Planning and Zoning Commission - May 11, 2026 - 2026-05-11 18:30:00

All righty, we will call the May 11th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. Mayor, please have the roll call. Andres Benelli. Here. Jared Gardner.

Here. Radhika Krishna. Here. Scott Pullis. Here.

Jeff Rahn. Here. Brandy Eber. Here. Amma Abaza.

Here. Megan Mills. Here. Edith McKee. Here.

You have a quorum. Thank you. On our agenda, we have the minutes for Monday, April 13th and April 20th. Is there a motion to approve the minutes?

Moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner Krishna. Are there any corrections or objections to the minutes?

Hearing none, minutes are approved.

Um, next order of business, special order of business, or disclosures. Are there any disclosures?

I have one.

Go ahead, Commissioner Eber. I was absent from the April 13th meeting and will abstain from voting on the resolutions 2026-023 and 2026-024.

Thank you. Are there any other disclosures? Commissioner Mbazza? I was absent on the April 13 meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-023 and 2026-024.

Thank you. Commissioner Rahn. I also was absent for the April 13th meeting and will abstain from voting on resolutions 2026-023 and 2026-024. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda, the consent agenda. Maybe we have a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Moved by Commissioner Pulis, seconded by Commissioner Gardner. Anybody, anybody wishing to pull any items from the consent agenda for discussion?

Hearing, seeing none, if there are no objections, the consent agenda is approved.

Next, we will move on to public hearings, and I will read the process procedures by which public may speak to the Commission at its meetings. One, after staff presentation is completed on public hearing items, the chair will ask for public testimony. Testimony on the issue. Persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the Commission rules of procedure. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes.

Part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, etc., 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 minutes. When your testimony is complete, you may be asked questions by the Commission. You may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the Commission.

Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are appealable. On to the public hearing. May we please have the staff presentation for case 2026-0036?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Case number 2026-0036 is a Phase 1 update today. Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan, popularly referred to as AWMP. AWMP was adopted on July 8th, 2014 by AO 2013-132S.

12 Years on, there have been several changes that have ensued that have necessitated this update. Among them are local staffing changes, No general— the municipality has not had a general permit since 2021, April 2021, 5 years now. The 2023 Supreme Court decision in the Sackett versus EPA judgment, that sort of redefined waters of the United States. And then departmental reorganization within the municipality. The proposed ordinance, Mr.

Chair, is in 4 sections. The first section, which is supported by Exhibit A, reassigns implementation responsibilities and updates agency names and references. The second section of the proposed ordinance, also supported by Exhibit B, updates the permit application process diagram to reflect prevailing circumstances. The third section carries out some textual cleanups as well as introduce additional supportive text to help with implementation of the, of the plan. The fourth and final section is procedural, and it amends AMC 210108 to update the date of passage of the AWMP.

Should this ordinance be adopted by the Anchorage Assembly. These sections are much-needed changes needed to ease implementation while the Mini works on a more comprehensive update to the AWMP. The Planning Department therefore recommends an onward recommendation and approval. Thank you, and I welcome your questions.

Any questions for staff?

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you. Through the chair, um, in our staff packet, we see a number of comments from other municipal departments, including private development, um, Development Services and Parks and Recreation, to name a few. A number of those comments question the timeliness of this action, as in, should this be pushed forward now, or should a few other things be worked out and then brought forward once those things are worked out? And one of those is assignment of responsibilities. So I guess my general question is, in this draft AO, have all of those comments been addressed?

If not, which ones remain open? And I'm specifically interested in the assignment of responsibilities and transitioning from the old language to what now appears to be just a blanket statement, the Municipality of Anchorage, with the phone number. Thanks. Thank you very much. And to the chair, This particular case was tabled to be able to address the concerns and questions from the reviewing agencies.

So we tabled it and then addressed these— addressed these concerns to the most— how is it called? The best way that they could have been addressed. With regards to the assembly action, we cannot make any changes to the anchorage, to the AWMP, without an assembly approval because it is an element of the comprehensive plan.

And so every change to it must go through the PCC and then to the Anchorage Assembly for the approval. That is the first part. And then the second part, which was— if you could remind me again.

