so the suspicion raised to let's check the paperwork for these people to see if they were even eligible to vote. And that vote had a difference between the very first vote and the last vote on the same night. I think that's all challenging from a perspective of how we as a— as a city maintain consistency in processes so that our business community can count on that work, that if they do that work they can count on the results. At the same time, this has raised lots of issues around where things should go, what is the burden to communities, and in Muldoon specifically where we don't have a rec center today where we don't have a Boys and Girls Club. I am deeply focused on making sure that our young people have all of the resources that we can have, and I don't want negative things in our park or near our park.

But the assumption has continued to be that a marijuana establishment is somehow a negative thing, and I think that that's questionable. I think police data can demonstrate how marijuana businesses are probably some of the safest properties in our community. And I don't recall having to call APD in the Chanch Ngu Pavilion for people who were so intoxicated with marijuana that they just didn't know what time it was. I do recall calling police in that park for other issues issues drugs and alcohol related in that same park. So I just think we have to have a consistency in process.

I think that there are some issues being raised that we as a body can continue to look at. For example, the equity question.

There are parts of our community that do not have the same regulations So they do not have the same requirements. They have different requirements. Every part of Anchorage is not consistent to even the same requirements in code.

So I think that there are big questions, and I have raised some of the equity questions here before this body, and I hope that we continue to look at those equity questions of where things are and what communities have certain burdens and certain opportunities. But today I just want to encourage the public to hear. There is a business that has followed, from my understanding, a process that has been verified by our planners, and it uses measurements that are standard mathematical measurements across all other businesses that have been evaluated under the same rubric. So I encourage folks to make the decision based on the facts of this this particular item and raise those other questions in the long term for another day. But lastly, I will share that one item remains important to me, and I don't know if anyone here can answer the question.

It may be Mandy Honest, and I'll follow up with, with them on staff. But I wonder how many licenses are in the hands of historically marginalized community members. The reason that I asked that question is because some cities when they decriminalized and they opened up licensing for marijuana establishments, for legalization, they focused on the formerly marginalized community members first. So they focused on justice and equity first. And what I understand about the marijuana licenses in our community is that they have been in the hands of the privileged, by and large.

Now, not every owner is a privileged person or comes from money or is making tons of money And this is a struggling industry in and of itself. But the first wave of those licenses in our community weren't dedicated toward an equity framework. They were dedicated toward who had the most money and who can get in the market fast. So I do see an opportunity for more folk who have not been traditionally in this marketplace to make an opportunity into the marketplace. And for a person who has a strong track record and a business record, outside of this industry, I think that's also fair for us to evaluate that they may be also able to do a good job on their own.

So I hope that my colleagues do support this today. I think the questions are serious enough for us to continue looking at equity across the entire, uh, implementation of this sector. But today, I think Mr. Baltazar and his family have communicated enough to and have followed the processes enough. And lastly, I will say just a word to the family.

Thank you for investing in our city. Thank you for raising your family here. It was a joy to see the intergenerational relationship of your children having your back, sir. I appreciate that as well. Thank you.

Okay, next I'm going to go to, uh, Mr. Gates in the queue, then I'll move back to members.

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Regarding Mr. Martinez's question about how do we measure things, and I would concur with what the planning staff had to say, you know, in feet and so forth. But I seem to recall also the shortest practicable pedestrian route. There were concerns about that years ago, 2016 or 2017, and how that might be interpreted by various people, right? So we seem to recall there was a AIM memo, uh, that explained how planning would, um, measure that under that terminology.

But maybe though Mrs. Appleby could, uh, if she recalls that in random, uh, if that was, uh, still in effect and applied here.

Um, yes, uh, Mr. Gates, the— that AIM AIM is still in effect and we still do reference it.

Could I ask the AIM number?

Oh, sorry, yes. I have it in my email because we were discussing it earlier today. It might take me a minute to find it, though. Thank you. Okay, yeah, and I'll ask— maybe we can move on, but also if that AIM could be distributed to members maybe not immediately in the meeting because it was already a past item, but for our information for future.

And then I know Ms. Appleby is looking up the citation, so we'll make sure that goes on the record later. So in the meantime, I will move on. Next I have Ms. Scout in the queue. Thanks.

