CityView Portal
| Submitted comments will appear below after staff approval. | |
|---|---|
| Mark Hamilton | 12/1/2025 4:39:54 PM |
| I support the TDSO. Housing has been too expensive in Anchorage for too long, especially for young people starting their careers. And there's no good reason for this: there is so much land and space available! For the last 12 years more people have left the state than have moved here. People are already turned off of moving to Anchorage because groceries are more expensive, there's no reason for housing to be more expensive as well. The high cost of housing hurts our economic future as a city: cities that aren't growing are dying, and I want Anchorage to grow and prosper. People want more homes, builders want to build them, and we should let them. | |
| Diane Langston | 10/13/2025 12:40:24 PM |
| One of the example properties in Appendix A does not appear to be relevant to this report. The W 16th Ave property pictured is a two story duplex on a block with other one and two story duplexes (there have only ever been two real units in the building, although the city has an extra number associated with the property). It is labeled "multiunit" like other properties in Appendix A, but most of those are more than two units, so there is likely a mistake. The report does not explain why it or any of the units in Appendix A are relevant to the rezoning in the report. | |
| Daniel | 10/10/2025 6:31:48 AM |
| I think the zoning restrictions should be relaxed and greater development should be allowed throughout the city. I own a lot in bootleggers cove, right next to downtown which is outside the rezoning proposal. I would love to develop it with 4-6 units, which would be walkable to downtown, but currently it is zoned R2 only and it is economically unfeasible to build only a duplex on it. Cost of building and permitting is so high, more units are required to have a chance of break even, or I'd have to build high end luxury units which do nothing to help affordable housing. So right now, it sits empty doing nothing to help our housing crisis. The density proposals should go further and allow more units, in more areas, smaller setbacks, less permitting costs, and streamlined permitting for people who want to help out our current crisis. Instead, this council continues to tweak maps, delay, and let older NIMBY voices who bought their houses when housing was inexpensive prevent real action to address our housing crisis. | |
| Garret Roy | 10/9/2025 2:47:25 PM |
| Reading through the comments has been interesting, and I truly appreciate the engagement from our community! It’s clear that many folks have expressed valid concerns regarding increased housing density, particularly related to roads, traffic, utilities, and the uncertainty about whether additional rental units will actually improve affordability in Anchorage. However, I would like to raise another critical issue with this plan that requires public attention. The proposal to increase housing density in proximity to Lake Hood and Merrill Field airports is concerning for reasons that go beyond logistics and economics. These airports are significant sources of airborne lead pollution which is a potent and well documented neurotoxin that poses an extreme danger to public health, especially with high density residential areas located close by. Lead exposure even at low levels can have serious, long term effects, for children, pregnant women, and the population as a whole. The impact on cognitive development, learning disabilities, behavioral issues, neurological damage, and a whole host of other health complications are well documented in scientific studies. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there is no safe level of lead exposure! The airborne lead emitted by piston engine aircraft has been a recognized problem for years, and we cannot ignore the mounting evidence linking these emissions to elevated blood lead levels in nearby communities. Increasing residential density in areas already affected by this pollution puts more people particularly families with young children at risk. While growth and development are important, they must not come at the cost of public health. If this plan moves forward, the city will be responsible for exposing a new generation of residents to a preventable danger that could have devastating, lifelong consequences. We must prioritize the health and safety of our community, and that includes fully assessing and mitigating any potential environmental hazards, especially when it comes to lead exposure. I urge the city to reconsider this proposal until the phaseout of leaded gasoline is rolled out to aviation, and the sounding landscape has been decontaminated. See: epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-determines-lead-emissions-aircraft-engines-cause-or-contribute-air-pollution And: adn.com/opinions/2024/06/11/opinion-lead-in-aviation-fuel-threatens-public-health/ Additionally: leadfreefutures.org/ | |
| Monica Shah | 10/6/2025 6:36:51 PM |
| I am writing to express my deep concern about the TSDO as it is written and has been shared with the public. While I understand the need for housing, and wanting a city with affordable housing and walkable streets, the TSDO is not the way to succeed in this goal. None of the changes to residential neighborhoods seem to address this. At the heart of the comments seems to be those that want more housing (developers), affordable housing (community members), and walkable roads (younger community members). How is increasing density going to accomplish all of this? The only thing it will accomplish is succeed in making developers more money, while the community will have to deal with the results – large structures next to small houses, too many cars on the street in winter so plows can’t make it through, and all the effects on the waste water and sewage systems that no one seems to be able to address. Community members who support the TSDO as written cite that this will result in affordable housing. New housing built by developers has never been affordable for new homeowners. No one has said they are building affordable housing, only that they are building more. For those others who seem to think this will make the city more walkable, none of the plans seem to address this. If the city could afford to plow the streets, build and plow sidewalks, perhaps we would have a walkable city. In the newly drawn map, our home is in the TSDO. My husband walks daily in the neighborhood, and weekly to the grocery store. In the winter, the sidewalk is never plowed along one side and rarely on the other (twice a winter generally), and we have to walk in the middle of the street in the neighborhood. I imagine most neighborhoods have similar issues. Creating more density in our neighborhood won’t fix this problem. It won’t even encourage future fixing, since this proposal gives a property tax exemption on the development. This seems counter to what is needed. If you are going to increase use, perhaps don’t give tax exemptions to those already profiting from the removal of the permitting process. In addition, the city appears to moving forward on an idea without testing to see if what they propose will actually result in the outcomes desired by the those on the PZC and Assembly. The changes remove permitting and restrictions that were put in place to deal with the lack of zoning that Anchorage experienced in much of its early formation. With this new proposal, developers would not go through the rigorous permitting process that protects Anchorage citizens from poor or subquality construction. In addition, while the developers have all praised the TSDO, not a single one has addressed the need for affordable housing. Instead they have all focused on the increase to their ROI and how it will make it easier for them to build. These regulations are in place exactly because of this type of thinking. One person suggested working with Cook Inlet Housing Authority since they have built affordable housing. Perhaps the PZC should focus on tracts of land that are underdeveloped in the midtown area (such as south of Tudor as suggested by one developer), rather than changing residential R-1 and R-1A areas. One of the other goals seems to be around trying to decrease the use of cars and increase use of public transportation. With the budget deficit looming, and cuts to public transportation imminent, it seems very odd that the city is pushing a proposal through that needs to rely on something it is reducing. If you want people to use public transportation, perhaps increasing development isn’t the way to do so. Maybe make the roads safer to walk. Provide better access to sidewalks and bus stops, especially in the winter. Also, perhaps slow traffic down in walking corridors, or change one-way roads to two-way roads as has been proven to help make the city safer for pedestrians, cyclists, and other forms of transportation. Lastly, there has been much discussion about the lack of a public process. The PZC and Assembly members who sponsored the TSDO should be ashamed for pushing this through during a time when the community councils are on hiatus. And then rushing it through in the fall, without proving that the proposed changes will actually provide the results they hope for. If they are going to point to development in Anchorage, they should publish the lease or rental costs of those places too. And, the history of sale for those places. Then let the community decide if it actually created affordable housing. Too much of the process has been behind closed doors and information not shared with the public. | |
| Sharon Stockard | 10/6/2025 3:06:32 PM |
| The speed and magnitude of changes to TSDO underscore the recklessness of the Assembly/muni in pushing TSDO without providing data to support it, answer critical questions, or provide meaningful public participation. For example, version 6 was unveiled today, a mere six hours before the public hearing at the Planning and Zoning Commission. This demonstrates a top-down mentality that creates chaos and unpredictability while showing disdain for public involvement. Community councils and other members of the public spent many hours reviewing the previous version of TSDO over the past five days to prepare for the public hearing, only to see that time and energy trashed with another hasty, last-minute set of changes. This disenfranchises the public and displays a reckless, know-it-all approach to city planning. The city should take TSDO off the table. It should bring professionalism into the process; institute a timely, comprehensive public process; provide missing data to identify streets that already allow tall apartment buildings with commercial uses and frequent transit; and identify the capital and maintenance resources needed to provide 15-minute transit services, pedestrian safety, and year-round sidewalk maintenance in those locations. Working together with community councils and other members of the public will ensure better results in building more housing, especially affordable housing, in transit-served neighborhoods. | |
| Any resident | 10/6/2025 1:19:16 PM |
| The Planning Department issued Version 6 of TSDO just now, six hours before the public hearing before PZC. This changes the boundaries yet again as well as some dimensional standards. Our CC members collectively spent at least 15 hours studying and critiquing Version 5 (I know I spent about ten hours myself in the past five days (reading the packet, meetings, discussion, e-mails and drafting responses). What an inconsiderate abuse of public time and energy. The public is disenfranchised from land use planning by tactics like these. | |
| Nancy Pease | 10/6/2025 12:53:35 PM |
| October 6, 2025. Regarding PZC Cases 2025-030 and 2025-0034 This version of TSDO, despite recent revisions, is still not a credible, choate policy to accelerate housing. I strongly agree that we need more housing, particularly affordable housing in transit-served neighborhoods. However, this TSDO proposal is still half-baked. This TSDO lacks policies on commercial uses; it has no data to indicate the possible rates of infill; it has undetermined boundaries; and it ignores the Municipality’s financial or political ability to maintain or expand transit. Furthermore, the design and dimensional standards have flip-flopped in various drafts of the TSDO, without adequate analysis. I urge Planning and Zoning Commission to not approve 2025-0030 or 2025-0034; and to instead invite the Planning Department to produce a comprehensive TSDO policy and boundary that 1) can achieve the targeted densities in the near-term, under projected demographic and economic trends 2) defines the boundaries and the dimension and design standards through detailed Community Council involvement, and 3) advises what funding is needed for enhanced transit and pedestrian/bicycle mobility to ensure that the TSDO results in travel mode shift. Missing data. The sponsors have presented no data to demonstrate whether this is an effective—or even a realistic-- way to achieve transit-supportive development corridors. We know neighborhood transition involves economic and social disruption, so it’s important to know how fast TSDO can achieve the target residential density. The stated target is 36 DUA along transit corridors, which is the minimum residential density that federal agencies have shown can sustain transit and result in a travel-mode shift away from vehicle dependence. The public has asked for data numerous times, but the TSDO sponsors still haven’t presented foundational data: what are existing residential densities in various parts of the TSDO? Are any neighborhoods close to the 36 DUA? With current population and economic trends, how many years will it take for various parts of TSDO to achieve 36 DUA? What transit subsidies and pedestrian upgrades do we need to fund? If TSDO can’t get to 36 DUA in the near- or even mid-term under current economic trends, then let’s re-work it. Success breeds success: so maybe the Muni should promote model infill and redevelopment projects in smaller, more-targeted opportunity areas. Public process. The round of recent presentations doesn’t make up for the lack of data and the lack of early scoping discussions with Community Councils . The Planning Department Staff is asking for “approval as-is” and warning PZC that “any changes…will make this TSDO ordinance significantly less effective in…achieving housing.” Meaningful public participation can be defined as: well-informed, two-way, reflective exchange of ideas that afford the public a chance to influence the outcome. The TSDO process is still guilty of fast-track development based more on wishful thinking than objective data analysis and full consideration of Comprehensive Plan policies. Dimensional and design standards. We need further analysis of the proposed dimensional standards. A couple of specifics: Does ‘80 percent lot coverage’ allow for adequate landscaping as well as stormwater management? Do ‘no minimum setbacks’ mean that buildings can forego rear placement of dumpsters, and instead place them in the side setback where they may create a health and aesthetic nuisance for the neighboring property? Does ‘no minimum lot dimensions’ mean more pie-shaped lots with wasted corner space? Will these ‘non minimum dimensions’ result in super skinny lots where owners must commit a large percentage of building footage to stairs, and where mobility-impaired residents are effectively excluded? A broader discussion. Our current adopted plans still have good bones—the transit supportive corridors have been on the maps for 20-plus years. Regrettably, the marketplace hasn’t delivered the land use pattern we adopted. It seems that the Assembly has unilaterally declared zoning and design standards as the scapegoat. Anti-zoning ideology won’t cure the housing crisis or help people shift toward transit. We need a comprehensive planning approach. I’d like to see a TSDO developed through the type of community-wide process and the careful professional analysis that produced the 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 LUP. Thank you for your careful consideration of the current TSDO. I urge that you consider it to be incomplete and defer action until you have the needed data analysis, public input from neighborhoods and Community Councils, and proposed policies for commercial uses and transit funding. Nancy Pease Nancypease2@gmail.com | |