I have it, which was changing it from Long Range to Municipality of Anchorage and then the change of— so years of implementation has taught us that we need we need to take a more collaborative front as various municipal agencies to be able to successfully implement this plan. So changing it to municipality of Anchorage reflects the fact that it's not being done by one particular department currently, but then being done by Long Range Private Development and Development Services.

Are you finished, Commissioner Rohn? I have others. Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. I was hoping to get just a little more context on the background with respect to the assignment of responsibilities.

And I, uh, I see it, and certainly I guess when first going through this, it makes a lot of sense, the points that you're making here, that the General permit wasn't renewed, and, um, obviously the Sackett decision changed, um, some of the jurisdictional questions, um, and it looks like the Army Corps as well has had some timing issues on their front. And so that all makes sense to me. Um, on page 2, in the general description of Section 1, where it references— and this is a good chunk of this— is about assigning responsibilities. It says the departure of the municipality's dedicated wetlands personnel has resulted in wetlands administration becoming a shared responsibility between the Planning Department and Development Services Department. And I wasn't clear from that the context of that departure.

And is that like, you know, somebody left and it's a position that just needs to be filled, or, or was there a decision made at some point there to just remove that position entirely? And can you fill in some of the gaps on that piece?

Through the chair, for a long time the planning department had an environmental planner. I think some of you may know him, Dee Tobish. He wasn't necessarily dedicated only to the wetlands, but he had enough expertise to be able to easily implement the plan. And I think he departed just about the time we lost the general permit. And so ever since, it's been in a little bit of limbo who sort of takes on that responsibility.

And so we've had to rely on Development Services. We've sort of consult everybody within our building. And so that has been the sort of situation regarding that. Thank you. You're welcome.

Commissioner Mills.

I had a question. I noticed here on page 3 you talk about the comments received, you know, the comments at the back, and that a lot of updates were made to this document to align with that. But it says additional comments from private development have been noted and incorporated as well. Can you share any about further comments after this package was updated? Was there more?

I guess it's a little open-ended. I was just trying to understand.

OK, so all of this has been an ongoing conversation with private development especially. And so we've always been talking. How best to sort of approach the implementation of the AWMP, given that we are— this ordinance essentially makes it official that it is between us and them. And so when you look through the comments that they gave us, well, some of them may have been passed through meetings. When we met with them, they will give us some comments and then we would implement them.

Some of them through this process, they gave us some comments, those ones have also been implemented, if I got your question right. Was there outstanding comments from them? I wouldn't say there are outstanding comments, but then there are some comments from them that we we couldn't, how is it called, implement. For instance, they want changes to the map not to be taken to the Assembly, which is illegal. And so we wouldn't implement that.

We couldn't implement that in the— we couldn't address that in the AO.

Thank you.

Commissioner McKee. Hi, through the chair, I have, I have 3 questions, um, and, and it kind of builds, I think, on what's, what some of the other commissioners have been asking. Um, on 33 of our packet, page 33, there's a specific comment that says With the elimination of the wetland coordinator position, there will be a lot of responsibilities that are not designated to an individual or department, and it leads into that request to kind of slow things down. And so I just wasn't sure— it also says, you know, that there will be generalized assignment of duties, the permitting divisions can share responsibilities as needed. Is that— it doesn't seem like that's been addressed in the Phase 1.

Is there a possibility that that the designated roles would be identified in Phase 2? [Speaker] Through the chair, thank you very much. The Phase 2 update will be a more comprehensive update to the entire AWMP. We will do field proofing and sort of overhaul the whole administration and implementation of the AWMP. And it's expected to take 2 summers.

Hopefully by that time, we'd have— the municipality would have figured something out.

But for now, this is what we are trying to get in place while we get the Phase 2 done.

And then my second question pertains to the comment received that's on page 36 of our packet. That is pretty specific about somebody having the qualifications and extensive knowledge of wetlands pertaining particularly to excavation or fill being placed in wetlands. Is there currently somebody in the— in the group, I guess, that would be designated to oversee these currently qualified? To make those decisions? To the best of my— to the chair, sorry.

