Mid-Hillside and Hillside East
Community Councils

Anchorage, Alaska

Comments on the Park Plan Update 2004

We'll post comments on the Park Plan Update as they are emailed.

The following comments are from John Weddleton and are not intended to represent the Mid Hillside Community Council. These are excerpts from more extensive comments submitted June 4, 2004

Comments most specific to the Mid-Hillside CC are near the end of this list.

Comments on Anchorage Parks, Natural Resources and Recreation Facilities Plan Draft March 2004

The inventory of facilities presented for the Mid Hillside area is far lower than we really have. For example, we're said to have three playgrounds when there are at least nine. I am most familiar with this area, but if other areas are similarly undercounted, Anchorage's LOS is quite a lot better than presented in this Draft.

pxi Evaluate LOS with Public Involvement

Regarding Community Councils role, there are items we've added to the Mid Hillside CIP list that do not show up on the proposed list we are sent the following year. There are park projects in our area that are put on bonds that we never saw on our CIP list.

p2 EDITORIAL: This section describes Chugach State Park in Acres and the Coastal Wildlife refuge in square miles. It would be nice to have the same units.

Figure 3. Anchorage Bowl Park Classification

In the LOS column, the distances recommended are unclear. It might make more sense to describe the distance in terms of walking time. The Special Use Areas are described as 30-60 minutes from home. If that is by car, everywhere in the bowl is under 20 minutes away. If it's by foot, we'll need quite a few more SUAs.

The Access Measure/Accessibility Measure/Distance Measure" needs to be defined. How is it different from the "Distance from home?"

In the LOS column for Trails and connectors it says "10.5 to 12.6 per 10,000 population" is that miles of trail? The miles of trail is not as relevant as how connected the city is. Once we have trails going everywhere, do we need more as the population grows? A LOS stated in miles of trail per capita is not relevant. A better measure would be to estimate the miles of trails we need to be a totally connected city and use a percent of that as the LOS measure.

p 7 Recreation Facilities and Services

The Draft says "five indoor swimming pools" I count: West High: 1, Service High: 1, East: 1, Bartlett: 1, UAA: 1, Alaska Club: 2, Captain Cook Hotel: 1, APU: 1, Dimond Center: 1. That's 10.

The Draft says "two indoor ice arenas with a total of four sheets of ice." I don't play hockey, but this is a better count: Boeke: 2 sheets, Dempsey Andersen: 2 , Sullivan: 1, Tesoro: 2, UAA: 1, Dimond Center: 1. That's 9 sheets.

p8 Anchorage School District

" ....many of these are now being lost ... through the placement of portable classrooms over ice rinks, and tennis courts to accommodate expanding enrollment." This is inconsistent with the statement on p 21 "The Anchorage School District projects that average enrollment will decline in the short term .." ASD enrollment has been fairly stable for the last 4-5 years.

Most relocatables are there while schools are being renovated, not due to increased enrollment. In the long run, increased enrollment has lead to more schools and those have likely created more recreation facilities than are lost to relocatables.

p9 Chugach State Park

Last paragraph regarding loss of access to Chugach State Park. Good points. This park can absorb a lot more recreational use.

P. 12 Commercial Recreation

"growth of such sports as ... downhill skiing" Is downhill skiing growing in popularity?

p. 14 Park Benefits not Available to All

paragraph 2 "... In addition, an emphasis was placed on acquiring open space lands instead of developing needed recreational facilities..." In a world of scarcity, we can't have everything. The choice to acquire open space appears to be in sync with the desires shown through the survey.

p 14 paragraph 5 "The challenge today is that many residents think the Anchorage parks and recreation system is in good shape ..." compare with p 16 "....further discontent and dissatisfaction among the general public." Which is it? Are we happy or sad??

p 16 Funding Picture

" The Municipality of Anchorage has faced consistent budget reductions over the past several years." Has the budget actually gone down?

p 22 Recreation Trends

"A 1979 Public Preference Survey ... showed a strong preference for outdoor recreation that exceeds national levels of participation." "A number of surveys over the years ... have consistently shown a preference for natural open space access..." This study's survey results shown in Figure 7 further illustrate the preference for outdoor recreation with limited structures.

This information should weigh more heavily in the final recommendations.

p 24 Land Use and Housing Trends

EDITORIAL: First paragraph p24 lists 23% of Bowl undeveloped, 36% residential, 22% parks and open space, 19% public ROWs. That's 100%. How much is commercial? Should the "residential" actually say "private property"?

Figure 8 Benchmark Response

It would help to have a row showing actual park acreage in each town.