| thomas crowley | 10/6/2025 12:19:38 PM |
| Opposed to current TSDO proposals. Anchorage is not like: Atlanta, Chicago, or other cities cited in the draft submission.This project is ill conceived and not appropriate for Anchorage for many reasons. The glossy presentations are reminiscent of other failed proposals such as the H2H project and the Knik Arm bridge, both of which are not worth the price and disruption of neighborhoods, in a small city that has seen little population growth in 20 years. The main beneficiaries seem to be, besides the obviously well funded project team; developers, realtors, landlords. STOP! | |
| Gregg Schomaker | 10/5/2025 11:07:20 PM |
| I support the concept behind TSDO, but in its current updated version I cannot comprehend how it expects to meet the goals that the project says it will accomplish. How will the TSDO increase affordable housing, increase the walkability of Anchorage, and increase the use of public transportation here in Anchorage? I have read through the proposal and I don't see any studies or emperical evidence that demonstrates that this proposal will lead to the desired outcomes? How will this increase affordable housing? I understand that the project has the possibility of increasing housing, but there is nothing stating that there will be mixed income housing built to meet the demand. Developers require an ROI on their investment and they will have to charge whatever the going rate is to make the profits they require to stay in business. There's also the fact that building materials continue to increase due to tariffs and other factors. Those higher costs will be passed on to the consumer. There is no restrictions on what they can charge or the costs to the consumer, so the market will establish the rates for home ownership, or the monthly rate of a rental unit. The only benefit is to the individual who does the development as they would receive a tax incentive for the additional units built on the lot. I have not seen any evidence that this proposal will result in more affordable housing. We may have more housing, but that doesn't mean it will be more affordable. How will this proposal increase the walkability of Anchorage? Anchorage as currently constructed is not a pedestrian friendly city. In fact, per capita Anchorage has had a disproportianately high rate of pedestrian fatalities in recent years compared to many U.S. cities . One of the major factors is due to insufficient infrastructure with many parts of Anchorage lacking sidewalks and safe crossings. Nowhere in the proposal does it address how the TSDO will make Anchorage more walkable. There's no proposals for additional infrastructure to make it more safe for pedestrians. Actually, one could argue with the lack of parking restrictions in the proposal this will result in more cars being parked on the street forcing pedestrians to walk out in the street due to the limited sidewalks available. The parking issue will create its own set of problems that a number of people have already addressed (snow removal, trash, driveway blockage etc.) I find it ironic that in the Project Summary and FAQ the image for the example of a three story building is the Park Place Condominiums, as they have their own on-site parking due to the fact that there would be limited street parking to handle the number of residents who reside there. My last point is that this is called the Transit Supported Development Overlay and was presented as a way to increase public transportation. Again, I highly support public transportation but nothing in the proposal makes public transportation more appealing. I live near a People Mover stop and I see people standing in the snow during the winter, or having to post hole through the snow if the area isn't cleared for a couple days after a snowstorm. Nothing in the proposal shows that public transportation will increase just due to more people living near the bus routes. Again, this is just an assumption that the designers of the plan are hoping to see. What's the current usage of public transportation? What would be the potentail increase that you would estimate with the TSDO changes? These are questions that should be addressed as this is one of the key selling points of the plan. How do you make public transportation more appealing? Are you going to increase the snowplowing to and from bus stops? I too, would like to see the trendy buildings that are presented in the other cities that have a TSDO. I also would love a pedestrian and bike friendly city that has affordable housing options for all, but I don't see how the current proposal truly meets the goals it intends to meet. I thank you for the opportunity to comment. | |
| Patrice Parker | 10/3/2025 1:57:19 PM |
| I oppose the TSDO, and I think the Assembly needs to start over and actually involve their constituents - the ones who live in the neighborhoods they so urgently want to change. Find out which neighborhoods want change, and start there. The Overlay covers a huge swath of Anchorage, a scattershot approach that would make it next to impossible to provide quick and easy bus service. The Assembly should choose 2-3 neighborhoods that want and need density, where good bus service. would be used and start there. It's offensive for the Assembly to toss off any objections as NIMBYism - it shuts down real conversations with the very people they are supposed to represent. TSDO is a half-baked idea and it would be a huge mistake for the Planning and Zoning Commission to give it traction before important steps are taken. | |
| Cathy L. Gleason | 10/3/2025 12:51:39 PM |
| Transit Supported Development Overlay (Version #5) Planning and Zoning Commission Cases 2025-0030 and 2025-0034 Turnagain Community Council (TCC) Approved Comments 10-02-2025 (14-Yes; 0-No) Authored by Jon Isaacs, Turnagain Community Council Board Member and Co-Chair of the TCC Land Use Committee • TCC supports the concept of implementing the Transit Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) ordinance, as outlined in the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the West Anchorage Comprehensive Plan, and the 2040 Land Use Plan; • TCC supports the need to develop more housing for Anchorage and wants to see successful outcomes; • TCC notes that these plans call for implementation of transit supported development corridors to be developed in consultation with affected neighborhoods; this still needs to be done; • Adequate consultation requires meaningfully engaging and bringing together all affected stakeholders within the community, including housing advocates, community councils, home builders and developers, real estate professionals, appraisers, and business owners within TSDO to help develop solutions compatible with both new development and existing development. To date, this has not happened, although there is a TCC Board member proposal submitted to the mayor’s office to do so. Version 5 of the TSDO ordinance was released on September 22nd; TCC is in the process of evaluating the revision and the proposed changes. Because this version has just been released, and as of September 29, new information continues to be released, we support continuing the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) public hearing for one more meeting [beyond next week’s October 6, 2025, PZC continued hearing] to allow affected stakeholders to provide input. TCC appreciates changes in the current TSDO ordinance version that appear to be made in response to public comments. These include reduction in areas included in the overlay, reduction of height limits to 40 feet, reduction in lot coverage from 100% to 80%, and reference to design standards being retained. However, there remain significant questions and deficiencies regarding these changes, and other changes not made that need to be addressed. Therefore, the resolution TCC passed September 2nd, opposing the ordinance in its current form and requesting meaningful stakeholder engagement remains unchanged. The public engagement for developing this ordinance and notifying affected residents/ property owners remains significantly inadequate. - Most of the residential parcels within the TSDO have received no public notice of this action, other than seeing one article in the Anchorage Daily News (with no map), notified by their community council or by word of mouth, or happen to know about the TSDO project website; - As written, the overlay essentially rezones the entire area to R-4 or higher residential use with no property owner notification; - The ordinance remains a moving target (Version 1 in July — Version 5 in September), making it difficult to for residents to keep up and understand the changes; - The sponsors and the administration have been meeting with community councils — including attendance at TCC’s September 22nd Land Use Committee meeting, which we very much appreciated. However, there has been no opportunity to sit down with affected housing advocates, property owners, neighborhoods, and community councils as a group to discuss alternative approaches related to the overlay map, proposed use changes, dimensional standards, and adverse effects, such as increased on-street parking and harm to neighborhood scale. There is currently a proposal for inclusive stakeholder engagement that has been submitted to the mayor’s office. Map Changes. While changes to the map have been explained as being closer to the 2040 Anchorage Land Use Plan intent, this does not seem to be completely the case. - All areas south of International Airport Road have now been deleted, even though much of it is clearly in the 2040 Land Use Plan Overlay Maps; - Half of the Rogers Park neighborhood has now been eliminated, which does reflect the 2040 Plan, but raises questions of logic regarding the why the other half should be kept in; - This could easily result in requests to remove other neighborhoods, establish conservation easements, or rely on covenants to restrict development, particularly where it makes no sense to put them in. The map should be revisited with the participation of stakeholders, look at how increased density can be accomplished without impacts to neighborhood scale and congested streets, and how implementation might be phased in certain areas to assess effectiveness and adverse impacts. Revisions to Proposed Uses. Even with the proposed changes in use and separating community/commercial uses in a separate ordinance, many of the higher density residential uses are still inappropriate throughout single/two family neighborhoods, with no requirements for onsite parking, with 80% lot coverage, without any limits on number of units, and vague reference to multi-family design standards. - One alternative to consider is to allow conversion of existing single-family homes into tri-plexes or four-plexes as a use-by-right, helping retirees supplement incomes and first-time home buyers offset the cost of financing; - However, adequate onsite parking should be required and lot coverage should remain at the existing 40% for single family/two family neighborhoods to reduce adverse effects on existing neighborhoods. Anything beyond a 4-plex in single/two family neighborhoods should require a major site plan review or a conditional use. Changes in Dimensional Requirements. - While reduction to a 40-foot height limit is a welcome change, coupled with 80% lot coverage, structures can still be grossly out of scale with existing neighborhoods and impact sunlight access so important to a winter city for existing adjacent homes; - People bought homes in single family/two family neighborhoods, in part because there was zoning district predictability regarding height limits, lot coverage, and setbacks. To suggest that a sunlight easement can be purchased from your neighbor is not practical on a larger scale — and is dismissive of the problem; - Furthermore, even with 80% lot coverage, onsite snow storage is minimized, likely resulting in snow being pushed into the streets (currently illegal) and complicating snow removal by the municipality; - It is difficult to envision what no minimum lot size even means – where would the legality and viability of this be assessed – during the site review, major site review, or conditional use? It would still be likely that some tiny-home owners will have cars, again pushing parking into the streets. No On-Site Parking Requirements. The Assembly eliminated on-site parking requirements in part to avoid requiring an excess of unused onsite parking. However, that action caused adverse effects that initiated snow removal and right of way management studies by the municipality. - To risk putting more cars on the street while saying “don’t worry, good developers will provide onsite parking, or this is a right-of-way management issue” is unconscionable; - At the TSDO presentation at Airport Heights Community Council, participants recited parking, driveway blockage, pedestrian safety, and speeding traffic problems associated with the Fire Island Bakery, that has no onsite parking requirements. In the Turnagain area, inadequate onsite parking for the Rustic Goat created such traffic and safety problems (vehicles spilled onto narrow neighborhood streets to the south 2-3 blocks deep) that an additional off-road parking area was built across the street in what was Municipal parkland; - Why create further neighborhood problems with the promise that they will be addressed at some point in the future? Phased/Targeted Implementation. Comments have been made at several community council meetings that there are large parcels of apparently vacant land that should be pursued for housing development before enacting the area wide changes proposed under the TSDO ordinance. Some of these parcels may be appropriately zoned for multi-story/multi-family housing development, and may be relatively close to transit corridors. In addition, some community councils are more receptive to supporting TSDO than others. - Before this ordinance is approved in its current form, phased and targeted implementation of TSDO should be adequately assessed as part of a more inclusive stakeholder workshop process; - This would allow seeing if the provisions of TSDO have the desired effect, while avoiding adverse consequences that will have to be addressed retroactively. In conclusion, - A representative group of affected stakeholders should be convened to arrive at solutions for more effective and less impactful implementation of TSDO. This approach is similar to what was done for the revising the Site Access ordinance; - More information is needed to justify statements made by sponsors, such as the existing requirements that would prevent building out to 80% lot coverage, explain what design standards still apply to multifamily housing, and how no minimum lot size would work; - An explanation should be provided for why areas south of International Airport Road were taken out of TSDO, while others, such as the Huntington Park neighborhood in the Turnagain area, remain in. Home ownership is likely the biggest investment that people make in their lives, and they factor in regulatory predictability and the characteristics of their neighborhoods. Most of the home owners within the TSDO are not aware of this ordinance and the potential effects it may have on their property. A thoughtful approach, including application of design standards and incorporating an appropriate review process can accommodate both increased housing density/mixed use while maintaining neighborhood scale and avoid adverse neighborhood impacts. Inclusive community engagement and dialogue bring people together to understand perspectives, discuss alternative solutions, and build community consensus. Phased implementation targets the areas where TSDO will be more effective, without increasing avoidable adverse effects. This should happen before approving PZC 2025-0030 and PZC 2025-0034. Thank you very much for your consideration. | |