To the best of my knowledge, no. So we have personnel with bits and pieces of these skills. And so we sort of like take a collaborative approach to addressing questions from the public as well as permit applications.

And then my third and last question, kind of, it's similar. It's that page 42 of 45, specifically the land administrative coordinator's comments about it being very important that somebody in one of the designated departments or positions that has extensive knowledge of wetlands, and they have like a 3 questions bulleted, and I guess it kind of ties into the question that was asked by the first commissioner, is have these comments or questions been addressed or responded to?

Through you, Chair, some of these, yes, these questions have been addressed. For instance, the first question that says who or where specifically in the municipality is responsible for the oversight of the plan. I think for the period that we had Mr. Tobich— I believe that's his name— there was a bit of overreliance on him, and to the point that I believe the plan was sort of written with him in mind, and so his departure sort of has created this absence that is making the— that has made the implementation a bit difficult for everyone else. And so I think we've been taking a collaborative front to implement it, as I've already indicated. And then what is the process for updating the plan and on what timeline.

All of these were addressed, um, and I think we've been very open right from the beginning of the process. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, I have a question. Uh, page 9, section 12, It says contact the municipality for the most recent copy of any Anchorage Wetlands Assessment Methodology. Does that document exist?

Yes, through the chair, yes, that document exists, but then currently we are at a point where we have to use that document and unfortunately we don't have anyone to who, who is able to use that particular document, but it exists. You can find it online right now. Okay, and then next, page 11, section 40, it goes on wetlands maps of the entire municipality at the end of Table 4, blah blah blah. Look at anchoragestormwater.com for the latest mapping. Then there's a deleted section.

Then it says any wetlands area not shown in these maps would require a Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination and could only be filled with either an individual or nationwide Section 404 permit. And the way— there's a— I have a serious problem with this, and I've heard this from the municipality recently. Where I told them about wetlands that are no longer considered jurisdictional by the Army Corps of Engineers.

And I said, how do we go about doing anything with these wetlands? Because they're still shown on the municipal wetlands map. Um, and they said, you need to get the Army Corps of Engineers jurisdictional determination. Well, the Army Corps of Engineers, since the Sackett ruling came out that deleted a bunch of what was previously thought to be wetlands, they have determined that they won't do jurisdictional determinations unless they're accompanied by a fill permit, which you would never submit it for a fill permit on non-jurisdictional waters. So it creates this chicken and the egg And I feel like the municipality in this section right here is, it has its own wetlands plan, and it's fine for the municipality to regulate wetlands that are no longer jurisdictional to the Army Corps of Engineers, but then to have this section that says any wetland area not shown on these maps would require a Corps of Engineers permit or a jurisdictional permit, that seems like we're relying on another government agency that that has already stated they're not gonna do this work.

And so similar to what we're, the other commissioners are getting at, which is, I believe at least what I'm hearing is, how are we gonna get anything done if we're pointing the finger at multiple areas within the municipality and no one person, or we don't even have a person But I guess, do we— am I understanding that correctly, that if they are not on our map, then we still require you to go to the Corps? I guess I don't get it.

Through the Chair, that is one of the problems that the Phase 2 update will solve. But then currently, post the circuit decision, Every wetlands permit has to go to the Corps of Engineers for jurisdictional determination first. And that takes anywhere from 9 months to 3 years. And so in the phase 2, we are trying to do a lot of field proofing and then try and get— come into an understanding with the Corps of Engineers and then get a blanket determination of jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional. I think that will sort of really cut the process and then help in the implementation of the WMP.

But then that is all for the phase 2, and that is what one of the problems that we will be solving. But then for now, whether it is mapped or not mapped, so far as it is a wetland, it has to go to the Corps of Engineers for the jurisdictional determination. When they determine it's non-jurisdictional, then it comes back to us for us to take it through the permit application— permit process.

So the City of Anchorage wants houses. I'm looking at purchasing land to build houses on that have Class C wetlands mapped on them. The wetlands consultants tell me that they're non-jurisdictional, so we don't have to worry about the Corps of Engineers in this particular group of wetlands, but the municipality says that you have to get a jurisdictional determination? Through the chair, sorry, I, I don't think any single individual can— they can do a delineation, of course, but nobody can do it jurisdictional determination except the Corps of Engineers.

