Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Assembly rejects members’ push for larger Basher Trailhead parking after hours‑long debate
Loading...
Summary
The Anchorage Assembly voted 5–6 to reject a members’ resolution urging the administration to restore a larger Basher Trailhead parking design. Supporters said 60+ spaces were needed; the administration and neighbors argued the 65% design reflected public input and safety concerns. The vote followed extensive public testimony and amendments.
The Anchorage Assembly on April 14 rejected a resolution urging the administration to reverse a recent design change at the Basher Drive Trailhead that would reduce planned parking from previously discussed levels to 45 spaces.
Assemblymember Voland, who sponsored the resolution, said earlier studies estimated an 80–100 space need and the previously agreed compromise was 60 spaces. “Are we truly creating access? Or are we…setting up a system to subsidize infrastructure and then limiting access?” he asked, arguing the more conservative figure underestimated peak demand and that the design should preserve room for expansion.
Supporters cited a public‑facing memo that estimated an appropriate parking supply of “approximately 81–100 spaces,” and letters from the CASA advisory group and the Chugach State Park Citizen Advisory Board asking that the lot be built with at least 60 spaces or room to expand. The board’s comment, included in the public record, said a 45‑space lot would “be immediately insufficient.”
Opponents warned that the Assembly should not use a resolution to tie the hands of future bodies or override a robust neighborhood engagement process. “I have a serious issue with section 3 in this resolution,” said Assemblymember Johnson, referring to draft language that would have limited the Assembly’s ability to approve contracts if the final design did not meet a specified capacity. Johnson said the 65% design had emerged after a month‑long survey and other public input and called for trusting the technical process.
Administration staff and the project team said the change from 35% to 65% design reflected survey results and a suite of safety and feasibility issues, including sightlines and snow‑storage constraints. Kent Kohlheis, director of public works, told the Assembly that the project team had considered snow storage and that snow would be pushed to the edges and “would not obstruct parking in the winter.” Suzanne Fleet Green of the mayor’s office said the design team had reviewed 400 public comments and that the 45‑space design was selected as a compromise responsive to neighborhood concerns while improving access beyond the current 16‑space lot.
Assembly debate was heated and frequently personal. Chair Constance urged fidelity to the voters and warned against a perceived bait‑and‑switch on project scope, saying the change “feels like theft from ARSA” and that voters had expected a larger lot. Other members emphasized that the project was part of a larger CASA package that included trail improvements and road work.
Members amended the resolution during debate — including removing a clause that would have instructed the Assembly not to appropriate funds or approve contracts unless final designs demonstrated larger parking capacity — but the body ultimately voted 5–6 against the resolution. The chair announced the vote shortly before the meeting recessed for dinner.
What’s next: project plans remain at 65% design and the review period for those plans was described in the meeting as running through April 24; the administration said it will incorporate public comments as it advances the design toward 95% and final bidding documents.