| C Mendenhall | 10/2/2025 10:51:50 PM |
| I support the concept of a Transit Supportive Development Overlay. The Spenard Corridor Plan and the Mt View Neighborhood Plans, as well as the East and West District Plans (all elements of our Comp Plan) outline areas for mixed-use residential consistent with the intentions of the 2040 LUP and 2020 Comp Plan. BUT THE PROPOSALS 2025-0030,-0035 and XXX ARE GOOFY. 1. PUBLIC NOTICE: The Muni needed to follow full public notice requirements. 21.03.160L for posting and community council notice applies only to zoning changes (not Comp Plan amendments) that are consistent with the Comp Plan, w/ no risk to health safety and w/ no conflicts to existing code, regs, ordinances. 0030 requires a comp plan amendment; we have DOT-PF expressing concerns about safety (and the need to replat w/ zoning changes); there is 21.03.160J.3 regarding Overlays yet there is the XXX; take a look at 21.03.130 Neighborhoods & District Plans, and 21.03.160G Flexibility, not to mention the narratives, priorities, action items of the Comp Plan and elements. Public Notice is core to public trust. 2. DENSITY. The proposed blanket change from 8 dwelling units/acre to 25 units/acre cite FTA0057, St Paul and CT reports as support. Each of these reports provide density requirements within a context; they range from 5 to 100+ units/acre; and provide best practices that include elements here omitted, such as design standards, phased implementation, and public-private partnerships, but which are in our Comp Plan. The reports are worth reviewing. It would be great to see our District and Neighborhood plans implemented, not this blanket one-size-fits-all approach. 3. TSD MAP. This is very squirrelly. First, the 2020 Comp Plan narratives delegate further TSD definition to district and neighborhood plans. These have maps with density and multi-use targets. It seems from comments made in public meetings that rather than do the detailed work required for implementing the plans, the Administration drew these maps just as one blanket area (YouTube 3/18/25 Work Session AO 2025-0035 (time: 22:50 - 23:30). Second: even taking away the flawed process above, the first TSDO (Tax Incentive Map) included areas outside of the TSD corridors. The new map does not include all along the TSD corridors. (And what is the origin of the "2040 LUP" TSDO map on the TSDO web page?) 4. DESIGN STANDARD EXEMPTIONS -- Are they in or out? Seems a bit deceptive to say the revised TSDO returns design standards. There is the Tax Incentive which does exempt 8+ units from design standards. 5. L1 LANDSCAPING/SETBACKS/LOT SIZES: Blanket application is inconsistent with the Comp Plan. Further, given the department responses for the proposed H.O.M.E rezone, it is odd that there are no department concerns -- particularly given the parking change. There are no concurrent capital plans for creating walkability and open spaces required in the Comp Plan, critical with increased density. We have the great implementations in North Spenard as a model. 6. COMP PLAN AMENDMENTS - First, the State gave us the right to be a Muni, and a condition is to have a Comp Plan. We are overdue with the 2020 re-write. The last Target Plan (2040 LUP) is up in couple years, too. As it is, I think the PLZ and Assembly would be hard pressed to meet all five criteria in 21.03.070. 7. It is deceptive to say this TSDO will be a major help in addressing our housing challenges -- affordable housing for our "missing middle" Builders will enjoy the changes, but that is not what they have asked for (check out recorded Assembly work sessions and offsites): the barriers the Muni needs to address are delays, high permitting costs, outdated and burdensome design rules. It has limited impact on the biggest challenges: interest rates, available work force, and higher material-, utility- and insurance costs, and housing that is off the market due to short-term rentals. This one-size-fits-all zoning change doesn't fix the underlying issues, but certainly risks having a negative impact on some of our challenged neighborhoods, where builders don't have the incentives to build attractive, quality housing. Bottomline: The concept of TSD is great. Our communities have consistently supported it in all of our Comp Plan elements. But these proposed ordinances misuse studies, bypass legal process, and contradict Anchorage’s adopted plans. The approach is eroding public trust. It has short-circuit community-driven planning. Real solutions must come through a proper Comprehensive Plan update—transparent, lawful, and built with full community input. | |
| S. Rabinowitch & E. Barry | 10/2/2025 3:58:35 PM |
| We have followed the evolution of the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO), case # 2025-0030 since we heard about it from a neighbor in August. There are now five versions of the ordinance, totaling over 130 pages of ordinance to review and figure out what is current. We attended the September Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) meeting, the September Turnagain Community Council (TCC) meeting, as well as a land-use committee meeting of TCC to learn about the proposal. No one from the municipality has spoken at a regular monthly meeting of TCC, despite the implication on the TSDO website that this has occurred. We support efforts to build more housing in Anchorage. The majority of the effort should be focused on affordable housing, not just more housing anywhere. We do not believe that just eliminating a multitude of requirements will result in more housing being built. We have talked with people with experience in related fields of expertise including a builder, a real estate agent and others in the design and build community; none believe this is a pathway to productively creating more housing in Anchorage. Our experience is that when building codes were far more lax, many buildings were poorly constructed and called T-111 boxes. We live with much of that built environment now even though it was decades ago. TSDO could result in much of the same as we currently understand version 5. Many people have said, “oh they won’t do that.” That comment is a failure to grasp Anchorage’s development history. Much of our housing shortage has to do with the pandemic, the costs of labor, and building materials, shipping costs, and inflation, things the city has little control over. Additionally, as you are hearing from more and more people, the public roll-out of this effort is severely lacking. First rolled out in the summer when TCC and other community councils are on summer recess was poor timing and scheduling it for the PZC on July 14, with no notice to affected property owners, is inadequate public process even if it is now technically legal. There has been no broad public announcement by the Municipality to make these TSDO zoning changes known to the 30,000 plus property owners affected by the earlier versions of the ordinance. This is in part why some people are angry and speaking out against it. This leads not to community building, but rather to community division, and the recent decision to separate out proposed commercial uses in TSDO to a separate ordinance further erodes public trust in this process and proposal. You have received numerous comments addressing a number of likely consequences of various versions of the ordinance: snowplowing/storage/hauling, trash management/pickup, lack of on-site parking requirements which will result in fully parked up streets, shading of homes thereby eliminating existing daylight due to newly allowed building heights, and more. For example, our street, if fully parked up today can hold about 50 cars; if built out to version 5 ordinance standards we would expect to see 117 cars parked on the street, based on the stated goal of 36 residential units per acre (section 21.04.070 (D) (1)) and the multiplier of 1 car per housing unit. Being told that the municipality will deal with such parking issues later is not a satisfactory answer. Will our streets be safer? We have no sidewalks so we question how this will make our neighborhood more walkable and where the extra 60+ cars will go each night. If much of our neighborhood is built out to this standard, several hundred cars per night will fill adjacent neighboring streets. We do not need to bring such problems upon ourselves. If TSDO goes forward, it should be further scaled back geographically, focused on areas within 1/4 mile of high frequency transit routes with vacant and underused lands. See what works and expand the geography based upon success and need, not unrealistic goals. Next, the municipality should put significant energy into working with groups like the Cook Inlet Housing Authority and others who have actually built good examples of needed housing and development. Lastly, the TSDO standard is ¼ mile from a high-frequency bus route according to many municipal documents: The 2020 Comprehensive plan, Ch 4, p. 55 says “Therefore, land use policies that establish higher residential densities within one-fourth mile of the major street at the center of the transit corridor are encouraged.” (Emphasis added.) The 2040 Land Use plan (p.46 Anchorage Planning Atlas, Section 4 “Role of this Map in the 2040 LUP”) says that the TSDO “are areas within ¼ mile from high frequency transit routes….” (Emphasis added.) The recent fact sheet handed out by the municipality and posted on the TSDO webpage titled “TSDO for Anchorage” says “This map shows where the TSDO would apply: Areas within 1/4 mile of high-frequency and high-ridership bus routes.” (Emphasis added.) In west Anchorage, within TCC boundaries the Huntington Park neighborhood and an area south of Benson still included in the TSDO map do not meet this standard. The nearest corner on Northern Lights Blvd to Minnesota Blvd./Benson Blvd is further than 1/4 mile and the bus stops even more hundreds of feet away from Huntington Park; thus this area should be eliminated from the TSDO. Thank you for consideration of our comments, Sandy Rabinowitch & Elizabeth Barry | |
| Jesse Janssen | 9/29/2025 12:48:03 PM |
| I fully support the TSDO in its July 2025 version. The most recent version (V5) appears to have eliminated anything south of Tudor Rd. Why? The areas previously included in the map along Jewel Lake, Old Seward and Lake Otis are prime areas that can benefit from this ordinance. I am a lifelong Alaskan (44-years). I spent 20+ years in Banking and Finance and currently own/operate about 200 apartments here in Anchorage. In 2024 we built 15 units in Eagle River and in 2025 we built a six unit building here in Anchorage. I can speak firsthand to the laborious permitting process. I can tell you that we will not likely ever build a smaller apartment building again because the process and build requirements, paired with cost of construction make it a losing venture from an ROI standpoint. I am sure this is a sediment echoed form the bigger developers. We have plans already created for a 39-unit development off of Dimond Blvd in an area that was previously included in the July version of the overlay map but was removed in the most recent version of the map. This is an infill project on land we already own that was planned to start in 2026. Considering all economic factors, I can say that this ordinance is likely a make it or break it for future projects for us going forward. As apartment operators we have the desire to bring newer higher quality to units to market that desperately needs housing but need an ordinance like this to make the project and associated risk viable. As is very common in government, a plan is created to accomplish a need to serve the greater good of a city. Then, as all the voices get heard, that plan gets diluted down to the point it is no longer impactful. Let's not let that happen with the proposal. We all want to keep our youth and young professionals in Anchorage. We all want rent prices to be more affordable. This is the only play on the table right now. I fully support V4 of the ordinance | |
| Chelsey Mandell | 9/29/2025 12:01:36 PM |
| Local officials and leaders: Thank you for your work to make Anchorage a more walkable, livable, and vibrant city through TSDO. I strongly support TSDO—not only because I enjoy walkable neighborhoods, believe everyone deserves a home, and want to see local businesses thrive, but also because zoning changes are essential for our city’s future. Like every neighbor I know, I want Anchorage to solve homelessness. Even though TSDO is not designed to reduce homelessness, decades of research and experiences make one thing clear: without policies that expand housing opportunities, Anchorage will not end homelessness. TSDO alone will not impact homelessness, but without reforms like TSDO that minimize unnecessary restrictions, we will not even have a real chance to make progress. When cities create the conditions for more housing opportunities, fewer people lose their homes—and when they do, they are far less likely to end up on the streets, in cars, or doubled up on couches. Additionally, as an Anchorage resident, I want public officials who are committed to the future. Many of the strategies in TSDO have been part of Anchorage plans since at least 2017, and leaders focused on livable communities have been making zoning recommendations for even longer. Yet in 2025, we are still debating whether to allow modest building flexibility near transit, whether the public engagement process was extensive enough, and whether neighborhoods can be “charming” while also welcoming new neighbors and businesses. To me, that shows many of our conversations are focused on preserving a status quo that has not worked for thousands of Alaskans, rather than imagining a future that could. Feedback can strengthen implementation of any policy, and I appreciate the opportunities for public comment throughout this process. At the same time, I hope you will remain focused on the responsibility to move forward, even when it requires openness and imagination from all of us. Policies like TSDO do not produce immediate results, and I imagine that makes your role challenging. But without steps like TSDO, we risk having the same conversation years from now with the next person in your position (and the next and the next), all while more people struggle to make a life in this city. Please stay the course on TSDO. And more importantly, please find a way to build interest and momentum for even deeper ways to create a vibrant and affordable Anchorage, because with or without TSDO, there is still a lot of work to do. Thank you for your leadership and service. | |
| Tim Hinterberger | 9/29/2025 11:55:53 AM |
| As a homeowner in a part of the city affected by the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay proposal, I am writing to express my strong support for adoption of the current version. | |
| Joshua McHoes | 9/27/2025 8:50:11 AM |
| I support the intent of the Transit Supportive Development Overlay. Anchorage needs more housing and allowing property owners greater flexibility is a step in the right direction. But the city is still holding back with unnecessary restrictions. I speak from multiple perspectives. I have worked in the trades all over Alaska. I rent in Anchorage and see firsthand how limited supply drives up costs. I have been employed as a property manager and dealt daily with the practical challenges of housing. And as a graduate of UAA in political science and economics with a focus on Alaska, I study how these policies affect growth across our state. In my experience, Anchorage’s permitting and zoning codes add unnecessary delays and costs. You often need permits just to do maintenance on your own home. Contractors I know have told me they avoid working in Anchorage altogether because of this burden. I have also heard of businesses that begin building here only to abandon the project midway because the permitting process drags them down. This is not an isolated issue. It is a holistic problem that discourages investment, strangles supply, and drives growth to places like Wasilla where the rules are simpler and more predictable. Anchorage should encourage as built construction. Allowing additions and modifications without endless permitting hurdles would reduce costs, speed up projects, and stimulate the local economy. Every inspection, delay, and layer of paperwork is a tax on growth that pushes families and businesses to invest elsewhere. On top of that, the 40 foot height limit in the TSDO is an arbitrary ceiling. The only real restriction should be what federal airspace rules already allow. If the FAA says it is safe, the city should not say otherwise. Aligning height limits with FAA standards would unleash real housing supply, let the market determine what makes sense, and make Anchorage competitive. As someone who has built under these rules, rented under them, managed property under them, and studies their impacts, I can say with confidence that Anchorage’s zoning code is strangling growth. The TSDO is a step forward, but to truly solve our housing problem we need deeper reform. Remove arbitrary caps, cut unnecessary permit requirements, and trust property owners. Anchorage’s future depends on it. | |