Yeah, but the— this whole plan is the municipality has wetlands that are not considered wetlands by the Corps of Engineers, but they are considered wetlands by the municipality. It starts at the very beginning with the municipal— the municipality's regulatory authority or municipal jurisdiction over wetlands. And I guess I just have a problem with us relying on the Corps in any way, shape, or form for something the Corps has not already said they're not doing. And I guess— but we could move on. I don't want to— we have other commissioners.

So, Commissioner Gardner. Thank you. Um, what was my question? I guess my question was It clearly seems like there's a lot of updating that needs to take place here, and there's more substantive updates that are contemplated in Phase 2 covering a variety of things. With respect to the assignment of roles and responsibilities, I guess I'll just preview my thinking too, that it gives me some pause, and I'm not— I don't have personal familiarity with these processes.

So I, you know, I'm open to input from other Commissioners in terms of how this might work in practice. But just in general, the notion that there's something that just kind of points to the municipality without more specificity or maybe ownership over the process gives me some concern about who's ultimately going to be responsible for making sure that something happens. Or even before you get to that point, from the perspective of someone who's trying to follow this, who do they even call if they have a question? And so I guess from that framing, it sounds like the Planning Department has been managing since the loss of this person who was kind of the expert in this area by maybe, maybe taking point a little bit and quarterbacking between other departments. Um, and I noted that in the, the recommendation on page 3, it references the intent to address critical issues now, um, before turning to Phase 2 of the project.

So my question is, what are the critical issues that, that you see that this is addressing, and what are the things that are causing problems that this is intending to fix? Because it— I don't know how long it's been the case that the Planning Department has been kind of coordinating things since they lost the person with that expertise, but It seems like that's maybe been kind of enough to get by in the interim, and I'm wondering if it makes sense to build some of those responsibilities out as part of Phase 2 and limit this to what are truly the kind of critical items needed now. Thank you very much. And through the Chair, I think one of the most important items of this, how's it called, of this update is the update to the permit application process diagram. When you look, I think I should have added the old diagram in my packet.

When you look at the old diagram, this sort of simplifies it to reflect current practices. And then another thing that it sort of addresses is the call in— then the phone number in the previous or in the existing documents sort of goes to the Planning General Desk, I believe, and I don't think that is even manned. And so this update sort of takes it— this update sort of puts in a number that goes to a station that is manned, And then that person is in a better position to, depending on the person's question, route their call to the right personnel.

And so it is all part of a process of making it easier for the public in dealing with wetlands issues.

Thank you.

Commissioner McKee. I, through the chair, I have two questions. Maybe this kind of aligns with the chair's earlier question. I'm at the very beginning on page 9. It says that the municipality will be updating and maintaining the wetland maps that are available online, which might provide, if they updated them, provide the clarification on which ones can be handled by the by the Anchorage Conglomeration that will be making these decisions versus forcing them to go to, um, the Army Corps of Engineers.

So what's kind of the timeline for the MOA to update all the maps, and, and do they have GIS staff personnel available to do this quickly?

Through the chair, yes, we have GIS personnel. We have the GDIC, which has been in place for not too long, but I think they are capable— they will be capable of— they are capable of updating the map. Do they have the capacity to do it quickly?

As to the swiftness, I cannot speak confidently to.

And then the second question is, the plan says that there will be a wetland coordinator and they will serve as the point of contact, that they will provide guidance and support and they will have a lot of responsibilities. Does the MOA currently have this position filled, or is it a position that will need to be filled?

Through the chair, it, um, it isn't a position in itself. It's sort of an additional responsibility that a personnel takes on. Is, is that person designated? Do they know who this person will be? Currently, there is no, there, there is no designated personnel.

Like, as I already indicated, we take a collaborative approach to that particular position, I would say. Thank you.

Commissioner Krishna. Thank you. I have two questions. The first is that some of the other departments who submitted comments suggested that an interdepartmental memorandum of understanding might be the vehicle to outline roles and responsibilities. Is there a draft, or have there been discussions, um, that, that, um, would move us in that direction?