Um, yeah, I appreciate all of our deep attention to detail tonight. I I'm trying so hard not to be petty in this conversation, so I will choose not to be because as far as I can tell, all of the laws and regulations have been meticulously followed. You know, public meetings, it's hard to judge whether they were effective or truly public or not, but Sounds like there were plenty of opportunities for folks to engage, um, and I really appreciate Member Martinez's comments tonight in particular. And I also want to recommit again to picking back up on conversations about equity and where particular operations are placed in which neighborhoods, and, um, you know, working with our code to solve those problems rather than taking those on case by case outside the bounds of the regulations and codes that we live in. So I look forward to voting yes on this, and I hope we can do that soon.

Okay, next I have Ms. Park.

Sorry, ma'am, you would be out of order. A member of the public is not able to participate in debate.

Debate. Next, I'm recognizing Ms. Park in the queue. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair. Um, from, from what I can see, and, and, uh, agreeing with Member Martinez, it looks as though there was a turning point when the, um, ownership or the management of the proposed business changed.

And as inasmuch as it It looks as though all of the checklist items have been met, and I think the perception is around the change of management. At the same time, I am concerned with the community council's perception of that. And to Ms. Weltsine, would you anticipate that if you had another meeting with the Community Council that you might be able to resolve, uh, mending some fences there? Ideally, we'd love to enter into a memorandum of understanding because in my experience for the last 10 years doing this with community councils, if you don't have a good relationship with the Community Council, you're going to end up back here every single year. These licenses are up for renewal, and so to not have a relationship with the Community Council and to have a bad relationship with the Community Council is going to get us right back here in a really bad situation, and it's not sustainable.

So ideally, we'd love to work towards a memorandum of understanding with the community council, and that, that would be our hope. Um, thank you. Okay, a follow-up question. Um, would having more time give you the opportunity to do that?

I don't think so. I think if we pass this tonight, we would just voluntarily go back to the community council and hope to engage. If you deny the license tonight, um, back to Ms. Silver's comment, um, you would then be doing a protest, and that would have to be upheld by the Marijuana Control Board at the September 1st— I'm sorry, September 2nd meeting, and they would have to deny the application. So then the application would have to start all back over again and I think there is something in code where you have to, um, disclose that you were denied a special land use permit for this location. And I guess I would defer to planning on how that would, how that would impact it.

I haven't ever been in that situation, um, but it would be an extraordinarily negative impact on this licensee, and I don't think we would survive the day. I can tell you if we got a yes tonight I have already planned to walk right over there and start that conversation back up and start the conversation of having an MOU and going back to the Northeast Community Council, which again is an incredibly robust community council, very impressive. Thank you for that. And I would just like to add, I've been impressed by the community support for Mr., um, Mr. Arias, and particularly by I'm moved by the letter from Representative Les Guerra that is part of our record on this. And he is, you know, not only an attorney but a public servant with longstanding involvement in a number of local communities.

And I trust his judgment. So I look forward also to voting yes.

Sorry, ma'am, as a member of the public, you are not able to engage in debate or to ask our attorney questions.

Okay, why would— so just maybe that's a separate conversation. And hi, I just wanted to respond to the question on the AIM number. Uh, hang on, I just had it. Oh, there it is. It's AIM 150-2016 as amended.

So that it dates back to 2016, so it's, it's been in continuous use.

Thank you. Yeah, so we'll ask, um, not, not for this record, but to ask that to be distributed to members for future reference, um, by email. Um, and next I have myself in the queue. Chair Brawley. Um, thank you.

Um, I have one brief comment, and then my intent is to bring up the folks from the Northeast Community Council to provide, um, some information as they had requested the time to do so. My comment is, and thank you, Ms. Appleby, for mentioning 2016. I was just looking back. So our, the land use code and licensing code for marijuana licenses was adopted back in 2016. I was actually in the room at the time as a member of the public.