| Maribeth Brown | 9/26/2025 9:30:17 PM |
| Lack of land in the Anchorage Bowl is of concern to the housing shortage. I drive around town and notice two more new hotels going up on C Street... which may have very limited occupancy 8 months of the year... and an overabundance of new car washes all over town, and condo garages popping up around the city. Limit these types of excessive development and make better use of the land for housing. | |
| Nantia | 9/26/2025 3:47:19 PM |
| If the goal is to increase affordable housing, then reduce the number of permits for anything else and offer financial incentive and a virtual procedure that is very simple for building these types of units. Offer municipal land at a discount. Remember, the function of public administration is to simply create a channel that brings more benefit to everyone while hurting the fewest amount of people. And just include things like tax breaks and reduce utility fees or anything that reduces the overhead for contractors that will build what is needed.. it doesn’t have to be so complicated as long as there’s no distracting i energies that are trying to gain without providing the service | |
| David Wigglesworth | 9/24/2025 10:39:54 AM |
| Please make the map of the TSDO Area as Proposed in September 2025 interactive. It's currently a static document or at least I can't figure out how to make it active. Also, please allow access to a more robust list of additional data layers , including geotech, impervious surface, etc, so we can visualize relationships with the TSDO boundary. Also, please add to the TSDO website information and access to materials and meeting times for the working group addressing Design Standards. Thank you. | |
| Marilyn Maxwell | 9/17/2025 4:06:37 PM |
| I feel betrayed by my local government officials. Although I recognize the need for more housing in Anchorage, I am opposed to the current TSDO plan as presented for the following reasons: - No formal notification was provided to the community and most importantly, the affected property owners, - The timeline is rushed with little time for community input, - The TSDO would drastically change the characteristics of the impacted neighborhoods, which then impacts desirability and property values, - The proposed change in build up is unclear as what will be allowed and where within each neighborhood, - The lack of onsite parking requirement will create traffic congestion, especially in the winter, block access for emergency vehicles, and likely limit trash pick up, - The building height, lot coverage and number of unit allowances are especially concerning, - The 9/2 TSDO information meeting stated that neighborhood covenants will overrule anything in the TSDO. Is the MOA prepared to enforce the Huntington Park covenants? Are they aware of our land use covenants? Will it be up to individual property owners to enforce, i.e., carry the burden and expense of law suits, etc. if existing covenants are not followed? Many community members have only recently become aware of the TSDO proposal. The entire project needs to slow down, with a reasonable timeline that involves community input. Our community deserves to have a voice in the process. | |
| Richard | 9/9/2025 8:02:56 AM |
| 1. Why not apply this to the entire city? This would seem more equitable. 2. Why exclude industrial property? | |
| Melissa Syphus | 9/8/2025 10:00:42 AM |
| I am strongly in support of the TSDO as it is written. Anchorage is in dire need of more affordable housing infrastructure, and increased access to public transportation. I have lived here for 20 years. When I moved here in my mid-20's to attend UAA, I was not able to easily navigate the city on foot or by bus. Sidewalks were either not plowed in winter, or were non-existent. I would often have to walk in the snowy streets in high traffic areas to get groceries or walk to the nearest bus stop. I often had to take a cab when other methods of transportation were not available to me. These issues are still present in the Municipality today, and I believe that the TSDO will address these problems and be a great benefit to our community. | |
| Clay Davis | 9/7/2025 5:20:36 PM |
| I support the TSDO in its current form and would like to see higher building heights, reduced parking requirements, and smaller minimum lot sizes than what is currently planned. I see the majority of commenters appear to be current home-owning Anchorage residents. While their perspective is valuable, I'd like to speak for the thousands of people who would benefit from the TSDO. My wife and I moved to Anchorage a few months ago and were hoping to buy a house to make a long term home here. We were disappointed by Anchorage's lack of walkable areas and were priced out of buying in the few neighborhoods that offered amenities within walking distance. Anchorage desperately needs higher density housing to provide options for younger people moving to the area and new families just starting out. Smaller lots and higher buildings provide this denser housing that would ease pressure on high housing costs in Anchorage. Furthermore, I'm shocked people are pushing back on eased parking requirements. To anyone who has been to thriving small cities elsewhere, Anchorage is a town of empty parking lots. Much of downtown is empty parking lots to say nothing of the countless empty lots outside businesses spaces in midtown. Street parking is largely untapped and the empty lots detract from the character of the town. Lastly, Anchorage has the potential to be a world class city. Access to the outdoors is unmatched and the town has rich character. However, the built environment of Anchorage leaves a lot to be desired. Increasing density would allow new talent to come to the city and provide areas for new coffeeshops, restaurants, and places for people to gather. The TSDO will no doubt face efforts to delay it or halt it from those who already have a secure place in Anchorage. But upzoning efforts like this are not made for them - they are made for our children and grandchildren who deserve an Anchorage with affordable homes, walkable streets, and a vibrant economic and social life. Please do not delay the TSDO and please continue working to make Anchorage a better place. | |
| Sharon Stockard | 9/7/2025 3:48:19 PM |
| I am strongly opposed to the TSDO as currently proposed. The city has done a poor job of informing the public of this ordinance and its consequences – which are significant for the thousands of people who live within the proposed overlay. TSDO is a massive zoning change that is counter to our adopted comprehensive and land use plans; it would negatively affect our long-established neighborhoods because of the increased building heights, small setbacks, commercial uses, and larger lot coverage that could block sunlight and be out of scale with existing structures. The higher housing density and commercial uses – along with the associated on-street parking and increased traffic on residential streets that were not built for such uses – would negatively affect vehicle safety, pedestrian safety, and snow removal. TSDO would permit new non-resident uses, including commercial uses, in residential neighborhoods without requiring off-street parking. For example, in my neighborhood, I have watched a small bakery morph into a much bigger commercial business that dumps its customer parking onto residential streets. Neighbors put up orange cones to maintain access to their driveways because of the increase in on-street parking – reminiscent of the Rustic Goat in West Anchorage years ago. There has been significant backlash as word has spread about TSDO. It should not be forced onto communities without overwhelming support from those neighborhoods. TSDO should be paused indefinitely. In the meantime: • The city should provide demographic and land use data that show today’s residential densities and access to transit, and compare those numbers to national data. • The city should calculate the number of housing units needed to bring TSDO to transit-supportive thresholds of 36 DUA and the proposed 35 DUA. A timeline should be provided for when those DUAs would be produced considering Anchorage’s current economy. Only neighborhoods overwhelming in favor of TSDO should be included. • The city should look at why Anchorage has not yet developed a single small urban neighborhood with a cluster of apartment buildings, coffee shops and amenities, served by frequent transit, in the 25 years since Anchorage 2020 endorsed this concept. • The city should look at the design and scale of infrastructure that makes highly desirable urban neighborhoods feasible in other cities. The LaFrance administration should change its approach to TSDO; otherwise it risks losing credibility with the public in terms of its ability to achieve its housing, transit and walkability goals; its failure to consider a declining population; its departure from key Anchorage 2020 and 2040 goals; a biased and exclusionary public review process; its failure to inform residents, homeowners and other taxpayers of future property appraisals and tax consequences; its failure to produce fundamental data about current densities, DUAs needed to achieve the target densities, and impacts on livability; the near-term degradation to single- and two-family neighborhoods in terms of shadowing, street safety (on-street parking), broad commercial uses, green space, and reducing the proportion of homeowners; and the near-term loss of faith with housing advocates who expect TSDO to be a panacea to bringing down housing costs. The city should invest the time and energy to conduct timely, meaningful, and professionally managed public involvement processes to achieve public support and a vision for Anchorage we can all get behind. The city should reinstate the two staff positions in Long Range Planning that were eliminated during the Berkowitz administration. Money is better spent there than on the inflation of the Assembly budget that we have seen the past three years. The Planning Department should identify one or two model locations for compact, walkable infill, following the principles of “Strong Towns”: act incrementally, act in neighborhoods where there is strong support and energy for change; do a rapidly achievable project first; assess results; and use feedback to move to the next project. | |
| Anonymous in South Addition | 9/6/2025 8:20:55 AM |
| I support the concept of improving housing stock and making Anchorage more walkable. However, a blanket rezone of well-established neighborhoods with strong community and character on top of a declining population makes zero sense. While it’s beyond the scope of this project, the focus should be on improving existing pedestrian infrastructure along corridors (i.e. wider sidewalks, safer crossings at intersections) and adding infrastructure that supports pedestrian safety where it doesn’t exist. With respect to the Transit Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO), I disagree with the proposed solution for several reasons. One, the public process for the proposed rezone is nebulous at best. Introducing a city-wide, blanket rezone through the TSDO process with limited time for public input appears to be a way to circumvent a robust public process informed by those that built and thrive in the communities defined by the specific character of their neighborhood. Two, it’s unclear to me who receives the tax abatement. Is it all properties within the TSDO? New developments only within the TSDO? What empirical evidence exists to support of a blanket rezone? For example, what percentage of the Anchorage population has expressed the desire to live in a specific part of town and use mass transit? I personally don’t feel safe taking mass transit. Four, the rezone could dramatically change the character of well-established neighborhoods and the communities within those neighborhoods. I don’t necessarily have issue with the proposed TSDO, but a more reasonable approach would be to establish different criteria for the distinct communities within the TSDO. For example, a six-story multi-family housing unit may be appropriate for midtown or downtown proper, but not necessarily for South Addition or Rogers Park. | |
| Barbara Baker | 9/5/2025 1:39:16 PM |
| I do not support the Transit Supportive Development Overlay (TSDO) Ordinances for reasons outlined in the resolution passed by the Rogers Park Community Council on August 25, 2025. It is a major rework of the Comprehensive Plan without the public discourse. Its significant impact on residential neighborhoods throughout the municipality deserves greater dialogue than can be achieved at the Planning and Zoning Commission level. The numerous revisions occurring since the last P&Z meeting is an indication of the inadequacy of the process. As the public becomes better informed of potential consequences to their neighborhoods: reshaping them from single family to high density, changing design standards, increasing burdens of traffic, bringing in commercial and other usages under the guise of more efficient usage of public transit is absurd. TSDO is a part of the Comprehensive Plan but not the driver, as these ordinances seem to direct. It is time to take pause on these proposed ordinances and return them to the Planning Department for a more robust public process. Anchorage's need of affordable housing should not sacrifice thriving neighborhoods, but enhance them. | |
| Jon Isaacs | 9/5/2025 1:02:51 PM |
| Testimony of Jon Isaacs, Turnagain Resident on Transit Supported Development Overlay Planning and Zoning Cases 2025-0030 and 0034 I am a resident of Turnagain area, on the Board of Turnagain Community Council (TCC), and Co-Chair of the Land Use Committee. I am submitting this testimony on behalf of myself and a homeowner immediately adjacent to the Transit Supported (TSDO) boundary. 1. I support the concept of implementing the TSDO ordinance a. I am sensitive to the need to develop more housing for Anchorage and wants to see successful progress, including engaging the community to help develop solutions compatible between new development and existing development, and that this will require a study and decision timeline beyond the end of this year 2. I support request to extend public hearing through the second October PZC meeting a. PZC 2025-00303 and 0034 were introduced in mid-July when most community Councils were in summer recess b. Community Councils will be meeting throughout month of September, including four during the last week and need time to prepare and ratify comments c. The 4th version of this ordinance was released on September 3rd, with not enough time for the TCC board to review, prepare comments, and submit formal testimony. We will have to do so on our October 2nd meeting. 3. The public engagement for developing this ordinance remains significantly inadequate a. There are 30,000 residential parcels within the TSDO who have received no public notice of this action, other seeing the article in the paper, notified by their community council or by word of mouth. b. As written the overlay essentially rezone the overlay area to R-4 mixed use with no property owner notification c. The ordinance remains a moving target. Making it difficult to for residents to keep up and understand the changes d. While the sponsors and the administration have been meeting with stakeholders. There has been no effort to sit down with affected property owners, neighborhoods, and community councils to discuss alternative approaches related to the overlay map, proposed use changes, dimensional standards, and adverse effects such as increased on street park and harm to neighborhood scale 4. The map should be revisited with the participation of stakeholders, look at how increased density can be graduated back from major transit routes, and how implementation might be phased in certain areas to assess effective ness and adverse impacts. 5. Even with the proposed changes in use and separating commercial uses in a separate ordinance, which seems slight of hand, many are still inappropriate for R1/R2 neighborhoods, at a minimum requiring conditional use 6. Even with the proposed changes in dimensional standards, many are still inappropriate for R1/R2 neighborhoods impacting sunlight, increasing on street storage, snow removal and creating pedestrian and public safety issues 7. Finally, why are we rezoning r2m to b3 when we want to create more multi-family housing? | |