Or does the department, the planning department, even regard such an MOU as feasible and the right way to outline these roles? Thank you very much.

There is no such MOU, but then there have been several meetings between us and then the private development and development service director himself. And I think we got to an understanding, although we never put it on paper as an MOU. But then what we have today is as a result of several meetings or several discussions. On the topic. [Speaker:DR. LISA SMITH] Maybe my follow-up is just, do you still believe that the request from other departments is for an MOU outlining roles, or have your discussions led to a more informal arrangement where other departments have agreed to share some of these roles and responsibilities?

I think one thing that I should put across is this ordinance sort of makes official the current or the prevailing way of implementing the plan. And so it is not really bringing anything new. It is sort of making it official how it is being done over the last 20 years. Couple of years.

Okay, I might, might just ask one more question. I might just— I think my line of thinking is similar to what Commissioner Gardner was asking, which was, um, you know, what, what harm or confusion would be created if we just did one Phase 2 update in 2 years? Could you share a little bit more about what needs to happen, what these proposed changes would do for the next 2 years before a more substantive update? [Speaker:DR. ADEOLA OLADEOLA] Thank you. And through the chair, we really wish we would have done more with this update, but this is the most we could do, and so we are sort of like trying to trying to get something in place while we complete the more substantive update.

Nothing will go wrong, or nothing will go wrong if this AO doesn't fall through. But this is— we, if we had the, if we had the resources, would have done much more than this. But this is the most that we could do to sort of ease the implementation of the AWMP.

Thank you.

If—.

Let's just say that there was somebody who understood the Anchorage Wetlands Assessment Methodology And that other section, the Corps agreed or didn't agree at whatever that other section meant that I talked about my last question. And we, we were going to— everyone agreed we were going to change some wetlands on the map. Is the map— is the whole plan— is the map able to be changed by the department, or does it require I mean, could the wetlands coordinator or maybe the future wetlands coordination team change the map? Do they have that authority? Um, the, uh, the AWMP, the map, and then all the policies within it are component of the comprehensive plan, and so any change to it should go through this process, the PCC, and then to the Anchorage Assembly.

I vote against that.

I think that is what Private Development also proposed in their comment, but then per current regulations, that is what prevails.

Okay.

I see no more questions. Should we move on to the public hearing?

Let's open the public hearing.

Anybody wishing to testify, please step forward. Do we have any phone testimonies?

Does staff have any rebuttal?

No, please.

All right, we're closing the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Have a suggested motion, but you're free to make your own motion as well. You just have to state it slowly so it can be written.

Motions to postpone indefinitely work.

Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state a motion?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, uh, for the suggestion as well. I move in case 2026-0036 to postpone updates to the Wetlands Management Plan, um, until additional work associated with— well, I'm going to stop there. I move in case 2026-0036 to recommend postponement of this issue indefinitely.

That is seconded by Commissioner Gardner.

Commissioner Rohn, would you like to speak to the motion? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will start with some findings.

We heard tonight that current conditions have existed for some time since the departure of a wetlands coordinator.

Finding number 2, we heard from staff tonight that if this doesn't move forward, um, there's no indication of negative recourse to development.

Finding number 3 is that clearly updates to the Wetlands Management Plan need to be made, driven by both changes in wetlands jurisdiction and organizational and policy interests at the municipal level. I'll stop there with my findings and add a few comments.

While I can appreciate Long Range Planning's interest in a team approach, I'm concerned that not having someone running point in this will create new confusion, and I don't see what's put forward today as ultimately resolving well, it may be real or perceived critical issues now. We heard that Phase 2 is targeted to be completed within 2 summers, which to me indicates that they're going to be doing some actual field delineation work and adjusting the map during growing seasons. 2 Years should hopefully be enough time to get some more of these details nailed down so that we can better serve the community with what's needed in implementing this plan and facilitating smart development.

That's all for now.

Commissioner Gardner. I think mine is— I don't know, I call it a point of information. It's just really a question of the implications of postponing indefinitely. Is that what, what, what comes from that?