One of the few things that I was actually watching on the assembly at the time, and I remember a whole lot of discussion about these separation distances and And the simple choice, or what seemed simple at the time, to measure by walking distance versus straight-line distance, this is the root of all of our problems. And so I'm putting that on the record not as a commentary on this particular license, but just in general that all of these problems or all of the confusion and the potential for different measurements and things like that were, I would say, known issues or at least identified issues and just make things more challenging. But that is what is in code, so I think whether we change that or what that changes to is a different conversation. If it does change at this point, it would affect probably a couple hundred licenses or however many we have, um, depending on what they look like. So I just want to set that conversation aside, but note this is not a new conversation with separation distances.

Um, my questions are if, uh, for Northeast Community Council folks, um, I, uh, I guess I don't have a lot of specific questions, but I believe you wanted to provide provide basically a response to some of the things shared in the previous meeting. And then I will also note, I know there's a lot of things that have been said, so if you can try to keep your comments brief, but to provide additional information, whether it's about your public meeting or whatever you would like to share. And then I'll also note, please turn the microphone back on. There's not a time limit, but I know— I will also note for members, we have about 10 minutes or so in this debate, so at some point we may pause and ask for an extension of debate.

So please go ahead, whoever would like to speak on behalf of the council.

So can I say something? Okay, so if you don't mind, I'd like to go back over a couple of those points real quickly if I could. Yes, in fact, there was the 2023— yes, in fact, there was the good cannabis. I see it wrong every time. Manager that actually was present.

In fact, there were people who voted that should not have voted.

Those are all facts. Those are not innuendos. The other thing that happened is that we in fact did not go do our homework, which it's obvious that we should have done, because It's obvious to me at least that you have protective land use that has not been really looked at by the city for whatever reason. I don't know. I think, ma'am, could you move just a little closer to the microphone?

We're having a difficult time hearing you. So it's a misnomer to me, and I don't understand how we got there. And as far as— and I'm going to be very careful here Assumptions and perspectives. When you look at me, my maiden name and my mother's name is Ibarra and Chavez. How dare you put one of us against another.

Now I'm going to go on to the meetings. Yes, there was an incorrect announcement of the count on March. Those ballots were taken, they were counted by tellers. The announcement was made in reverse. I personally went over and took Balthazar and his legal advisor to our tellers.

They recounted those ballots. They're hand-counted paper ballots. I asked him at the end, was the count correct? He said Yes, that is the change in the announcement.

So I'm still standing here waiting to hear, are those projected land uses or not? And then the council gets a land use permit notice for land on East 16th. What is going on?

I think I've addressed everything that I could think of right now. Thank you.

Okay, uh, thank you. I don't have additional, uh, questions, but other members may have those questions.

Um, yeah, so, so, uh, procedure of course is we need to get in the queue. So, um, so next, uh Uh, Ms. Silvers has already spoken, so I'm going to go to Mr. Handlin and then Ms. Silvers and then Ms. Scout. So go ahead, Mr. Handlin. Yeah, I have a question for planning.

Is there anything—. Is this building— because just looking at these maps that goes to that lot to the north, is any part of it on that, or is that a completely vacant lot? I'm sorry, could you just say that one more time? Yeah, sorry, Ms. Rager, um, I think the questions are for planning staff, so I don't think there's any questions for you at this time. That's okay, thank you, no problem.

Hello, through the chair, this is the Anchorage Plan Department. Uh, when the plat came in, so this property was re-subdivided I think in 2024 or '25, and I did work on the plat and also looked at the plat, the subdivision map, when it came in, and I believe that no part of the building and subject— the subject building is in the northern property lot, so it's just a small lot. Okay. And then do you know, I guess, know the, I guess, offset or that, that thing? I mean, it looks like it's just right, right up against there.

Um, so is that like just right on the lot line there? Uh, is that on the GIS map? So I'm, well, I'm looking at the one on the— there, there's one that's overlaid, and I mean, back from engineering, I know that, like, hey, a lot of times the imagery, it can be shifted, shifted off there a little bit, but it looks, I mean, incredibly close there. And so I just wanted to, I guess, get confirmation on that, that, that, I guess, northern-bound lot there is, um, just a, a vacant lot there, that there's, there's no part of that building that's on that, or if there was a little bit of offset on that. Through the chair, so when, uh, Aerial imagery is superimposed on GIS maps.