| David Evans | 9/5/2025 12:55:22 PM |
| I am not opposed to a TSDO that is developed with balanced public input and follows adopted plans. The current TSDO fails on both counts and should be postponed indefinitely. While advertising the August 25 RPCC special meeting on the TSDO by distributing fliers, I and others personally encountered over thirty homeowners. Two had heard of the TSDO, but none were aware of the incredibly impactful proposed changes, and none were aware of the July 14 PZC hearing. That indicates a woefully inadequate community engagement process. Cost of notice is not an excuse for due public process for an action as impactful as this, and it is not appropriate to primarily rely on volunteers (such as community councils or me) to spread the word. Prior to a PZC hearing on land use changes of this magnitude, the city has an ethical obligation, if not a legal one, to inform every affected landowner and include them in the “conversation,” in a comprehensive community engagement process. TSDO development should be put on hold until that important work has been done. One of the TSDO ordinances will amend the currently adopted versions of Anchorage’s land use planning documents, so that they are in line with the proposed TSDO. That is backwards. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Plans should be revised first, and not in parallel with the TSDO, with sufficient time for open and robust public discussion. That is another reason the TSDO process should be postponed indefinitely. After TSDO development re-starts, rather than applying the revised uses, dimensional standards, and other aspects across the currently proposed overlay area, do the following: • Start with existing multi-family zones (not R-1/2) and, especially, where district plans support higher densities. • Look winter cities of comparable size with successful transit/land-use policies for guidance. • Take a year or five and see if this encourages more density/mixed use; then look at intended and unintended consequences. • Only then, with lessons learned, consider including or phasing in additional neighborhoods. Thank you, Dave Evans, Anchorage | |
| Cathy L. Gleason | 9/5/2025 12:54:51 PM |
| TURNAGAIN COMMUNITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 2025-09-04 Regarding the Transit Supported Development Overlay Reference PZC Cases #2025-0030 and #2025-0034 WHEREAS, TCC is sensitive to the need to develop more housing for Anchorage and wants to see successful progress, including engaging the community to help develop solutions compatible between new development and existing development, and that this will require a study and decision timeline beyond the end of this year; WHEREAS, the Turnagain Community Council (TCC) Board only learned about this proposed ordinance when it was listed for a public hearing in the July 14, 2025, Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) agenda, introduced when most community councils, including TCC, have a summer recess, and had no input into crafting the proposed TSDO ordinance and Zoning Overlay map; WHEREAS, portions of the TCC area are within the TSDO, including neighborhoods off of West Northern Lights Blvd, Spenard Road and Wisconsin Ave.; WHEREAS, TCC has direct experience with the intended and unintended consequences of permitting mixed use in a residential neighborhood along a major road (the Rustic Goat Restaurant, creating excess parking demand and traffic and pedestrian safety issues that had to be resolved through a second off-road parking lot in what was Municipal parkland); WHEREAS, TSDO as currently written is a defacto large scale zoning change without a requirement for any public notice to community councils or affected adjacent property owners (nearly 30,000 residentially zoned lots under the TSDO), is counter to our adopted West Anchorage District Plan, and would adversely affect our long-established residential neighborhoods by: 1. Increasing height limits and lot coverage, and reducing setbacks and minimum lot size,that harm the scale of established residential neighborhoods; 2. Introducing incompatible uses with no or minimal review standards; and 3. Creating on-street parking demand not designed for most of our residential streets and resulting in traffic, vehicle and pedestrian safety, trash and recycling collection, fire safety, and snow storage/ removal issues; WHEREAS, the PZC is in the process of revising the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan, and the TSDO is a significant implementation action item that goes beyond the direction of those plans and should be discussed as part of revising those plans; and WHEREAS, despite recent, limited efforts to involve more stakeholders other than housing advocates in crafting the ordinance and developing alternative approaches, the process has occurred too quickly and without sufficient time and notice before the September 8th, 2025, PZC meeting for TCC members to fully understand and develop more thoughtful and comprehensive recommendations; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE TCC: I) Strongly opposes the TSDO in its current form due to the lack of an adequate public process and concerns for avoidable land use, scale, road safety, and fiscal impacts to many of our residential neighborhoods; 2) Requests that further action on the TSDO, including PZC deliberation, be postponed until there can be adequate and comprehensive participation, including TCC and all affected stakeholders, and 3) The recommended action in TSDO be coordinated with revision of the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan. THIS RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED by the Turnagain Community Council on September 4, 2025, by a vote of YES – 18 NO – 1. Cathy L. Gleason President Turnagain Community Council | |
| Diana Evans | 9/5/2025 12:54:41 PM |
| INFRASTRUCTURE SUITABILITY Infrastructure suitability is one aspect of these ordinances that hasn’t been examined closely enough, especially for older, low-density neighborhoods (R-1, R-1A, possibly R2?) areas. Density increases in line with the TSDO goals has the possibility of unintended consequences and result in expensive capital outlays and operational impacts to services provided by the MOA. Two stated assumptions by Mayor’s Assistant Chief of Staff, Graham Downey, are not supportable in all areas. He asserted that added density (even to older neighborhoods such as Rogers Park (where I live) would make economic sense, because the utility and road infrastructure is already there. However, can we be sure our water mains were sized for 67% increase in dwelling units per lot in R-1 the proposed ordinances call for 25 DU per acre? The initial oversize capacity was nominally 25% over the per capita usage by the single-family homes at the time the main lines were installed around 1960. Mr. Downey also pointed out, during the FCC Local Lens presentation on September 2nd, that the AWWU had no comment on the proposed ordinances – implying that water supply or sewer line impact for any future density increase is a non-issue. As it turns out, we have a semi-retired water supply specialist friend who has assisted the MOA on several of the AWWU’s water supply master plans, including the update currently underway. His personal observation: it would be impossible for AWWU to comment meaningfully, because the TSDO boundary is so widespread that it would be impossible for AWWU to forecast where the impacts from the ordinances might occur. In other words, there will be no way to plan for the impacts. My neighborhood stormwater flows to Chester Creek. Since moving here 36 years ago, I’ve observed that heavy rainstorms have become more common, resulting in “bank to bank” flows and flooding downstream in the Valley of the Moon residential area and even the low spot of Arctic Boulevard. With the proposed 100% lot coverage (up from the previous 30% when most homes were constructed) these proposed ordinances would allow converting an additional 70% of a lot to impervious surface, which would contribute more stormwater and exacerbate an existing problem. Other infrastructure areas I am concerned with primarily affect the MOA’s and other utilities’ abilities to provide Operations & Maintenance services. These include: • Overhead utility lines running down alleys that supply electric power and often telecommunications to houses (from the back of lot) o Problem: Those lines would interfere with dumpster emptying. How would a 4-story apartment dumpster or multiple cans for smaller multi-family units be emptied in this instance? Note that even if it was aesthetically acceptable to have dumpsters in the front yard ROW or setback, on-street parking would block access and preclude that option. • No requirement for off-parking, despite increasing lack of existing off-street spaces already on some streets within the neighborhood (including some with no sidewalks). o Problem: This destroys “walkability” on streets, where the remaining ROW is suitable for one car traveling in each direction – but no pedestrians or bicyclists. o How is plowing for snow in winter and sweeping to keep curb debris out of the storm sewer system going to be managed, when the street is lined solidly with cars on both sides of the street? • Five-foot setbacks and lot coverage of 100% o Problem: these conditions entice developers to build to the maximum allowable coverage, which eliminates any space that could provide on-site parking, and at the same time would result in inadequate space for garbage service, and maximize the shadow effect on adjacent property owners. Although these questions have been asked, my neighbors and I have not yet received answers from the Administration or the Planning Department. A companion ordinance to TSDO will amend the current versions of overarching MOA planning documents in parallel (the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Use Plan), so it can be claimed that this ordinance is in compliance with those (including the absurd assertion that this ordinance will NOT result in the densities of the Land Use Plan!). This approach is backwards, and is exactly one of the reasons for widespread community opposition to the TSDO. The methodical and comprehensive planning and community engagement that usually occurs for major zoning changes such as the TSDO have been circumvented. The numerous flaws and unintended consequences of this proposed ordinance will wreak havoc on our city and my neighborhood, and I strongly urge you NOT to approve it. Diana Evans (retired engineer) Anchorage resident | |
| Patrice Parker | 9/5/2025 12:09:58 PM |
| I strongly oppose the Transit-Supported Development Overlay (TSDO) and urge that it be tabled until affected neighborhoods receive clear notice and genuine opportunities to participate. Three minutes of public testimony is not meaningful engagement. The Overlay is excessively broad, spread across most of the Anchorage Bowl while excluding South Anchorage and the Hillside. Rather than focusing growth near established transit corridors, it disperses density citywide, undermining the goal of efficient and affordable transit. Equally troubling, the TSDO permits extensive commercial activity within residential neighborhoods, effectively eliminating residential zoning. With no meaningful limits on business types or numbers, it disregards neighborhood identity and resident priorities. The proposed building standards are incompatible with Anchorage’s subarctic environment. Structures up to 75 feet tall could be built next to single-family homes, causing loss of sunlight, shadowing, and diminished solar investment. Officials’ dismissive response to these impacts at a recent Local Lens presentation is unacceptable. Parking is another unresolved issue. With minimums already removed, developers could build large apartment complexes with commercial space and no off-street parking, pushing congestion onto neighborhood streets and undermining true walkability. Finally, the legislative process has eroded public trust. Drafts are developed with for-profit developers behind closed doors, then released at the last minute for hearings scheduled during holidays when residents are least able to participate. AO 2023-103 was heard on December 19, 2023, and the TSDO surfaced during the July 4 holiday before going to Planning & Zoning on July 14, 2025. This pattern appears deliberate and prevents fair public input. For these reasons, I respectfully request that the TSDO be tabled and re-introduced only after meaningful neighborhood involvement and a plan that balances growth with community needs. | |
| Elizabeth Barry | 9/4/2025 3:56:56 PM |
| The underlying goals of this proposal have the potential to help many in Anchorage find convenient and affordable housing. We support that broad goal. However, the public process used to date is a failure. The Planning and Zoning Commission should recognize this fact and table the proposal until the Municipality can bring back a well thought out and publicly reviewed proposal that has engaged a much larger segment of the public, including all Community Councils, and many more of the thousands of property owners who will be personally affected by the proposal as currently constituted. We only learned of the TSDO proposal recently from an informed neighbor. We have invested a significant amount of time reviewing the first version, then a second version and as of yesterday we see a third version has been posted. The public cannot review the full meaning and impacts they might face in so little time. The new Allowed Uses table has still not been posted. The drafts are complicated and lengthy and the public deserves a clear presentation of how this might affect them. Thus, we request that each community council be offered one, if not two presentations with significant time to answer their questions. The point is not to stall this effort, but to make it one that the community can get behind and has a chance to actually succeed. We think the draft proposals fail in that regard. Such dispersed density is unlikely to accomplish the stated goal of mixed use supported by good public transit. It would be much wiser to start with a targeted area near downtown or another transit hub (rather than every poorly served bus stop) to see what developers actually want to build and what works. The potential for unintended consequences in this 29,000+ parcel proposal is huge. Municipal code speaks to overlays being “supplemental” (Municipal Code 21.03.160J) to existing zoning, not rendering the underlying zoning effectively moot and completely rezoning the affected properties. Process matters. Myriad specific issues need addressing: greatly increased density without onsite parking will clog residential streets (see Rustic Goat); snow plowing and removal will be more difficult and costly; garbage and recycling pick up may have to revert back to manual handling (more costly) and/or result in dumpsters in front of many parcels (and in the street because of no alleys or sidewalks); mail delivery will be slowed with streets full of parked cars; streets will be busier and thus less safe, especially without sidewalks; sunlight will be blocked; much of the vegetation in affected neighborhoods will be removed and air quality may decrease; noise will increase; and a number of other issues. We all want housing for everyone, a livable city and a vibrant community. As constituted this proposal simply fails. It assumes if we throw enough housing ideas at the wall as quickly as we can, surely something will work. We can do far better. Please delay consideration of this proposal until the municipality does its homework, fully engages many, many more people in the community and comes forward with a targeted plan with broad community support. Thank you for considering these comments. | |
