Mid-Hillside and Hillside East Community Councils

Meeting Minutes

April 18, 2002

Call to order:

The meeting was called to order by President John Weddleton at 7 pm. Approximately 25 were in attendance. Board Members present were Jeff Clarke and John Weddleton.

Introductions:

President's Report: John Weddleton

The boundary changes discussed in previous meetings were in the Federation of Community Council's final report. The Huffman-O'Malley, Mid-Hillside and Abbott Loop CC's were commended for working well together to improve the boundaries. Planning and Zoning will address the issue on May 6.

Minutes of the previous meeting: Summarized in Monthly Meeting Notice.

Federation of Community Councils Report: John Weddleton reported on the FCC meeting of Date, 2002.

Legislative Teleconference

Ben Grenn for Con Bunde and Suzanne Cunningham for Kevin Meyer

They reported that the fiscal plan remains in limbo while the Senate works on it.

A quick poll was taken regarding Daylight Savings Time and the crowd was split on whether to remove it or not.

A quick poll was taken on the Bill to provide the tourism industry $2million for marketing. The crowd was unanimously opposed to it.

Anchorage Assembly Report:

Dick Tremaine - The city will address mid-term budget changes. Dick assumes they budget will go to the tax cap.

Proposition 4, approved on April 2, makes an annuity out of the ATU trust fund. This will knock $2million out of the coffers this year.

There may be federal fire prevention money available to help with the Hillside District Plan. Dick would like to see the plan written to prevent the "piecemeal development" in the Hillside area.

PRESENTATION:

COASTAL TRAIL AND HB 474

The MH / HE CC meeting hit the big time when it considered a resolution put forth by MHCC member Mike Jens that would both lend support for the newly unveiled 'fuchsia' coastal trail extension route and not support the state legislature's involvement (HB 474) in 'approving' the route. A large crowd attended the meeting, bolstered by officers and residents from the various bluff CC's through which any trail would run.

Representative Joe Green began the discussion via teleconference from Juneau. Rep. Green is main sponsor of HB474. His key points are that the legislature established the refuge and so should have a say in anything that could have a big impact on it. He said the preventing the coastal trail is not the reason the bill has been introduced, but that issue got the bill moving. He said the orange route went through critical habitat. The Fuscia Route not thought critical habitat.

He said the new version of the bill allows the legislature to respond in 45 days to a notice of a right of way through the refuge. He said he has no idea how the legislature would respond.

Prior to considering any type of resolution, the objective of the MH / HE CC's was to discern the answers to several key questions:

1) Has the 'Coastal Trail' issue evolved from a community issue to become instead both a neighborhood trail and state issue? If so, how and why?
2) How will this issue benefit from the involvement of Juneau (HB 474)?
3) Can the appropriated moneys be used for anything other than a 'Coastal Trail'?

While the trail is outside of our immediate CC area, it is an issue of city-wide concern. Or is it? That question seemed to be at the heart of a consistent theme reiterated by several of the visiting attendees.

Mike Jens began the meeting by briefly articulating his perspective on the process and outcomes to date. He also displayed recently released maps (far more detailed than that which had been published some time earlier in ADN) illustrating the fuchsia route. He requested that the MH and HE CC's consider voting on a proposal that he read that would endorse the 'fuchsia' route and not support HB 474, which would require approval by the legislature of any route through the refuge.

Cheryl Shroyer, a member of the Ocean View / Old Seward CC, quickly refuted Jen's account. She provided a highly critical perspective of both the process and those who are responsible for stewarding the process. Governor Knowles was targeted for deliberately preempting and derailing the public process as a result of his public proclamation of support for a specific route. Given that, Cheryl expressed the belief that the State oversight agencies were inherently biased and began the process with the end in mind. (Note; later in the discussion, the fact that Jens had asked for and received the new maps while the 'opposition' was not afforded the same courtesy, despite a specific request, was said to be further evidence of the 'corrupt' process. Jens suggested that perhaps he had just been more civil over time to those had the maps).