There are some projection issues that can cause slight, maybe 10% plus or minus sort of differences in actual position, but we usually again go by the as-built, which is stamped by the surveyor, or subdivision plat, which is again stamped by a surveyor. So by proxy of that, I would say the northern lot is empty, as much as— for as much as I've seen the plats. And again, this is subject to to further land use enforcement inspection if they do see a problem with that. But based on what material has been submitted to us in the subdivision agreement as well as in the material as part of this packet, the northern lot is empty. Okay.

And then also for the one to the south there, it looks like— I mean, the building is on that one. So is it just— it looks like there's 3 lots included here. So you're saying the north one, no building is The middle lot, obviously that's the one we're talking about that's got the building on it, and then the one to the south there, the kind of the L-shaped one, that also has the building on that. I do believe the southern lot has some portion of the building on it. I have not checked that for a specific section, but as much as the projections I can see on the GIS map that Ms. Appleby has put up next to me, that seems like further than the plus 10, minus 10 10% sort of projection errors that I would notice.

So I can see for a fact the building is on the southern lot, but the license premises, which are part of the package, the application packet which you get, based on which the actual target lot is decided, all the license premises are within the smaller lot. Okay, and so I guess my question is, I guess, is it typical for facilities like this where it's like, hey, it can be kind of segmented limited within a building to kind of try to only be on one lot rather than the full building. Um, I guess my question is, is that done strategically so that it wasn't, I guess, included in, in this full lot here? But I mean, they could potentially, I guess, be using it for, I guess, ancillary services on maybe not the marijuana establishment but some other kind of support functions. Okay, so I see two questions on that, and I can answer both of those.

The first question is, regardless of intent, we have seen multiple buildings that traverse different lots. Sometimes those are zero lot line subdivisions. I believe they have a new name now, maybe unit lots. Yeah, unit lots.

Yeah, we have certain sort of engagements made in Title 21 which allow for zero setbacks between lots. This could be one of those cases. And separately, when the application packet for a marijuana sort of application is put in, uh, Land Use Enforcement goes through multiple checks, uh, for each of these facilities where they meticulously check the site plan, the license premises, uh, usage, even up to the dumpster location of the dumpster and dumpster details. So to that end, it would be very hard for any applicant to hide, uh, sort of ancillary marijuana uses in different parts of the building? Because if that were— if that were to be caught, the license would get some problems from land use enforcement.

And—. Oh, sorry. And by proxy planning as well. Sorry.

Sorry, just one final question here. With it being, I guess, on two lots, two separate lots, could the owner sell one of those lots, or is it essentially kind of a package deal the way that this currently is? Excuse me, Mr. Gupta, before you answer, I'd like to move to extend debate by 20 minutes. Okay, there's a motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day to extend debate by 20 minutes. We're almost at our hour.

Second by Ms. Silvers. Is there any objection to extension? Okay. Okay, then please proceed, Mr. Gupta. I think you were answering— oh, so sorry, this debate is extended.

It was at 8:38, so now it'll be at basically 8:58. Go ahead, Mr. Gupta. So as per our planning department's understanding, the lot can be— the lots can be sold separately, but how ownership happens or how ownership sort of traverses after that is some, I'd say, a legal issue. So I would not really comment on that. Okay, thank you.

Okay, number of folks in the queue, most of them have already spoken, so I'm going to go first to Mr. Perez-Video, then I'll move back through the queue. Thank you. I hope we can wrap this up soon. It doesn't feel like we're making progress. It feels like we're sort of circling here.

I just wanted to say that I appreciate the conversation so far. I've received all the information I need at this point to make a decision, and so I will say that I really appreciate the view of the Community Council, and I would really encourage— I hope this does pass. I hope my colleagues will join me in making sure that this does pass, because I think it should. But I would encourage these two parties to get back together and to create a memorandum of agreement, because I agree with the attorney in that that's vital. But I do feel like that our job is really to assess this based on the criteria in the code.

I believe that that criteria has, has been met. I don't think there's a basis for us to not pass this. So I would encourage my colleagues to wrap up this debate and let's move forward. Thanks.

Okay, next I have Ms. Silvers.

So we are literally not following code. The planning department literally said that they only interpret the abutting parking lots to apply to an athletic field. Code reads the edge of a playground or athletic field including abutting parking lots. So that is what the code reads, okay? There's no question about that.