| Steven Jordan | 9/4/2025 1:03:05 PM |
| September 5, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission Municipality of Anchorage P.O. Box 196650 Anchorage, AK 99519-6650 Dear Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission, Re: Public Comments on PZC Case No. 2025-0030 (Transit-Supportive Development Over- lay) and Case No. 2025-0034 (Comprehensive Plan Amendments) I am writing to provide my thoughts on the proposed Transit-Supportive Development Over- lay (TSDO) as outlined in PZC Cases 2025-0030 and 2025-0034. As a resident and investor familiar with Anchorage’s development landscape, I strongly support the concept of fostering transit-supportive, mixed-use development to address our housing shortage, enhance walkability, and build vibrant communities. This aligns with the goals of the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan and could bring significant economic and social benefits. However, I have several concerns and suggestions to ensure the proposal’s success without unintended negative consequences. Below, I outline my key points, drawing from practical experience and observations of Anchorage (my home) of similar developments that I have invested in and elsewhere. Support for Mixed-Use Development and Community Benefits I enthusiastically endorse the emphasis on mixed-use buildings, which can integrate residential and commercial spaces to foster community cohesion. Developments like Creekview off Muldoon and Trailside off Lake Otis succeed partly due to adjacent commercial areas, but incorporating smaller, community-based stores directly into these projects would am- plify their advantages. This approach creates local jobs, encourages social interactions, and provides convenient access to essential services. Concentrating groceries and key services in a few large stores has disproportionately harmed lower income communities, as seen in North Anchorage. Distributing smaller commercial options within developments could mitigate this. However, I caution that extending the overlay a half-mile from corridors may be too broad, potentially leading to uneven devel- opment and diluting the focus on transit hubs. A more targeted boundary would better support the goal of walkable, self-su?icient neighborhoods. Recommendations for Height, Scaling, and Corridors I support “five-over-one” commercial developments on selected arterials, as they can e?iciently add housing and amenities. However, these should be concentrated at major inter- sections and thoroughfares rather than sprawling along entire corridors to avoid overwhelm- ing neighborhoods. I propose identifying development “pockets” with height scaling: for example, 75 feet on the first block, 55 feet on the second, and 35 feet on the third to create smooth transitions. The current definition of major thoroughfares is overly broad and needs refinement to focus on high impact areas. Based on my understanding of tra?ic patterns and growth poten- tial, the proposed corridors—North–South: Muldoon, Boniface, Bragaw, Lake Otis, Seward Highway, C Street/A Street, Minnesota (Hickel) through to L and I, Jewel Lake; East–West: Commercial/Mountain View, 15th Ave–DeBarr, Northern Lights/Benson, 36th (west of El- more), Tudor, International Airport Rd, Dowling, Dimond to Abbott to Lake Otis, O’Malley to Lake Otis, Huffman (Old Seward to Lake Otis)—are too extensive. I recommend select- ing 3–5 key areas to relax standards, focusing on intersections with the following geographic features: • Intersection of a major thoroughfare • Green space, such as a park or school, within 2,500 feet of the area (½ to 1 mile from the far side of the zone to the park) • Existing bus stops in the area Randomly placing 75-foot towers in neighborhoods does not solve problems; development must be methodical and considerate of implementation. Suggested Construction Requirements Zone 1: (1,000 feet, 0.25 miles) along the arterial alignment, maximum 500 feet from arterial access (2 blocks), 75 feet maximum height In Zone 1, I support residential-over-commercial “five-over-one” developments with a maximum height of 75 feet to maintain neighborhood compatibility. At four units per floor, this yields approximately 20 units over a mixed commercial space (4,000+ square feet). The Municipality should review building standards, such as relaxing double points of egress requirements. At six stories, buildings should include an elevator and staircase. With modern building materials and fire suppression systems, this can be done safely. Zone 2: (1,000–2,000 feet along the arterial alignment, maximum 750 feet from arterial access), 2–3 stories, 55 feet maximum height In Zone 2, I support residential-over-commercial uses with a maximum height of 55 feet. These buildings do not require elevators and can use a central staircase with appropriate fire suppression. Zone 3: Residential standards of 35 feet or as already approved The Municipality must acknowledge that increased density will raise operational and maintenance costs or incorporate these into a reduced taxing scheme to incentivize development. Development Strategy To ensure new or redeveloped residential areas become thriving and safe communities, An- chorage must attract investors and retain residents by providing robust infrastructure and opportunities. I propose a partnership model where the Municipality, potentially through the Anchorage Community Development Authority or People Mover, serves as a commercial tenant for a 20-year term. This longterm lease would incentivize developers by guaranteeing revenue while allowing the city to integrate approximately 1,000 square feet of community- oriented amenities. Below are specific components to address Anchorage’s unique needs, including our harsh winters, diverse population, and public safety challenges. 1. Essential Public Utilities and Hygiene Services Developments should include, at a minimum: • Public bathrooms with sharps containers to address public health concerns, requiring daily maintenance • Clean water fountain for free, accessible drinking water • Dedicated trash services to prevent litter accumulation, requiring daily maintenance These amenities enhance public health, reduce strain on municipal services, and improve neighborhood aesthetics, encouraging local business patronage. 2. Community Information and Resource Hub A centralized hub would connect residents to critical resources, addressing challenges like unemployment and mental health access. Components include: • Public information center with job listings, mental health resources, and community event calendars, potentially using digital kiosks for bus schedules and bulletin boards for updates • Health resource corner with brochures on affordable healthcare and transit directions to clinics • Mini library or book exchange to promote literacy and community interaction 3. Enhanced Public Safety through Community Policing A 10x10 or 10x15-foot o?ice space for a Community-Oriented Policing sub-station would al- low Anchorage Police Department o?icers to use the development as a patrol stop, increasing presence, deterring crime, and building trust. 4. Family-Friendly and Winter-Ready Amenities An indoor play area for children aged 2–7, with seating for guardians, would provide a safe, heated space for families, promoting transit use and community interaction. 5. Revenue-Generating Features for Sustainability To ensure financial viability, developments could include: • Mail lockers/room for residents and nearby community members, with potential user fees • Leased vending machine spaces (4–6 units) for snacks, beverages, or essentials These features create a self-sustaining model, reducing reliance on taxpayer funds and addressing local issues like package theft. Concerns with 100% Lot Coverage and Practical Implementation Allowing 100% lot coverage on arterials could create operational challenges that undermine the proposal’s goals. Essential services must be considered: • Refuse and Services: Without setbacks or alleys for dumpsters, waste management could become chaotic. Buildings need dedicated service access to avoid health and aesthetic issues. • Commercial Vehicle Services: Delivery access for restaurants and shops is critical. • Snow Removal: Dense developments must include plans for snow storage and removal to manage costs effectively. • Parking: Anchorage remains car-dependent, and ignoring this will lead to spillover problems. Su?icient nearby parking is essential, potentially through shared lots or reduced on-site requirements. Municipal resources should prioritize clearing walkways and bike paths in these areas. Flaws in Current Code and Need for Practical Design Standards Certain municipal code aspects, such as mixed-use façade requirements, add unnecessary costs without meaningful benefits. For example, in Eagle River near Grand Canyon Loop and Conquistador Drive, structures are often townhouses disguised to meet aesthetic rules, which is impractical and expensive. Developments should reflect their true purpose without artificial mandates. Transitions between zones are crucial to minimize impacts on adjacent single-family homes, using scaled building heights. Additionally, prioritizing park access is essential for children in denser areas to prevent safety issues. I have reservations about very small homes, as they can deteriorate if not regulated properly. Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are preferable, leveraging existing infrastructure without compromising building standards. Economic and Social Barriers to Investment From an investor’s perspective, the TSDO has potential, but underlying issues deter capital. In 2018, a team I worked with evaluated a mixed-use project at 36th and Spenard but opted for a similar project in Salt Lake City due to high construction costs and low returns. Rising property and violent crime, open-air drug markets, unchecked squatting, and limited law enforcement response create a sense of helplessness. The Anchorage Police Department’s lack of public reporting on certain statistics further erodes investor confidence. The Commission must coordinate with public safety stakeholders to ensure these areas remain attractive for investment. The TSDO has tremendous potential to revitalize Anchorage by promoting mixed-use, transit oriented growth. With refinements to boundaries, scaling, and practical consider- ations like safety and services, it can create thriving, inclusive communities. I appreciate the Commission’s efforts and urge you to incorporate these suggestions for a more effective outcome. Sincerely, Steven A. Jordan | |
| Lois Epstein | 9/3/2025 6:40:19 PM |
| I like increasing density in areas near transit. The details matter, however, so the proposed map will have to be revised. In South Addition, some areas near the L/MN Drive bus route have no way to access L/MN Drive without walking a long distance (for topography and high speed reasons, there’s no access to MN Drive except via 13th). See the lower oval on the map I submitted to the Planning Dept.. Second, why is the area near L St. between 10th, 11th, and south not part of the TDSO overlay? L St. is a bus route and this is a prime area for higher density. See the upper oval on the submitted map. | |
| Bob Butera | 9/3/2025 2:21:02 AM |
| The Transit Supportive Development Overlay Ordinance (TSDO) is a major rezone of a large swath of residential neighborhoods. It does not follow adopted plans, is flawed, divisive, and is being moved forward with a shoddy public process. Does not follow adopted plans - Both Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan (2040 LUP) suggested Transit Supportive-Development, but succinctly stated: “The exact boundaries will be determined through corridor studies and coordination with residents, businesses and property owners”. The 2040 LUP also stated: “Future development is encouraged to be generally in the range of 8 to 20 housing units per acre over the entire corridor. However, individual parts of the corridor, such as existing single-family and two-family neighborhoods may have less density”. The 2040 LUP further stated: “Transit Supported Development is consistent with the density ranges of the underlying land use Designations shown on the Land Use Plan Map. It does not raise density ranges above the Designations.” TSDO does not follow any of this guidance. Guidance that was developed through robust public discussion. Flawed - The goal is housing. The 2040 LUP stated: "Achieving compact infill and development requires that the Municipality identify the most appropriate areas that can absorb more intensive use and compact housing and ensure that infrastructure can serve identified sites and support projects that catalyze other developments.” TSDO does none of this. It identifies appropriate areas using a map that was developed for a different purpose, it has not examined infrastructure, and piecemeal projects do not catalyze other developments. This ordinance needs to thoughtfully address questions like the following: A collector street typically does not have on street parking, if a 5 story multifamily and commercial building is allowed on that street, where will the tenants/customers park? There are separation distances between utilities and buildings, where will this create unforeseen problems? Without design standards, what will prevent the building of poor quality housing that degrades the very neighborhoods we are trying to make more livable? Why do the presentations show only the choicest examples from other places? And conversely, if these choice examples are constructed, how will this create affordable housing? Without strong limitations on commercial, why should we expect bakeries instead of 7-elevens? Walk-up businesses instead of businesses that generate high vehical traffic? We have already done much in the R1 zones; we have removed on-site parking requirements, allowed duplexes, and triplexes, (when you include an ADU). When those changes unfold are we already at the limit of roadway parking capacity and ability to clear snow? Divisive - Many of the provisions of TSDO, such as lot coverage, building height and lack of design standards are damaging to residential neighborhoods where these changes are proposed. We need both multi-family housing and solid, thriving, single-family neighborhoods. TSDO in its present form compromises both. By encompassing all of Midtown, Downtown, and East Anchorage, TSDO is too sprawling to produce compact, efficient infill. It would be far better to focus on the neighborhood centers envisioned in our 2020 Comp Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan, and not damaging the places that are already thriving. The TSDO boundary matches the recently approved Multifamily Tax Incentive’s boundary. The multifamily tax incentive boundary was developed with little public process and should not be used for TSDO. The TSDO boundary should be tailored to its needs and to follow adopted plans. If the desire is to match map boundaries, the multifamily tax incentive map can be revised later. Shoddy Public Process - For such a significant rezone, the public process for this ordinance is the worst I have seen in Anchorage. The public is just beginning to know about this and from what I have seen is angry. Proponents have stated that because they said that they were going to work to create housing, that was sufficient public notice. Proponents have misrepresented the comments of community councils. When proponents are flippant with the public they quickly lose credibility. This ordinance is still undergoing revisions, the public has only just seen it, and there are many unanswered questions. It may be possible to create something that unifies our community instead of divides but only if there is open and robust public discussion. I urge you to postpone this ordinance until this occurs. A rezone this significant should never have gotten as far as the PZC without public discussion. Neither the PZC nor the Assembly are the place for this discussion because their processes are not setup for discussion, but only for comments. Please do not waste our community's time and energy on an assembly battle. | |