Jeff Parker, a retained attorney for bluff homeowners opposed to the coastal route, spoke primarily about the environmental concerns of his clients for the Anchorage Wildlife Coastal Refuge (AWCR). Parker stated that the bench below the bluff, also the proposed site for the trail, contained the primary habitat for Refuge wildlife. The wildlife habitat deserved protection. The audience two questions for Parker. First, was it his contention that environmental concerns formed the primary core of bluff homeowners opposition to a 'coastal route'? With qualification, he answered yes. Second, if these were the primary concerns, why were these same folks not concerned when they cleared the land on the bluff in order to build their houses? He conceded that it was ironic. An additional observation was offered that the AWCR has a sewage main running down its center and it currently receives heavy use by those who live on its edge, both motorized and foot traffic. There was some discussion about the level of motorized [winter] traffic.

A representative from another CC offered a map of the 'gold' route and observed that any type of intrusion in AWCR might be a violation of law.

It was observed that there seemed to be contention about whether or not the trail issue was a neighborhood issue or a [Anchorage] community issue. In response to this observation, Dave Adams, a member of a visiting CC and an engineer by trade, asked the MH / HE CC not consider a resolution that would conflict with the combined 3 CC resolution against a 'coastal route'. In making his plea, Adams stated that his group of community councils had purposely not weighed in on issues of MH HE CC concern such as the Simonian Little League debate. He then stated that if MH/HE passed the Jens resolution, his group of CC's might be forced to reconsider their laissez faire approach to the placement of Simonian LL fields. (Note: revisited at a later stage of the meeting, Adam's statement was regarded by the MH/HE CC's as a direct threat of retaliation should the CC's consider the passage of any resolution that conflicted with the 3 bluff CC's combined opposition to the 'coastal route'. In a heated, polarized discussion, Adam's comments proved to be the low point).

Two Bayshore Klatt residents spoke in favor of a 'coastal route'.

In the interest of time, the discussion was closed. It was suggested that the two CC's required more time to consider the issue.

Robin Holm moved that the Resolution be tabled. The motion was seconded. Vote was 7 for and 2 opposed. The resolution was tabled. Participants were thanked for attending the meeting.

Resolution in support of the Hillside District Plan and moratorium on rezones until it is completed.

Diane Holmes from Rabbit Creek CC spoke on the resolution. (Representatives for the Terrace Estates development and from the Planning Department were invited to the meeting, but did not attend.)

The catalyst for the resolution is the development at Terrace Estates off Lake Otis. This development requires a rezone to a much higher density that anywhere else on the Hillside. This has many worried that it will be used as a precedent for further rezones higher up the hill.

The Comprehensive plan shows a "Rural/Urban Divide" line that splits the city. Diane says that in professional planning circles, this definition rides on the "level of services" available. A place that is near services like fire stations, schools, developed parks and such would not be called rural. In Anchorage, even Bear Valley, which has homes with outhouses, could be called urban. If this definition in used, the "Urban/Rural" line is irrelevant.

There was general agreement with the goal of the resolution. The discussion revolved around the relevance of some parts of the resolution and its incompleteness. Item 2 and Item 10 were taken out as currently irrelevant. The definition of "leap-frog" development was pondered.

A motion was made to support the resolution presented in principle. The motion was seconded. Discussion revolved around approval of a final rewrite. Dianne said it would be rewritten to cover all of the Hillside Area. She would send it to John Weddleton who would forward it to council members in attendance to make sure the rewrite met our intent. The motion to support the resolution in principal passed on a vote of 10 to 1.

Lights on Ski Trails north of Service High.

The location was discussed as was the cost. The information we were provided said the $77,000 cost would be paid for with donations.

Comments were made that the lights make people feel more comfortable and may make the trail users safer from assault. A minority opinion was that the lights are not necessary for skiing and take away from the pleasure of an evening ski under the night sky.

A motion was made to affirm support for the lighting on the Lower Service Ski Trail.

The motion was seconded. A vote was taken with 6 for, 3 opposed and 1 abstention.

Meeting Adjourned at 9:40 pm