It's 21.05 5.055E.II. Okay, I'm reading the exact language from the code. And so you have this checklist here, and the only thing that we are supposed to vote on is whether we have— are following code with regards to this checklist. So I really appreciate that, you know, there was a lot of testimony and stuff like that, But I'm going to be honest with you, we're not to make our decision based on testimony. We're to make our decision based on whether we are following code or not.

And we are literally ignoring part of the code. Planning Department literally said that they interpret code only to include abutting parking lots next to an athletic field when the code literally says the edge of a playground. Now, if you look at the distance to the abutting parking lot, it is less than 500 feet.

And so what are we doing here? Why are we ignoring our own code that was written to protect playgrounds, children, and the parking lots that serve those playgrounds from incompatible uses?

Now, I don't have anything against cannabis shops.

I have voted yes on every other one that has come before me, but we are in a quasi-judicial posture here, and we can't just say we, we want to vote yes on this. This when it doesn't follow code, and the planning department has literally said that the way that they interpret code doesn't follow code. We're just ignoring it.

Thank you.

Okay, next I have Miss Baldwin-Day.

Yeah, I think I would love to hear guidance from council, uh, responding to member Mr. Silver's comments. Thanks. I see Mr. Gates in the queue. I'll recognize you.

I apologize. I was just reading when you mentioned you would like my response, but I think it was about, I guess, the relevance of a mathematic field in playground and that interpretation, but I thought probably you have been issues that there's definitions of both those terms in Title 21, and maybe those definitions are helpful. If you want me to read them out to you for the two terms, playground and athletic field.

So, uh, an athletic field is a distinctly marked area of natural turf, artificial turf, sand, hardened surface, or the like developed kept and maintained to be used for a sport or game, including associated spectator facilities. Examples include soccer, football, softball, and baseball fields, tennis, basketball, and volleyball courts, hockey rinks, and golf and disc golf courses, but do not include open areas occasionally or informally used for athletic purposes, like areas that are hot mopped in winter, ski or dog sled trails, bowling alleys or pool halls. Uh, so that's athletic fields. And the definition for a playground, uh, again in Title 21— and these are specific to how they're used in 2105.55, marijuana establishments— so playground is, uh, defined as an outdoor area developed and maintained for children's play, generally open to the public or to residents of a subdivision or housing complex, having a designed and/or engineered surface, and/or containing at least one piece of permanent play equipment, such as a seesaw, swing set, jungle gym, or the like.

I hope I was able— I hope that was clear. Yeah, so I think my question is more to the point of the inclusion or exclusion of abutting parking areas as part of how or whether an abutting parking area is included in these considerations, whether it's a playground or an athletic field, what that— and let's be clear. I mean, can we just take a step back? Step back here for a moment and say that Title 21 is ridiculous. And that's part of why we are where we are right now is because our land use code is absurdly complicated.

So let's just, let's just make sure we're owning that in public. So yeah, with respect to the differentiation between a parking lot that is adjacent to a playground versus a parking lot lot that is adjacent to an athletic field. Is there a distinction in code? And I'm curious why we would distinguish between those for purposes of a marijuana license or special land use permit.

Um, so I don't, uh, I'm not sure I can answer right now that last part, but no, what was the intent of, or how to distinguish, um, but I think I would say that you're correct, Title 21 is inherently complex. It's a specialized area, land use regulation. That's why we have professionals that apply, um, its terminology and requirements and so forth and interpret what it requires. Um, so, uh, I guess, um, in courts they often defer to the experts in an area of expertise for their interpretation of law. And so the planning department are experts, but you're not a court, you're the decision makers.

So you could disagree with the planning departments and how they interpret that phrase or that subsection. Um, but I think that if you do disagree with how they've been applying it, um, and I guess, uh, they— I would assume they were applying it that way consistently, as I say, they've interpreted this way. For a while. But if you do disagree, that you would want to be clear as to why you're disagreeing with the planning department's interpretation.

Okay, I am. Thank you. I would invite my colleague— I'm sorry, um, I would invite my other attorneys to add on.