"Trail miles/10,000 population" is not a relevant number. The LOS is stated in miles of trail per capita. This measure is not relevant for trails. A better measure would be to estimate the miles of trails we need to be a totally connected city and use a percent of that as the LOS measure. (This point is acknowledged on p100 "Natural resource allocations ... trails ... are not necessarily tied to population.")

For Cross Country Skiing, the typical response to more use is wider trails, not more trails.

Figure 9 Benchmark Response

Numbers in this chart may not be comparable to each other. For example, Boise's Total Maintenance Budget divided by the number of full time maintenance employees is $37,531. That seems low, especially when they have another 85 part-time employees paid out of that budget. Compare that to the $217,000 for Anchorage. This suggests that the budget dollars may be defined differently for each town.

Figure 11 Recreation Facilities Recommended Level of Service Standard per 10,000 population

The text says they look at putting Anchorage in the top 1/3 of the benchmark cites in the various categories. It's not clear how the column "Recommended Anchorage LOS Range" is developed. Some of these are below the "Benchmarks Cities for 33%" column, others are much higher. For example, the LOS for "X-Country ski trails" is 20 times the 33% benchmark. The LOS for "Lighted Ski trails" is 50 times the 33% benchmark.

Snow machining and ATV might be the most popular outdoor activities in Anchorage. Where do they fit in? LOS now is 0.

p 40 Private-Public Partnership

The words supporting sharing resources with the School District seem to be a common sentiment. Were ballfields and ice rinks at schools included in the inventory of facilities?

This section on "Private-Public" partnership focuses almost completely on ASD-MOA partnership. That's two public entities. Where's the "private?" What has worked in other towns to encourage private business to develop recreational facilities? Let's look at The Alaska Club, H2Oasis, the Dimond Center .. how do we get create an environment where more private businesses will fill the need for facilities?

p44 Parks as Community Economic Engines

"... it has long been documented that parks increase property values and raise additional revenues for the municipality through increased property taxes." In Anchorage, property value is used to allocate that tax burden, not to calculate total taxes. Only the increased value of new development would create a gain for the MOA coffers.

p 48 Access and Connections

This makes a good case for support for trails and making better connections. There is no mention of the need to maintain what we have. An option is to expand the system with surface material and widths that we can afford. Over time, pave and maybe widen trails that get heavy use. (This topic is expanded on in pages 70 and 71.)

Figure 14 Anchorage Bowl Park and Recreation needs Assessment

This suggests that we are over our allocation of Natural Resource Areas based on the benchmark cities. Surprisingly, we're over our allocation now and the +2,804 in the 2020 column suggests we're going to have an even greater supply of this fixed resource! Something is goofy here.

This also shows the risks in relying too much on comparison with the benchmark cites. This report confirms a strong preference in Anchorage for natural open space. There have been huge efforts to protect what we have that suggests that we are not over our Level of Service. The text says "Natural Resource Areas should not have an adopted LOS ..." It is misleading to include it in the chart as it is shown.

p 60 Community Use Area

This is an important point: "If middle school sites were upgraded with public facilities and included as part of the system, Anchorage would have a sufficient supply of Community Use Areas ..."

p 61 What does this mean: "Establish land use regulations to strongly encourage development in the targeted zones prior to park investment." What kind of development?

p62 Special Use Areas

Important point: "If high school sites and some key facilities were upgraded with engineered fields to expand the season and increase use, Anchorage would have a sufficient supply of facilities to meet demand through 2020"

p 63 "Develop new park facilities in reserved parks that are without facilities including some NR lands. This includes Kincaid, Far North Bicentennial Park and Ruth Arcand Park." All of these parks do have facilities. The history of FNBP is one of general opposition to building facilities there. The idea is to leave it alone.

p 64 "Work with BLM to explore potential for transfer of Campbell Tract to fulfill FNBP Master Plan." This is misleading. Proponents of developing the Simonian Ballfields argued that developing that area was "Plan B" should the BLM not transfer their land to the MOA. Since Plan B is now in effect, "Plan A" to develop the BLM land should be eliminated.

Comments received to BLMs renewal of its use of the Campbell Tract a few years ago were overwhelmingly in favor of continued BLM management.

p 66 Natural Resource Use Area

"While Anchorage now has 42 acres per 1,000 population, this standard would be impossible to maintain while providing a balance between natural and developed parkland."

In terms of Anchorage matching the LOS in the benchmarks cites, this may be correct, but this study highlights the fact that there is a strong preference for natural open areas. If we are to chip away at standards based on the benchmarks, that suggests, we go for less developed parkland. Particularly when we can meet the "minimum LOS" using currently existing school sites. (See p60 and p62.)

