Anchorage Assembly approves contested marijuana retail permit for Muldoon site despite community opposition, 8–3

The Anchorage Assembly narrowly approved AR 2026-025 on Aug. 18, granting a marijuana retail sales license and special land-use permit for a proposed retail store at 1431 Muldoon Road by an ownership group doing business as Sense (license number recorded in the packet). The final vote was 8–3 after an extended quasi‑judicial hearing that reopened testimony from the previous meeting and included a lengthy slate of public commenters both supporting and opposing the proposal.

Supporters — including customers, residents who cited the applicant's long-standing local business presence and others noting economic benefits — urged the Assembly to judge the application on the municipal code and Planning Department findings. "Based on the information that's been previously presented, the answer is yes," testified Manny Rodriguez in support of the application, summarizing the view that the applicant had met the code requirements.

Northeast Community Council presented a formal opposition, arguing the applicant failed to meet commitments in a prior MOU, did not sustain meaningful community engagement and that the proposed retail store failed separation and compatibility standards with nearby sensitive uses. The council said measured distances from the site to nearby playground equipment and adjacent parking lots suggested the store was too close under the municipal code. A council representative also raised concerns about the community voting process on earlier related votes, saying some ballots were later recounted.

Planning staff (senior planner Elizabeth Appleby) told the Assembly that staff had reviewed the parcel, applied municipal measuring standards and used municipal GIS and a professional survey to verify distances. Staff concluded the site met the 200-foot lot-line separation and the 500-foot shortest practical pedestrian-route requirement; staff also recommended conditions including a Title 21-compliant parking plan, landscaping refresh, and verification that site improvements are in place before the license can be recorded.

The applicant's attorney provided a memo and survey exhibits in the record and disputed the council's distance claims, showing professional survey distances and noting municipal GIS layers that identify protected uses. Attorney Jalil (on the record) said survey results show separation beyond the required thresholds and asked the Assembly to approve the permit.

After members disclosed brief ex parte contacts and some council members reported visiting the site, the Assembly moved to debate. Those in favor argued the application satisfied code criteria and urged written follow-up and a future memorandum of understanding with the community council to improve engagement. Those opposed cited procedural issues and asked the Assembly to remand the matter for further community verification. On a motion to call the question, the Assembly voted to end debate; the final roll-call vote to approve the permit was 8 in favor, 3 opposed.