I was just going to piggyback off of, uh, Assembly Council's last comment about the Planning Department's authority to interpret Title 21. It's actually codified in code under AMC Section 2115.010 that the Planning Director is the final authority as to determine— to determine the interpretation or usage of terms used throughout Title 21. So it's actually codified in code that we should defer to them. Okay. And then, so I think then my And then my final question would just be to planning staff.

Is this, Ms. Appleby or Mr. Gupta, is this a standard, this, the standard that you've outlined where you differentiate between the parking lot of a playground versus the parking lot of an athletic field, is that something that you apply consistently across all of these licenses as they come before you? That's not a discretionary thing. That's something that's a consistent interpretation Department. Yes.

Okay, uh, Member Baldwin-Day, through the chair, um, yes, we apply the, the distances consistently. I'll say the source of this, uh, original, uh, like when we originally looked at all of this was, was back with the original permit, so from 2023 policy, and we looked at it carefully back then. And so we have been applying it consistently the same way.

I think— so my question is less about consistency across this application and more so to consistent application across all marijuana licensing. Do you apply this standard with respect to the inclusion or exclusion of a parking Through the chair, this is Ari Gupta again. I am the senior planner who's dealing with most of the marijuana cases, and I do apply those distances consistently. I'm also in charge of sort of making sure that the map stays updated. So yes, yes, on all fronts.

Thank you. That, that's, that's all I need to know. I understand that Title 21 is a really complicated beast, and I think my concern is just that we're applying the same same standards equitably across the board to all applicants. I think that's my, that's, that's my interest here. And so thank you for answering all of our very tedious questions this evening.

Nothing further from me, Chair. Thank you. Okay, thanks. Two more folks in the queue. I'll note we have 11 minutes left in our debate, so I'll go to Mr. Gerker because he has not spoken on this yet.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Call the question.

Second. Okay, there's a motion to call the question, um, that is not debatable, so members may proceed to vote. Oh, sorry, there was a motion by Mr. Gerker, second by Mr. Handeland, um, so members may proceed to vote on calling the question. Member Johnson.

Johnson. Yes. Member McCormick. Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 10 to 1, the question has been called, so members may proceed to vote. Again, this is on approval of item 15A, uh, AR 2026-225.

Member Johnson, on the, um, resolution. Commission. Yes. Member McCormick? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 8 to 3, AR-2026-225 passes the body. Um, and I'll also note we heard 2 members on the phone. They switched to the phone, um, both about 8, between 8 and 8:15 this evening. Okay, that takes care of our public hearing items. So next we'll move through the rest of our meeting, so, but I'll have no more voting items at this point that I know of.

First is audience participation, so I will ask anybody who is here to provide audience participation, please come forward.

Okay, one second. So microphone is on. Let's give a second because there's a lot of folks leaving the room so we can make sure that the recording isn't picking up background noise. And I'll ask folks, if you have side conversations, to please take those outside the chamber so that we can finish our meeting.

Excuse me, everyone. Uh, thank you. Um, please feel free to socialize outside, but we need to finish the rest of our meeting, and so we need the chamber to be quiet. Thank you.

Okay, most folks are heading out, so, uh, go ahead, sir. Um, so please state your name, what part of town, you'll have 3 minutes. I'm William Baxter from Fairview, and I went to the, uh, uh, Palmer FFA auction, and it was really great. A lot of, a lot of animals were— food animals were on the auction, but they, they also did art and everything. And the other thing is I got some stuff here for our— we got an— we're getting our own Farm Bureau here in Anchorage now, and, and there's also On the September 5th, there's another FFA and 4-H auction at the fair.

I would like to see a lot of you there. It's a really great thing. A lot of times when they— people vote for animal, animal, there's also add-ons for that animal. Like, like, like the turkey went for $5,600, but there was add-ons with worth it. And thank you.

Thank you for participating. Next person, if you would like to participate, please come forward.

And microphone is on. Please state your name, what part of town you're in. You have 3 minutes. Okay. Oh wow.

All right. Uh, Jamie Lopez, East Anchorage, formerly Coalition formerly homeless. So I was there for the Battle of Balthazar's. It's over. Yeah, you think there was like a string of bodies or something for how long that went on, but clearly it was a case of basically he's been doing his thing for a while, trying to go through the process, and more or less they just don't like him.