| Lois Epstein | 9/2/2025 7:45:18 PM |
| I would like to submit a comment with a map but this form does not allow that AND I can't use the email popup box because I don't want to send the comment from my (default) work email which is what the popup box requires. How can I send a comment with a map? Thanks. | |
| Will Webb | 9/2/2025 1:13:54 PM |
| I encourage you to support the proposed transit supportive development overlay zoning. It should help the city urbanize as we have long planned. It should provide a much-needed boost to private construction activity. The mixed uses, increased height limitations, and reduced setback and lot size requirements are especially positive. The plan would benefit from a few tweaks, but even as-proposed it's a big improvement for our community. A few specific comments: Setting the building setbacks to zero is great. The proposed 5' setbacks is better than existing, but will lead to awkward, unusable spaces. Zero would be better, understanding the existing building codes address fire resistant construction. Revisit the areas to which the overlay applies. There are some proposed areas that are pretty far from transit routes (e.g., 56th and Potter), other areas that are near transit routes but it's really a long walk to access an actual bus stop, and some locations that should be added to the TSDO (e.g., Arctic and 41st Ave, Tikhatnu). Making changes like this could be a compromise to address people's concerns about this going too far. Do not adjust buildings heights/density based on road classification. We already over-concentrate development directly on our higher classification roads which has lead to Tudor and Muldoon both being high-crash corridors. Growth in our transit-accessible areas needs to be more than just a thin line to be truly successful. As part of this effort, address the lack of local street connectivity and large blocks. Can walkable communities thrive if they're comprised of cul-de-sacs, disconnected streets, and non-porous developments? Increased density and mixed uses are positive, but without local mobility you lose the benefits. We need convenient, direct walking routes between nearby homes and business, parks, schools, and bus stops. Our current transportation network focuses on getting people/cars out to the main roads. Without local connectivity, you'll just end up with more vehicle traffic (because places are still too far apart). For example, look at Heather Meadows Loop. It should be a 3 minute walk to get a burger at Seward's Folly. It's actually a 15 minute journey that will more than likely turn into a car trip. There are far too many examples of places being close to other destinations or transit routes but not actually having good access to them. Finally, consider revisiting what triggers the need for sidewalks on both sides of a street. This is for several reasons: the trigger is currently based on vehicle volumes, which become less relevant if you're shooting for changing mode split; you're allowing more density by-right, meaning travel demand can change a lot without triggering infrastructure upgrades; the type of development allowed under TSDO is very urban and urban areas warrant pedestrian facilities on both sides of the street. | |
| Marka | 9/2/2025 11:28:02 AM |
| Project proponents (Assemblywoman Erin Baldwin-Day and Graham Downey) met with my Rogers Park Community Council on August 25th. At the meeting they indicated that changes to the August 18th Ordinance draft including reducing heights and separating uses from the ordinances. No revised ordinance is shown on this website for our or your consideration at the upcoming meeting. I respectfully request that you delay consideration of the ordinance indefinitely until affected community councils and the larger community of affected properties have an opportunity to learn about it and fine tune its details. | |
| Claudia Tio-Cartagena | 8/29/2025 1:49:16 AM |
| I support TSDO. Anchorage desperately needs both more housing and more walkability. As a North Anchorage resident currently attending law school out of state, I am worried about not being able to afford to live in Anchorage when I return to Alaska. If we really want to address our city and state's out-migration crisis, we need to make Anchorage more affordable for families, young professionals, and the working class. The only way to reduce housing costs is to increase housing supply and build more housing. | |
| Marka | 8/28/2025 1:25:37 PM |
| Start with development in blighted areas and along higher functional classification streets where supported by district plans. Evaluate the effectiveness of the TSDO building incentives and change in requirements before advancing into R1 neighborhoods. | |
| Marka | 8/28/2025 1:23:51 PM |
| In reviewing the maps, some of the areas excluded do not make sense. Map 6 showing the 36th Avenue corridor excludes the south 1/2 of College Village and all of Geneva Woods while most of the remainder of 36th avenue has the 1/4 mile coverage. The same is true on in areas along Muldoon Road and Dimond Boulevard. Staff tells me that these boundaries are necessary to have equity in housing distribution, but the maps do not reflect the equity. | |
| Marka | 8/21/2025 9:01:29 AM |
| Table 21.06-3 – Setback in R1 Areas with alleys should not be reduced to 5 feet. Current ADU’s within Rogers Park have difficulty providing alley parking and accommodating waste disposal with only a 5 foot setback. | |
| Marka Brooks | 8/21/2025 9:00:15 AM |
| Re Table 21.05-3 Table of Accessory Uses, Residential. On-site wastewater systems should not be allowed within the TSDO areas. Doing so would make future redevelopment problematic. On-site accommodation of storm water is another thing and should be encouraged. Given the fact that increased lot coverage will create more impervious surfaces will affect storm water infrastructure, we should include provisions and incentives for rain gardens and onsite treatment of stormwater. | |
| Marka Brooks | 8/21/2025 8:55:17 AM |
| Remove the following permitted uses listed in Table 21.05-1, Table of Allowed Uses – Residential, Commercial, industrial and Other Districts from R1 areas or include only on properties fronting arterial streets or within town centers: Vet Clinic Retail and pet services Club/Lodge/Meeting Hall Movie Theater Theater company or dinner theater All food and beverages services All retail sales should be fronting arterials or minor arterials not local streets If the idea is to have no short-term rentals, why are hostels, hotel/motel and extended stay lodgings and ins listed as permitted use? Research laboratory Any retail businesses should be confined to higher functional classification streets (arterials, collectors) or town centers. They should not be permitted along local or neighborhood streets. | |
| Kristine | 8/21/2025 8:13:41 AM |
| I am very concerned about this project...There seems to be clouded transparency, and it appears the mission is already written. Why were not ALL Community Councils involved? Some CC's will be affected more than others. Those being affected should have a representative. No one can identify which CC's are represented. Who are they? How are the main roads in Anchorage going to be affected? More bike lanes taking up room for cars? Remember, only 1% plus or minus .5% are walkers and bikers as per the census. While I support some of the ideas concerning this layover, I do NOT support remodeling our road system. Any changes to roads should include an economic study so we know how the existing businesses will be affected. When businesses were surveyed on the Fireweed project, they were NOT in favor of a two-lane system but recognized the three-lane system would work for all. As I see it being put forward, I think it will become another "downtown" mess when it concerns the roads. Thanks for your time! Kris Stoehner | |
| Brian Kramp | 8/18/2025 7:54:56 PM |
| I live in a neighborhood that would be affected by these changes and I strongly oppose the proposed TSDO. While I support better transit and smart growth, this ordinance goes too far and threatens the character of our neighborhood. The permissible densities of 25–36 units per acre are out of scale for our neighborhood and would strain roads, parking, and utilities without any guarantee of improved transit. The overlay also removes safeguards like height transitions, design standards, and open space requirements. These are important details to ensure successful integration. Anchorage does need housing solutions, I wont argue that. I support the spirit of this initiative generally, but like most things the devil is in the details. Please slow this process down and gather more feedback from affected communities. Thank you! | |
| Gianna Macri | 8/14/2025 1:53:19 PM |
| I support TSDO. Cities are safer and healthier and businesses thrive when there is abundant public transit and walking and biking infrastructure. Cities are for people, not cars | |
| Hannah Amick | 8/14/2025 1:21:00 PM |
| I’m writing in support of the TSDO as a person who resides, works, walks, and bikes in Anchorage. Biking and busing to work has saved me hundreds of dollars in gas this year and I would love this kind of benefit to be more accessible to other residents of this city. Even as an experienced cyclist, biking in Anchorage beyond the bike paths can be a harrowing experience. Cars rarely look out for you and you’re forced to choose between biking next to vehicles going 40-60mph or biking on narrow sidewalks with pedestrians. It’s no wonder that many in Anchorage choose to drive rather than face these conditions, even for short commutes. Conducting future development with transit in mind will allow more freedom for Anchorage residents to choose how they move around the city, creating a healthier and safer community. | |
| Jordyn | 8/14/2025 11:42:20 AM |
| I am a long time resident of West Anchorage. I support this measure to build more housing near public transit to help increase the access and walkability in our city and neighborhood. I live near the airport, and I wish there were more dining, grocery, and retail spaces mixed in with residential, so that I would not need to use my car and gas every time I popped to the store for a few items. Building housing nearer to public transit is the first step in making anchorage neighborhoods less isolated. | |
| Marka | 8/14/2025 8:30:09 AM |
| I support the need for higher density housing and the intent of this ordinance. Development done well is important. In my 50+ year residence in Alaska, I’ve certainly seen poor execution of higher density affecting site access, local street networks, parking elimination, right of way and maintenance. I don’t want us to go there. The proposed housing is too important. While I understand the Mayor’s office and Planning Department formed a working group and invited participants, the approach limited participation in several ways. The invitation came in summer months, did not have broad reach and was limited by the lottery performed by the Federation of Community Councils. Many councils do not meet in the summer, and, while this ordinance is important, it should not be prepared in a vacuum. Many single family-two family neighborhoods, like Rogers Park are considered desirable because of the scale of development, the lower levels of traffic and on-street parking and proximity to shopping, recreational trails and are very walkable due to the grid design. This increases the value and the price of homes, affordability of homes and rental prices. Rogers Park is seeing the benefits/challenges of Accessory Dwelling Units in the last 5 years. This proposal is an order of magnitude change and may not be welcome. Property owners have made a significant investment in their homes and there is the potential for adverse effects on value as single-two family homes were this ordinance to pass as it is. Multi-family and mixed-use development, if not done with sensitivity to neighborhood context and scale can degrade neighborhood character and property value, particularly single family/two family neighborhoods. Height, lot coverage, and increases in on-street parking and traffic can contribute to adverse impacts. A thoughtful approach, including design standards and an appropriate review process can accommodate both increased housing density/mixed use while maintaining neighborhood scale and desirability. Process Timing of these ordinances covering the TSDO and comprehensive plan/land use plan updates seem like putting the cart before the horse. The ordinances are being pursued while these plans are being updated, and represents a major change to land use and implementation of those plans and work on the ordinances should be suspended and coordinated of that effort. The work should include comprehensive involvement of stakeholders in developing and reviewing this ordinance because the zoning overlay would practically change the current zoning in single-two family residential zones to multi-family without any notice to all affected property owners. A table provided by the Municipality indicates that over 29,000 residentially zoned parcels are within the overlay, roughly 33% are zoned R-1 through R-2D 1. Please involve all 21 Community Councils affected by TSDO in reviewing and revising the ordinance. Only 6 CC’s are represented on the working group. One, resolution supporting TSDO passed by Abbott Loop CC in February, before the ordinance language was released to the public. 2. Working Group meetings should allow detailed discussion and not limit participation from one to another. Compromises come when participants can hear each other’s views and learn from each other. Participation also builds a constituency for change—the change the proponents want. 3. Allow enough time between when community councils reconvene in September and the next PZC meeting for testimony and where action may be taken 4. Provide broad public notice, a compass article, news coverage in some fashion. If funding is not available for the process, imagine what the process will look like and cost if there is broad public pushback opposing the action. While called a zoning overlay, this is effectively a rezoning of single-two family residential areas to multi-family/mixed use. Had this been done for a simple rezone request under current regulations, there would be notice of affected property owners and a public hearing. Uses Proposed uses and the review process include some that are inappropriate for single/two family neighborhoods and no justification for a change has been provided. Please keep use and review status intact for single-two family neighborhoods. Where uses are proposed to be allowed, some should be conditional /major site plan review for single/two family neighborhoods which would allow individual community councils to weigh in. Dimensional Standards We appreciate the changes made to graduate the height limits down further back from major transit routes (75 feet down to 48 feet), however, 48 feet in established single-two family neighborhoods is still too tall. These neighborhoods should be excluded from the overlay, height limits kept to current underlying zoning district requirements (an alternative mentioned on the posters), or design and review standards adopted to prevent shading and blocking solar panels. Setbacks should be kept to current underlying zoning district requirements (an alternative mentioned on the posters) in single-two family residential zones. 100% lot coverage does not make sense given requirements for setbacks being preserved. Please clarify. Where there is a large plot of land subdivided for the purpose of tiny homes, 1400 square foot lots make sense. In that case there would still be safety, fire equipment access, vehicle parking, and snow storage requirements to work out. For similar reasons, it makes no sense to allow individual 1400 square foot lots in existing single-two family neighborhoods. There would also be adverse effects on neighbor scale and avoiding on-street parking would be a problem. Onsite parking and parking in the street is an issue in many neighborhoods. How will this be addressed in the ordinance as density increases? Adding more impervious area to our city will have storm drain implications. How will they be addressed? Is work underway to address how the 10,000 home initiative will impact utilities (water, gas, electric and wastewater)? How will Design Standards be maintained for all development especially regarding onsite parking, snow storage, solar access and scale in existing neighborhoods? What does it mean that “Property owners can opt in to the overlay or maintain their current zoning”? Can an entire neighborhood opt out? Consider targeted/phased implementation. Rather than applying the revised uses, dimensional standards, and other aspects across the entire overlay, do the following: a. Start with non-single family/two family neighborhoods and see what works b. Start with neighborhoods where community councils and plans support this concept c. Take a year, see if this encourages more density/mixed use, and look at intended and unintended consequences d. Then consider including additional neighborhoods with lesson learned I look forward to continuing to work with Planning to develop an ordinance I can support. | |