It would— it would normally stop the motion of the case, but it could be brought back at any point in time if administration felt it needed to be, but I believe it would be a new case at that point.

Okay, um, I don't, I don't know procedurally. I guess, um, I'll just, I'll just kind of comment on this.

I, does it still go to the assembly?

Okay, okay.

I have a question. Could the motion be to wait until Phase 2? Could that— does that work? This way it's not indefinitely, it's the motion is to address all the comments and combine Phase 1 and Phase 2 and present it to us in the future?

Honestly, I think it would— in my mind, it would be cleaner just to wait until Phase 2. Does staff want to weigh in?

Through the chair, I think one thing that I may have left out is putting this in place sort of could provide some sort of covering for the implementing department. And so I think it is necessary that we have this— how is it called— we have this AO sort of like makes clear, especially to the public, who to talk to, who to call when needed. And then also the Exhibit B sort of gives a very clear picture of the current permit application process. Especially a lot of people don't know about the wetlands permit application process, and then the current one that we have in the, um, in the AWMP does not reflect in any way the permit application process. And so sort of Suspend this is only suspending the confusion and the, um, the difficulty that comes with, um, implementing the AWMP as is.

Thank you.

Okay, we'll go to the commissioners in the queue in order. Commissioner Rahn.

I would be accepting of a previous commissioner's suggestion to reword the language in the motion.

If you would like to amend your motion, you may. Move to amend, striking the language indefinitely and replacing with to a date uncertain.

Is that acceptable to—.

It is to me, yes. Thank you.

Can I ask a follow-up point of information? I guess, does that, does that permit, um, potential updates or revisions before it kind of comes back to us?

Basically, I believe it to a date uncertain, a time uncertain. It's going to the assembly anyhow.

I, I would assume through our findings it would be understood that we had some issues with what was here.

But, um, motion to postpone to a time uncertain has been moved. It's acceptable to the original seconder, Commissioner Gardner. Uh, Commissioner McKee is in the queue.

I was going to propose a potential revision so that we have a timeline to say something, maybe along the lines of until they designate who will have what roles and a person who is qualified and has knowledge of wetlands, because it seems like that's what's been lost. And maybe once they can designate who that person is, and that would address what it seemed like several of the comments were, that they needed to know what everybody's roles and responsibilities would be. Could we potentially amend that it's postponed until they can identify who has what roles and a qualified wetland expert?

We can do whatever you guys move, second, and vote on.

Um, Commissioner Gardner is in the queue. Sure, thanks. I'll add, I guess, some, some thoughts on the suggestion. I, um, I guess I'm happy to support the motion with this— oh wait, what is our motion? Oh, to postpone a date uncertain.

Okay, uh, with that current language, um, with some, some, uh, commentary and findings to kind of go along with it to explain some of those concerns, which I think you captured well. And I would just add, I mean, I share those concerns, and I think at some level it sounds like there are some basic things that the Planning Department is really interested in updating to avoid confusion, including a phone number that it sounds like no one really is assigned to, to, to staff at this point. So I, I'd support getting those types of changes in place. And I guess from that perspective, I recognize too that the Planning Department really would like to do do more with this, um, didn't currently have the resources. And I— it seems like maybe we could get by with, with doing even less, just to cover the, those really critical, the truly critical pieces, and wait until Phase 2 to include the updates, um, as to who ultimately has what responsibilities through this process, so that can be laid out clear and clearly.

It seems like it's been getting by okay, at least, um, with the existing process. And so rather than putting something in code that Um, that just leaves it really open-ended. I think my preference would be to wait until that's defined and include that as part of Phase 2.

Commissioner Krishna. Thank you. I think I intend to support this motion as presented. Um, I believe this allows department leadership to bring us back a revision if so desired, and allows us to keep this question open if there's something that we have not— if the department has further suggestions for ways to move this forward that are not apparent tonight. I will add to some of the rationale for this update that I don't believe that Plans that are updated once a decade or less are the appropriate place to have contact information or outline a permit process, maybe even.