And so had to dot the i's, cross the t's, and I think you guys made the right decision based on it because I don't think it was ever about anything anything. They just, you know, we're trying to find ways. So anyways, from the free books cart, FileMaker Pro X belongs in a museum. Anybody, you know? Probably, I don't know if anybody will get some use out of that one.

All right, going on to the next thing. So Housing Homelessness Committee meeting tomorrow. There is a slide deck amending AMC 16120 emergency shelter plan for the homeless for persons. Uh, haven't had a long time to go over this, but just looking at it, it looks like you're changing things to be able to accommodate more people in terms of an emergency, because last year clearly there was not enough shelter. And the most ridiculous thing that I watched play out was a December meeting where Thea went up and she claimed, oh yes, we talked to all the people, uh, you know, amongst the providers, and they claimed that, oh, we only need 25 beds in shelter.

Seriously, uh, could not stop, you know, just— anyways, so the simple thing there was, um, right after that meeting, uh, Kim Rash basically sent a letter claiming that they need to increase another 25, but then it wasn't enough. And so they were packing people into Beans, they were packing people into the bus terminal downtown, and into any number of places where they could. And so The thing that I give credit for, where credit is due, is they used PeopleMover sort of as an impromptu mobile, you know, warming center. And, and it was a smart thing to do. And at first, more or less, some of the drivers weren't letting people on, and I was doing what I could to assist with that by contacting somebody and then contacting Thea directly.

And so it sort of worked out. Uh, aside from that, the last and this will be coming up tomorrow at tomorrow's meeting. I know who's gonna be there. So AIM 124-2026, the review of AO 2024, or excuse me, AO 2025-74-S2. And so more or less it's 29 slides, but it just is, it's more or less what's been presented before, that they have certain things that they're doing, but it doesn't address all the people outside right now.

I can tell you, I just went by an area, literally the police cleared them out and they went a couple blocks because they had nowhere to go. And I'm talking about 40+ people. And that is happening all over this town right now. They're pushing people, uh, there is nowhere to go. The shelters are full and they need to go somewhere and they're not getting help and support.

So please, uh, look at this a little bit more careful and ask some tough questions. Thank Thank you. Thank you for participating. Anyone else wish to provide audience participation, please come forward.

Anyone at all?

Okay, then we will move on. So our next item is assembly comments. I will start with Mr. Handeland. No comments. Mr. Martinez.

Uh, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to, uh, celebrate and, and recognize all of the people in our community who work on food security at the food bank today. We celebrated and had a resolution on hunger in our community, and I just want to thank all the folks— Duke Russell and Nate Rivers and all sorts of wonderful people who focus on food security in our community. Thank you. Mr. Gerker.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to wish good luck to our dear friend and colleague Mr. Johnson tonight in his election. Ms. Silvers.

Yeah, I do have comments, actually. Boy, I am shocked. I'm not actually certain what we are doing here if we can't follow our own code. It's mind-blowing. I know Title 21 is complicated.

Um, this code is very simple, very simple. Edge of a playground or athletic field. And yet we take code that was written by an assembly to help protect playgrounds from incompatible uses, and we allow the planning department to just completely ignore a word that's in code. And I just— I'm sorry, I don't get it. I don't get it.

I don't understand what we're doing here if we can't follow our own code. It's really disappointing. Thanks. Mr. Perisverdia. Uh, no comments.

Have a good night, everyone. Ms. Baldwin-Dick. Nothing for me, Chair. Thank you. Ms.

Scout. No comments. Thank you. Ms. Park? No comments, thank you.

And Mr. McCormick, are you still on the phone?

Okay, I think both of those folks might have dropped off. Mr. Johnson, are you still on the phone? Okay, just to check. So I'll just end by— I believe we should wish a happy birthday to Ms. Scout for the remaining few hours.

Next week. Next week. On Women's Equality Day. Yeah, but thank you. Okay, thank you.

Thanks. And, uh, and also thank you everybody for a productive meeting. Uh, have a good night. Uh, so with that, uh, do I have a motion to adjourn?

Sorry, then we are adjourned.