| Casey Chandler | 8/13/2025 1:20:48 PM |
| I am in support of Transit Supportive Development Overlay, more housing near mass transit, and housing near pedestrian friendly ways to traverse Anchorage. I lived in Anchorage for a year and a half & I travel often to Anchorage and have found myself severely limited in non-car mobility around town. Sideways either don't exist or get plowed in winter, making travel to Anchorage and the life sustaining errands that must be done that much more difficult-even for an able-bodied young person. I look forward to seeing this policy support our Alaskans. Thank you. | |
| David and Diana Evans | 8/12/2025 8:24:28 PM |
| Please postpone the hearing on the TSDO ordinances until at least mid- to late-November, when all of the affected community councils will have had an opportunity to inform their members about them and pass resolutions. The proposed changes are extreme and warrant a public involvement process that far exceeds the minimum required, but as of now, the process looks and feels like was intended to quickly fly under the radar, with everything scheduled to happen in the summer, with little to no notice about the July 14 PZC hearing, only one week for councils to round up names to put in the lottery for the work sessions, work sessions limited to only six councils but open to housing advocates, little to no notice about the upcoming PZC hearing, nothing in the new, no outreach to land owners, etc. That is not a good city planning process. | |
| Col Lockard | 7/29/2025 2:02:01 PM |
| I support the proposed Transit Supported Development Overlay (TSDO). The TSDO offers Anchorage the opportunity to build a greater variety of affordable housing, prioritize bus services and walkability over car dependency, and make services more conveniently located. A greater number of affordable housing options will provide shelter for Anchorage residents who might otherwise be forced to live in dangerous conditions. Improved infrastructure for pedestrians and users of public transit increase community safety and public health. Zoning that allows for commercial use within neighborhoods encourages entrepreneurship and local businesses. I advocate for the passage of the Transit Supportive Development Overlay because it helps clear the way for endeavors that will make Anchorage a more affordable, safe, and fun place to live. | |
| Nithya Thiru | 7/14/2025 3:01:13 PM |
| I stand in strong support of the Transit Supportive Development Overlay. As you know, Anchorage faces a housing shortage crisis. TSDO will help address this shortage by encouraging and making possible the development of more multi-unit housing and mixed use development throughout the municipality. I was born and raised in Anchorage, and for the 30+ years that I have lived in the city, I have witnessed the challenges that many residents face due to urban sprawl. People who do not have access to personal vehicles cannot easily navigate the city by foot or public transit. I believe that TSDO would change this for the better, increasing access to housing, transportation, and local businesses that sustain our community. | |
| Carol Howarth | 7/11/2025 10:44:52 AM |
| I am a resident in an established neighborhood zoned R1 who owns a parcel designated within the Multifamily Tax Incentive bonus area (MTI Map). I support Transit-Supported Development Overlays (TSDOs) within the context of LUP2040’s action plans. I do not support the blanket implementation of the MTI Map for the TSDO Map. The Muni is proposing changes to zoning for members of the community without following important Action Items outlined in the Comp Plan or Land Use Plans. My recommendations are: 1. For the area outlined in the Spenard Corridor Plan, follow the Plan recommendations. 2. For all other areas that have not developed LUP2040 follow-on plans, have community meetings on the proposed changes. Most property owners in R1 and R2 zoned neighborhoods who are in the proposed TSDO are not aware of the TSDO exemptions and permitted uses outlined in the proposed 2025-0030. Public notice has been reduced. Map resolution of public noticed attachments is poor, making interpretation difficult. And most importantly, there is the belief that the Municipality operates within the spirit of the 2020 Comp Plan and Action Items of LUP 2040, and community meetings would have been scheduled for such significant changes to zoning. My neighborhood? Some might argue, “There is low probability of a Research Laboratory, Railroad Passenger Terminal, or a 75’ tall 8-plex being built with no setbacks or parking.” Probability is not the issue. What is relevant is what is Permitted Use. This isn't about NIMBY. It is about unintended consequences. My family resided in North Mountain View for 43 years, moving from Bootleggers Cove in 1963. The neighborhood had every aspirational element we now wish for our town centers. Changes in lifestyle, the pipeline boom and the mid-‘80s real estate crash were not probabilities when very reasonable zoning regulations were drafted. It is unintended consequences that create long term damage to communities and/or their reputations. The primary force driving the proposed application of the MTI Map as the TSDO to address our community’s very real housing needs appears to be impatience. That is not a good city planning process. | |
| Will Walker | 7/10/2025 7:07:41 PM |
| I am writing in strong support of the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay. The proposal would be a big step in removing barriers to building more housing and mixed-use development in areas of the city that the community has already indicated that they want additional development through the 2020 Plan and 2040 Land Use Plan. I am especially excited about the overlay as a Spenard resident. The Spenard Corridor Plan calls for transit-supportive development along Spenard Road, including specifically calling for overlays, to better activate our neighborhood, and I am glad that we are on the cusp of implementing a policy that I believe will help foster greater community and an even better and more vibrant neighborhood. Overall, I believe that policies like this Transit-Supportive Development Overlay are necessary for us to build the housing that we desperately need. Further, I think that a strength of the proposal is allowing for more mixed-use development, which can help foster community and greater quality of life as more neighborhoods allow for small-scale commercial uses such as local cafes or restaurants, like we see in neighborhoods like Airport Heights with Fire Island. This policy also has the potential to create a positive feedback loop between housing and transit in our city and break us out of the chicken-and-egg problem where we don't have sufficient density of people to support frequent and reliable transit, which then dissuades transit use and results in service cuts. Instead, as these targeted corridors add density, they can support our transit system, thus increasing opportunities for folks who have limited transportation options. While I wholeheartedly support the overall policy, I have a few suggestions for possible tweaks to make the proposal even better. One tweak would be adjusting the height limit of the overlay district based on the functional classification of the road the property is on to allow for greater gradations within neighborhoods. Another item to consider is how the overlay district interfaces with areas of very high ground failure susceptibility. In general, it is not an issue with most of the area under the proposed map, but it could be worth considering whether it might make sense to remove areas where there is the highest risk, which includes part of South Addition, the northern edge of Downtown generally north of 3rd Ave., and an area just east of Westchester Lagoon. I'm not an engineer or geologist myself, so I don't know what the actual risks of developing property in those areas looks like, but depending on an expert assessment, it may be prudent to exclude those areas if there is sufficient risk to having greater density in those areas. Thank you very much for your consideration! | |
| Helen Malley | 7/10/2025 2:25:27 PM |
| I strongly support the Transit-Supportive Development overlay in Anchorage. This proposal would help make housing in Anchorage more affordable and accessible by encouraging the development of multi-unit housing near transit. It will also help ensure that people living there can walk or use public transit to get to the places they need. In doing so, it will help foster a stronger and more vibrant sense of community in our neighborhoods. | |
| Colby McMichael | 7/7/2025 7:20:07 PM |
| With the raising cost of living in Anchorage, I’ve seen first hand how the lack of affordable housing and accessible public transportation has hurt families and the most vulnerable in our communities. It’s vital that the assembly takes action toward a city that works for all over it’s residents, and I believe that the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay ordinance is a move in the right direction. | |
| Alaina Plauche | 7/7/2025 2:26:52 PM |
| I'm writing to share my strong support for the Transit-Supportive Development Overlay in Anchorage, and I urge the PZC to recommend this case to the Assembly for its ultimate passage. Housing and transportation are so inter-related, it's difficult to separate them. The TSDO policy tackles them in tandem to address increasing the abundance of housing as well as the diversity of transit modes available. Being a pedestrian in Anchorage is scary. Small sidewalks, high speed limits, limited bus/biking infrastructure, sparse and unsafe crosswalks, and a general car-centric design all make it pretty terrifying to be a pedestrian most places in the city. While passing the TSDO ordinance won't change this overnight, I believe it is a meaningful start to bettering Anchorage: making it a safer, stronger community with more housing and transportation options for all. | |
| Cindy Kinard | 7/7/2025 10:59:14 AM |
| It's long been shown that bringing in industry, etc., from outside a community (especially at the cost of tax breaks) always costs the community more than the "added" economic benefits of that new business. The cost of new infrastructure and more services far outweighs any hoped for gains. This proposal makes adding housing much more economically feasible, with its concentration of development in areas already served and within existing infrastructure. And, of course, it's focus on better serving existing population, rather than bringing more folks, is a major economic plus... I offer this as a former community planner for Elmendorf AFD | |
| Atlas Norris | 7/4/2025 8:05:15 PM |
| My name is Atlas Norris and I am from South Anchorage. I am going into 9th grade at the Alaska Native Science and Engineering Program. Housing is a big problem and there is a need to build more housing to accommodate this problem. I support TSDO and you should too because it is a good cause that helps people. Thank you for your time. | |
| Aurora Norris | 7/4/2025 4:15:39 PM |
| I’m Aurora Norris from South Anchorage. I’m a rising Junior in high school and I go to ANSEP. I understand housing is a big issue right now. We need to build more houses to make sure residents, like myself, can stay here in our beautiful state. I support in TSDO’s efforts and others like yourself should too. Thank you for your time. | |
| Anna Bosin | 7/2/2025 10:07:20 PM |
| I strongly support the TSDO Ordinance proposed. In the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan, the city identified certain areas of the municipality as City Centers, Town Centers, and Transit Corridors. The goal in these areas, according to the plan, was higher housing densities and mixed uses to encourage walking, biking, and public transit use. But current zoning rules don’t allow for that, as things stand now. This ordinance would fix that. Having more families closer to neighborhood schools would make Anchorage so much stronger. Too much sprawl is an epidemic across our City and beyond to the Valley. Kids live too far away from each other to independently roam and play nearby each other. Commutes are literally killing us with isolation, crashes, and heart disease. TSDO is a proven solution to create community and networking connections-big and small. If the human-side of the argument doesn't sway you, there is an economic reason to support TSDO:We are losing tax base and can't keep up with the infrastructure maintenance. Anchorage is broke. The water, sewer, roads, bridges, electricity, gas, schools, public buildings, etc are a drain on our resources- the further each separate system needs to reach, the thinner the peanut butter of asset management is spread. With no additional help from the State of Alaska, Anchorage must think creatively to maximize our existing infrastructure. There is excess capacity right there in the 2040 Land Use Plan that should be filled in with implementing the Transit Supportive Corridors with this overlay. Let's getting building! Thanks Anna Bosin | |
| Julia Bedell | 7/2/2025 1:38:50 PM |
| I dream of an Anchorage that is easily traversed without cars. Where walkable neighborhoods are connected by public transit to one another and to the city's downtown, midtown, and southside hubs. Where pedestrians are the norm, not the pariahs. Where cars are a hindrance, not a necessity. Let's do it! | |
| Cameron Ebersold | 7/1/2025 10:58:15 PM |
| One of the simplest and most cost-effective ways anchorage could improve transit is to create dedicated bus corridors on state roads and major through ways in the city. Examples: A, C, Minnesota, benson, Northern Lights, seward and glenn highways are obvious examples, with Arctic, Benson, These are high-speed high interaction thoroughfares that connect major desperate parts of the city that is to say, these are effectively the subway lines of our city. rather than starting with a rail project, Bus lanes allow our current transit infrastructure to be used more efficiently | |