So I would encourage staff, unless there's some regulatory reason that I'm missing why contact information needs to be kept in this plan specifically, to design a website or find some alternate method of communicating with the public about how to seek out further information on the wetlands process. But I believe that we can do that, um, for the public in a way that doesn't necessarily refer to a plan or isn't necessarily beholden to the very slow timelines that we have for plan updates. Um, and, um, not being particularly familiar with this specific plan or body of work, I will say from all of the plans that we review, I don't believe that contact information, um, or other, uh, Information of that type is generally included in plans and don't believe that we need to unless I'm missing something. So those are my thoughts. Thank you.

Commissioner Pullis, just a quick question. I probably should ask this earlier, but we're talking about critical issues and phone numbers. Do you know who the extension 8301 is?

80—. Great, too late.

There we go. So, Greg, okay.

8301 Is the Development Services Desk, and I think that is what we agreed upon, how is it called, our meetings with them. And then when you go through it, you realize the part for the coordinator, That extension is for Grace Sule. I think that is also part of the understanding that we came to. Okay, thank you.

I'll just say that I also intend to support the motion. I think there's a lot of work to be done. I think if we're amending the plan, if we're going to start implementing the plan or adhering to the plan, I, I guess I'll just start by saying it's my impression that the municipality has been ignoring its municipal wetlands jurisdiction since the passing of the expiration of its— of the authorities granted to it by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers back in 2021. And if we're going to start paying attention to the municipally regulated wetlands, I think we need to make some more changes than just what's outlined in this case— in this and it might be Phase 1.5 maybe, but I'm happy to postpone and have a work session or discuss further. I intend to support.

Anybody else wishing to speak before we call for the vote?

Seeing none, we'll call for the vote.

Miss Heber, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

That motion passes.

Any committee reports?

Commissioner Rahn.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just briefly, an update on the AMATS Citizen Advisory Committee, which I'm representing PCC on. Last meeting was April 28th. I missed it, but I listened to the recording.

So updates from that meeting, some administrative items, bylaws updates. A letter was heard as brought forward by a Advisory Committee member regarding HSIP projects, Highway Safety Improvement Projects, as programmed in 2026 and 2027, calling out 3 specific projects programmed for 2027, requesting that DOT actually fund those projects, and also calling out State DOT's recent use of pedestrian barriers as a first choice in trying to address the complex issues associated associated with pedestrians on and around roadways in Anchorage. There's a project proposed on Fifth Avenue where— I'm not too familiar with the project, but it was discussed that DOT is— sounds like proposing another pedestrian barrier over quite a length of that project area. And so there was interest by the commission in raising awareness to that and asking DOT to dig a little deeper and what options might be better fits for that particular project and others as well in state-maintained roads in and around Anchorage. Additionally, an update to the Tutor Road Interchange Project was given, similar to what was heard by this commission earlier in the month.

A couple of letters of interest were discussed between the Alaska Department of Law on behalf of DOT and the Federal Highways Administration, a back and forth about who should have final say and authority when it comes to project decisions in metropolitan planning areas. So AMATS is an MPO. It has federally designated authorities to decide which projects it puts on its TIP, its Transportation Improvement Program plan, and which projects it pulls from the TIP. Some of you may have knowledge of the project of which I'm kind of alluding to that prompted these letters. It's the Safer Seward Highway project.

Those letters are publicly available through this meeting agenda, which is on the AMATS website. They're a fun read. I suggest you take a look. In summary, FHWA told the state, in fact, MPOs like AMATS have final decisional authority over what projects go on the TIP. So that puts the Safer Seward Highway project in a potentially interesting position, not currently eligible for federal funding reimbursement for what the state has spent on it thus far.

In addition to those fun items, um, there was a little bit of discussion around updates to the TIP. Based on the last census data, AMATS has to update its projects list, and it's going to do that over the next 4 months, not calling for new projects, but just realigning based on census data. There will be some public input opportunities, workshops for that over the summer. Again, that's happening between May and November. Next meeting is the end of July.

Let me know if there's anything you want me to bring forward. Otherwise, that's my update for now.

Thank you.

Any Title 21 discussion?

Any commissioner comments?

All right, we will entertain a motion to adjourn.

It's moved and seconded. Any objection? Hearing none, we adjourn. Thank you, Brandy.