Mid-Hillside and Hillside East
Community Councils

Anchorage, Alaska

Hillside District Plan

Why is this Plan important? With over 2/3 of Anchorage's undeveloped land, the Hillside will be seeing lots of development. Development is currently guided by precedent, the Hillside Wastewater Mangement Plan (HWMP) and expedience. The new Anchorage Comprehensive Plan calls for district plans to be written. In our area, the plan is the Hillside District Plan (HDP).

Updated HDP information provided through HALO (Hillside Area Landowners Organization) will be posted at www.anchoragehillside.org .

For additional information, go to http://www.kyholland.com/hdp .

The following is from an Article in the HALO May 2006 newsletter

Hillside District Plan: It's up and running!

A Hillside District Plan has been in the works for awhile, and now progress is being made! On March 16, the Municipality of Anchorage contracted with Lindsey Holmes of RISE Alaska, LLC, as Project Manager. Lindsey, an attorney by training, was born and raised here in Anchorage.

In another step forward for the project, area Assembly members Janice Shamberg and Chris Birch recently appointed three Community Representatives to the project’s Oversight Committee. John Weddleton, Chris Hamre, and Connie Yoshimura will serve on the Committee, along with representatives of 6 Municipal departments. The Committee will meet regularly with the Project Manager to provide direction and act as a sounding board for the project.

Lindsey is currently writing the Request for Proposals (RFP) to hire a Lead Consultant. The RFP is expected to be released in May. The Lead Consultant will work closely with a Citizen Advisory Committee (10-15 community representatives) and a Technical Committee (Municipal department staff), direct the public participation program, coordinate data collection, provide technical coordination, and draft the Hillside District Plan.

We are currently seeking candidates for the 10-15 member Citizen Advisory Committee, which will work directly with the Lead Consultant. Service on this important Committee will be time-intensive, likely through the end of 2007, but if you have the time and interest, please submit your name to Assembly members Shamberg and Birch by June 1.

Work on the Hillside District Plan project is expected to continue progressing this summer. As the project moves ahead, Lindsey and the Lead Consultant will let you know how you can stay informed and be involved. Lindsey Holmes can be reached at 276-8095, or Lholmes@risealaska.com

This plan, or the lack of one, could make a big difference in your life. The 2020 Plan calls for part of Hillside to be rural, with fewer services and on-site utilities. The boundary for this rural line will be determined through the HDP. That line will define limits of density, city water utilities and a variety of other services. The plan will look at trails and roads and all the variety of things that define our neighborhoods.

The current situation, with the HWMP as the main planning document, limits the extension of city utilities to the Hillside area without an amendment, which could come from a developer's request to the Planning and Zoning Commission or a neighborhood's vote to amend the plan. With access to city utilities the main factor in lot sizes, we should be concerned that AWWU was instructed by the Anchorage Assembly to plan their pipe so it can handle a Hillside fully connected to AWWU.

A good plan will set guidelines for development in our area. This will make it easier for developers who now have to guess at what will be acceptable. A good plan will also take away the nagging uncertainity many residents feel about the future of our neighborhoods.

Your Community Council offers you a way to participate in this effort.

What would the Hillside District Plan cover?

That is still being discussed, but the following email presents the broader parameters.

mail 11/12/02
from Sue Fison.Tom Nelson in response to Janice Shamberg's Questions

Following are answers to the questions posed below by Assemblymember Shamberg. Any questions, let me know.

1. Would a new Hillside District Plan supplant the HWMP? We know they are actually two different documents and the HDP must be done in conjunction with the HWMP, but the HDP is a much broader document.

The Hillside District Plan (HDP) is intended to supplant the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan (HWMP), and much more. The HWMP is what it says -- a management plan for the disposal of wastewater. The Plan addresses a variety of ways on-site wastewater disposal systems are to be sited, designed, constructed and maintained; as well as determines where sewerage service may be allowed to handle wastewater disposal. It also contains recommendations for improving administration of the wastewater permitting process. Although most public attention has focused on sewer service, the impetus behind the management plan was to come up with practical measures to preserve the viability of onsite systems to the greatest possible extent.

As noted on page 97 and 98 of the Anchorage 2020 / Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan, the Hillside District Plan is intended to be more comprehensive in addressing a full range of issues in the Hillside area, in addition to wastewater disposal. The HDP is also intended to cover the following:

· Levels of service for public facilities and services,

· Delineation of Urban/Rural Boundary (see page 56 of Anch 2020 for a description of this major planning element),

· Water supply,

· Areawide drainage,

· Transportation,

· Land Use (residential density and distribution, commercial, public facilites, and open space),

· Wildfire hazard mitigation, and

· Public safety access.

There is much overlap with these issues, thus necessitating a comprehensive district plan approach.

2.What is the difference between the two documents? There is some confusion because our understanding is that any neighborhood can vote to amend the HWMP in order to bring sewers to their area.