Rather than saying it will be "impossible to maintain" this standard, this should say, "there is support for maintaining this standard."

p70 Trails and Connectors

It's nice that trails are not called "bike trails."

Important that trails are mentioned as part of transportation paragraph 2 " they are also an integral part of the transportation system ..."

Mentions in paragraph 4 "... trails are intended for .. snowmobilers .." are there any places in the bowl for snowmachines?

Under "Develop and Improve Access, Trails and Connections" is the bullet "Require access points to Chugach State Park .. at one mile intervals." There are currently access points that are little more than a sign indicating an intersection of a trail with the road. This is fine for neighborhood use. Since snowmachining is allowed in the Park, adequate parking should be provided and perhaps more locations where snowmachines can enter the Park. There is an occasional problem with the Upper Huffman trailhead overflowing with snowmachines. Also, people in the neighborhoods near the Park drive along the road to get to access points into the Park. If there were more access points that let snowmachines into the Park, they'd get off the roads more quickly.

Under "Recommendations for Level Of Service" The LOS is stated in miles of trail per capita. This measure is not relevant for trails. A better measure would be to estimate the miles of trails we need to be a totally connected city and use a percent of that as the LOS measure. (This point is acknowledged on p100 "Natural resource allocations ... trails ... are not necessarily tied to population.")

p 72 Alternative Park Plan Management Scenarios

The cost of getting what people want is overstated in this report. Early on it is made clear that there is a preference for natural open space for recreation. It's nice that in Anchorage, we have that and it is cheap to maintain. Once this study starts comparing Anchorage with the benchmark cities, things get expensive. Figure 23 Park Plan Alternative CIP Estimates shows that the cost of Natural Resource Areas and Special Use Areas are relatively cheap. The cost of developing our popular trails system is high, but there is an end point for that. Once we're connected, the cost will drop to maintenance.

The report also neglects privately provided facilities. Lots of private recreational facilities exist now and more should be expected as user fees increase.

Southeast

Resources and Facilities

The count of facilities is incorrect.

The report says "9 athletic fields." Here's a quick rundown from the top of my head: Service High 4 fields, Trailside Elementary 1, the SE corner of the entrance to Hilltop 1, O'Malley Elementary 1, Ruth Arcand Park 1, Stock Park 2?, Birch Park 1, Goldenview Middle School 2?, Bear Valley Elementary 1+, Abbott-O-Rabbit fields 5?. That's 19 and I haven't included elementary schools I'm not familiar with (Bowman, Rabbit Creek and Huffman) and this does not include the new high school.

The report says "3 playgrounds" We have lots more. Within a few minutes of my house are O'Malley Elementary, Forsythe Park, Birch Park, Ruth Arcand and Trailside Elementary. That's 5 playgrounds. The other elementary schools in the area and Stork Park also have playgrounds for a total of at least 9.

It's hard to see that the Mid Hillside area is deficient in Neighborhood Use parks. With O'Malley and Trailside Elementary schools, Forsythe Park, Birch Park we're well served with developed parks. Hilltop downhill ski area fills the need for open fields for many purposes during the summer.

The LOS standards in this report do not sufficiently take into account the neighborhood. In most of the Southeast area, homes are on large lots. This makes less need for neighborhood parks. Kids have lots of room to play in their back yard. In deciding where to live, many people choose the Hillside to be near FNBP and Chugach State park. I suspect there is less interest in Neighborhood Use and Community Use parks in this part of town.

Access, Trails and Connectivity Needs

The general point of this section that the Southeast Area needs more trails is correct. Surveys by the Mid Hillside and Hillside East Community Councils have pointed to this.

"The only east-west trail is along Abbott Road and terminates at Lake Otis." This is incorrect. The trail continues to Service High and wraps around Service to connect to the overpass at Birch Road.

"The trail along Birch Road is in need of repairs." The trail is not smooth, but it is still very adequate.

"Far North Bicentennial Park access to Tudor Crossing." Unclear what his means. There is a dirt trail to the bridge over Tudor. Bragaw Extension may provide a hard surface trail.

"Forsythe Park - improve access and picnic facilities." This was completed in summer of 2003. A covered area is vaguely a part of the plan but was removed from the CIP list developed by the Mid Hillside and Hillside East Community Councils in May of 2004.

Southeast Parks District Recommendations: Connectivity

"Develop north-south corridors along Elmore and Birch Road and through Chugach State Park." Through the Chugach State Park? Where would that be? Also, Birch Road has a trail for its entire length.

p 96 Strategic Action Plan

paragraph 3 says "... Municipality in a position of playing catch up to meet residents' needs." More specifically it should say "to meet benchmark Level of Service standards." The connection between LOS standards developed and real desires and "needs" is not convincing.