The difference between the two plans is that one is inclusive of the other, as noted above. In response to the second part of the question, there is nothing in either plan that says any neighborhood can vote to amend the HWMP in order to bring sewer service to their area. The HWMP and AWWU say that those areas identified within the sewerage service area boundary in the HWMP can be provided with sewerage service through formation of a trunk and/or lateral improvement district if its an existing subdivision, or at the developer's cost if part of a new subdivision. If a property owner with land located outside the sewerage service area boundary wants sewer service, a formal application for an amendment to the HWMP to be included within the sewerage service area must be made and approved by the Assembly before AWWU will allow connection to the sewerage system.

3.Is it correct that our neighborhoods have the right to elect NOT to have public utilities as the 2020 Plan states?

I am not familiar with the idea that neighbors have the right to elect not to have public utilities other than by rejecting a petition to form an improvement district (WID, LID, or TID, for example). However, if a health hazard is declared, the municipality has the right to impose sewerage service, as was done several years ago in a portion of the lower Hillside area. I do not believe that such a statement regarding the right to elect not to have public utilities is made anywhere in Anchorage 2020.

4. Does the Planning Dept's ordinance to remove the 3 DUA requirement for sewers change this right to decide for ourselves?

I believe the ordinance being referred to is the one Assemblymember Tremaine introduced to remove the minimum 3 dua requirement for new development with sewer service. This provision is currently included on the sewerage service area boundary maps in the HWMP for lands that at the time of plan adoption were undeveloped. It requires that new development be at a minimum of at least 3 dua. Some of the undeveloped lands have physical characteristics that suggest that appropriate development should be less than 3 dua, thus, the reason for the removal of this provision.

5.Concerning level of services and according to the staff comments, is any area with certain services like fire, police, and several others considered 'urban' and therefore would come within the HWMP boundaries (in other words those areas with those services must also have public utilities)?

A description of the urban/rural service boundary concept is described on pages 56-57. The determination of urban vs. rural area is not based just upon the presence or absence of a particular type of service (ie. Sewer, water, fire, police, etc.), but instead on the level of service. What those level of services are to be for urban and rural areas has yet to be determined. As a hypothetical example for illustrative purposes, the urban standard for neighborhood parks may be 2 acres per thousand people, whereas the rural standard may be .5 acres per thousand people. The reason for the difference may be based upon the greater amount of private open space in low density, large-lot rural area in contrast with less private open space in the higher density urban area. Neighborhood parks is a public facility/service to be found in both areas, but with different level of service standards. Another example may be public transit service. Greater ridership occurs where you have greater densities, therefore, a hypothetical level of service standard for headways between transit buses in the urban area may be 30 minutes, whereas, in rural areas, it may be one hour. I wish to emphasize these examples do not reflect any current proposal or line of thinking, but are provided to illustrate how there may be differences between urban and rural level of service standards for the same type of government-provided service or facility. Once level of service standards have been adopted, they can become benchmarks or guides for preparation of capital and operating budgets. The intent is to provide a much more efficient, equitable and fair distribution of public facilities and services based upon how urban and rural community character is defined than what has occurred to date.

We were asked for our area's opinion on whether or not the Hillside District Plan should address the pros and cons of city water utilities, we sent this question to our Councils' and HALO'S email lists. Note that this is NOT asking do you WANT city utilities, it simply asks if we should open the door to evaluating city water and sewer on the Hillside.

About 200 emails were sent out. We got responses from 21 individuals. Four said "No" with comments that sewers and city water inevitably bring higher density development. Of those that said "Yes," their additional comments showed a strong preference to retain on-site systems.

RESULTS FROM THE EMAIL SURVEY

Out of perhaps 200 emails sent out, we got responses from 21 individuals. Four said "No" with comments pointing to a feeling that sewers and city water inevitably bring higher density development. Of those that said "Yes," their additional comments showed a strong preference to retain on-site systems.

(The names of respondents are not included here to respect their privacy.)

1) Yes, an evaluation. What would the evaluation cost?

2) ____XX__ Yes _________ No

Comments:
It seems that evaluating water/sewer extensions is an integral part of developing a Hillside District Plan. It is an opportunity to clearly delineate limits to public utility extensions as well as to identify areas which may benefit from them. As I understand from the background information
provided, the current situation is that under the existing Hillside Wastewater Management
Plan (HWMP), developers can gain approval for water/sewer extensions by going before the Planning and Zoning Commission. I also understand (perhaps incorrectly) that the HWMP is somewhat outdated. Guiding development through a updated district plan that clearly spells out zoning, density, and water/sewer extension limits is far preferable to the type of hodge-podge changes and extensions that can occur when these decisions are made project-by-project according to the persuasiveness of developers going before the Planning and Zoning Commision.

4) no

5) A major concern of mine regarding hillside access to potable water is the realistic ability for fighting wildfires. Rather than spending huge monies on neighborhoods that are already established I would think that some sort of fireawater storage system would be a better way to go. Maybe some tank storage in strategic spots that hold raw creek water ... anything is better
than what exists now. The cost / benefit ratio for placement of a hillside system would be prohibitive as the lots are large and the infrastructure costs per housing unit would far exceed the more densely populated flatlanders. Can someone please think about wildfire protection ??? This
is a real hillside problem that will require copious effort ( and water storage ) to fix .....
>

6) Yes
>
7) I vote no.

8) ____x____ Yes

I'm not knowledgeable enough to say whether or not the Hillside Development Plan would supplant the Hillside Wastewater Management Plan. I do think the idea is that the HDP would replace the ROLE that the HWWMP plays since there is no other plan to refer to.

My impression is that people don't have a mission to keep city water and sewer off the Hillside as much as they want to keep large lots. People with a working septic and well also don't want to be forced to hook up and to pay for city water.

To a large extent, it's fearing what we don't know. If a HDP spelled out under what conditions people could choose to hook up, that could ease the fears. It would be shortsighted to go into writing a HDP without discussing the option of city water.

If hooking up to city water is desirable for some areas, the HDP would be the first step to identify those areas.

9) I oppose bring water to the hillside. Sewer may become a necessity, but I want niether until there is absolutely no other choice.

10) ____x____ Yes _________ No

11) _____X___ Yes _________ No
We do not really want sewer and water when our own system seems to be working fine. But we feel that we definitely need to know the pros and cons; also would we be "forced" to hook up once sewer and water are in place. Also we need to know what the cost to the homeowner would be if we hooked up and what it would cost even if we didn't hook up.

12)____XXX____ Yes

13) ___x_____ Yes _________ No

14) My position is that water and sewer service to the hillside will only result in densification of housing in the area. All of us have large investments in wells and on-site septic systems now, and if they are properly maintained, they will work indefinitely. However, since enforcement of septic systems is very lax, we do stand a chance of soil conditions failure due to contamination. Should that occur, then water and sewer services would be mandatory. I would want to read the hard science proving this event before I would support municipal utility service to the hillside.

15) yes, a study of pros and cons should be conducted. good information usually leads to informed decisions.

16) I vote yes.

17) No.

Having watched the lower Hillside forests eaten away and turned into huge houses with very little surrounding garden, I don't trust the ability of Anchorage developers to develop the hillside in an attractive and thoughtful way. If there were sewer and water, the rest of the hillside would become just as ugly and overpopulated as the rest of Anchorage. I am against consideration of city water and sewer on the Hillside. I am very fortunate to live in the Vallivue subdivision, which is one of very few attractive subdivisions in this city. It is attractive, because of the trees.

18) Public utilities usually bring higher density even when it is said otherwise.

Some folks do not want public utilities because they understand that it creates a bigger AWWU organization that simply dumps sewage untreated into the inlet where as properly functioning systems produce potable water 3 feet from the drain field. The concern with high nitrite (nitrate?) levels in the water are a concern for babies and I believe if that is problem that it can be taken care of with a simple filter at the faucet.

Perhaps most important is that high tech septic systems have not been offered as alternatives to many subdivisions like Vali Vue. The Comp Plan does support maintaining on-site systems with new technology (p. 66). Maybe it would be cheaper to educate folks on these systems than push sewer and water up the hill.

Is there really a problem with water reserves? I think in some areas near Abbot there might be, but other places I do not think so.

19) I agree that the HWWMP is just one of many plans that would be the foundation of the HDP. Other inherent plans and study areas would include traffic, drainage, slope, wetland, fire danger/response time and road maintenance. The HDP would also include a community debate regarding buildout potential and the public services (fire stations and road maintenance) and infrastructure (roads and school construction) based on the maximum number of houses to be built.

The HDP is a top priority and I don't have a problem with the language your email proposes.

With regard to the substance of the issue, though, one of HALO's founding precepts is, among other things, to develop the hillside at a density on-site water and sewer can handle. I'm not prepared to trade that issue as a stipulation of conducting the plan. The purpose of the plan is to have the debate, secure our wins, suffer our losses and let the developers and the community know where we're going.

20) I am in Washington and soon will travel to Calif. Will be gone until early Jan. I'll have to think about the question below before responding; but I an concerned about even opening up the door on the question of sewers. We have never received a fair and accurate review on the question whenever the muni has had a hand in it.

There are too many other alternatives for solutions to sewer issues than just "sewers" and letting the muni handle a review of alternative suggest trouble to me. Anyway, I'll have to think on this some more.
Take care,


21)I just returned to ANC after some travel. Below is a brief comment if it is not to late for input.

Should a Hillside District Plan include an evaluation of the pros and
cons of bringing city water and sewer up the Hillside?
________ Yes ____xx_____ No

Comments:

City water and sewer inevitably bring higher density housing with them. I see no advantage to evaluating the pros and cons. Hillside residents generally want low density housing and the water and sewer evaluation has nothing to offer to support that.

22) _X__ YES

23) __X__ NO

Back to Top