[Music] hey welcome we will call the March 18th meeting of the Planning and Zoning commission to order can we have the roll call please Andre Spinelli here Jared Gardner here radica Krishna here Jim Winchester here Scott pulis here Brandy Eber here Daniel George here Greg strike here Jeff Ron is excused have a quorum thank you next we have disclosures are there any Commissioners that have any items to disclose through the chair uh just want to disclose that I did receive a presentation of uh the home initiative by the sponsors that was given in a public forum uh on March 5th to the Anchorage Home Builders Association uh it was a large widely attended event I just want to put that on the record that I did have a chance to hear that presentation I will also disclose that I also attended that presentation okay we will I'll first read the public process for uh public hearing the procedure by which the public may speak to the commission at its meetings is after the staff's presentation is completed on public hearing items the chair will ask for public testimony on the issue persons who wish to testify will follow the time limits established in the commission rules and procedures partitioners include all his or her Representatives will receive 10 minutes part of this time may be reserved for rebuttal representatives of groups Community councils ptas Etc will receive five minutes individuals will receive three minutes when your testimony is complete you may be asked questions by the commission you may only testify once on any issue unless questioned by the commission any party of Interest wishing to appeal shall first file with the planning director within 7 Days of the commission's decision made on the record a written notice of intent to appeal in accordance with AMC 21035 a4a commission recommendations to the Anchorage assembly are not appealable can we please have staff presentation on case lion planning director Tom Davis Senior planner and Allison Bano who is the assistant Municipal attorney representing the Municipality of Anchorage I'd like to thank the commission for their review of the extensive materials and commend the sponsors of the home Initiative for their dedicated work to progress zoning reforms aimed at reducing our Hing housing shortage within the municipality anyone who has recently purchased or rented a home can attest that it is difficult to obtain housing across the mun IP ality and even more difficult to find housing that justifies its price tag the planning department wholeheartedly agrees that the concept with the concept that land use code should be simple to implement flexible enough to address unforeseen challenges and should promote the general welfare however during our review of the home initiative it became apparent to us that there are several practical legal and ethical concerns regarding its scope Direction and implementation I assure you these concerns are not insurmountable and they can be addressed through collaborative work with the planning department Planning and Zoning commission and the community the home initiative will affect every current and future resident of Anchorage and we owe it to them to provide a land use code that is functional and balances both Community needs and desires we are all anxious to solve this problem we all want it fixed yesterday but we must solve it in a manner that is legal practical and respectful of our community lastly just one housekeeping clarification my initials do not appear on the staff report because I was not physically present in the office due to a family emergency when the final hard copy of the staff report was routed for initials however I want to clarify that I fully support the findings and recommendation within the report I'll now turn the floor over to Tom Davis who will dive further into our analysis uh good evening Tom Davis planning department and I'm going to briefly go over a summary of the proposed amendment as the staff reviewed it uh a analysis of consistency with the title 21 text Amendment approval criteria and then the uh recommendations of the department uh summary of the proposed amendment the materials for review the assembly initiated this proposed text amendment in September referring draft AO 202 387sx recommendation following the assembly's action in September the sponsors created a revised version of the draft ordinance the sponsors version dated 1:12 2024 and requested that be included in the materials for public review so that's attachment for in your packet attachment 4 has not been reviewed by the full assembly and was not a part of their referral therefore planning of zoning commission action on the sponsor's revised version is not being requested by the assembly however the assembly's referred version the S version and attachment to of your packet is incomplete it does not show what changes to the allowed uses or development standard would be in most of the zones being amended to deduce what the potential changes for property owners might be uh staff over the past uh month or so has identified the most likely options for what would happen and inferred from other parts of the case packet including from attachment for the sponsors January 112 version and from other publicly available information from the sponsors so the the staff report uses those other sources as indicators of the most likely scenarios for what changes in land use intensity and scale would follow from the 2023 87s in attachment to and the staff report throughout refers to those as implied changes that the assembly's referred version would be likely to refer to after further amendments by the assembly uh such as uh s version or floor amendments sumary of the Amendments uh as the staff report um found it proposes condense 15 existing residential zones of the Anchorage Bowl into five Consolidated zoning districts reclassifying the zones and revising the content of their land use regulations it essentially three groups of mergers five Urban low density zones condensed into two four medium and high density multif family zones condensed into two and then six uh Hillside area zones condensed into one new Zone it is a far-reaching change to the land use regulation uh affects nearly all residentially zoned properties in the bull and a more detailed overview for each zone is uh provided on pages 3 through eight of the staff report what's not included uh the staff report on page nine identifies unaffected areas of the municipality uh also it notes that AO 2023 87s does not change the permitting review and approval processes for new housing projects or reuse or adapter reuse or have any bearing on how long it takes a proposed development to get approval for a land use permit the draft Amendment does not include include a zoning map Amendment or a resoning um the planning department believes the actions proposed in the ordinance constitute a resoning also based on uh advice from the legal department this is because they would erase boundaries of zoning districts and reclassify Zoning classifications of parcels of land uh throughout the bowl uh the text Amendment needs to be accompanied by proposed zoning map Amendment a public hearing draft that would come before the planning and Zone commission that requires uh even if provided concurrently provided it would need to provide its own public hearing uh resoning notice uh the staff report notes it notice would be mailed to approximately 60,000 Property Owners residentially Zone land a clarification that that would also need to be noticed to all residents in affected Parcels such as uh tenant households and apartments and mobile homes also all Property Owners of nonresidential zoned properties within 500 ft so we don't know but a guess uh or a conservative estimate might be 100,000 notices U moving to the analysis of consistency with Comprehensive plan approval criteria the assembly can approve uh a title 21 text Amendment if all three approval criteria are met first uh proposed text Amendment must promote the public health safety and Welfare the standard is partially met we found in the low density Urban residential zones at the R1 and R2 level that the reform of single family only zoning districts to allow more housing opportunities is a promising Direction however it that at that level it did not address where natural hazards infrastructure limitations or critical environmental features may make such increases inappropriate and uh merits adjustment secondly in the multif family and large lot Hillside zones uh the standard is not met in the multif family zones and the hillside zones the department finds that the ordinance does not appear likely to result in a net gain of housing opportunities and uh like in the single family areas does not consider where there are natural or technological hazards or infrastructure limitations uh unlimited commercial entitlements in uh multif family areas could result in a strategic loss of residential land Supply and housing stock and so adjustments uh uh should be uh made in those areas it in the hillside it reduces minimum lot sizes in the higher elevation upper Hillside zones but increases minimum lot size in lower Hillside and uh in the uh the public hearing draft that we reviewed in in Abbot loop as well and that's that r five Zone that seems to be moving up maybe in play the second Provo criteria is that a proposed text Amendment must be consistent with the comprehensive plan we found that the standard is not met as the plan is currently adopted the public hearing draft ordinance conflicts with multiple elements and policies of the comprehensive plan although some elements of the proposed ordinance support additional housing most of its proposals are in contention with the policies and the land use plan map of the 2014 land use plan and other elements of the comp plan some proposals seem to run counter to retaining a stable supply of residentially zoned lands in the multif family zones the comprehensive plan is a living document and it's made to be amended a public process to amend the comprehensive plan would be necessary to support most of the proposals in the draft ordinance the proc process of amending the plan first or concurrently and bringing a public hearing draft Amendment to the comprehensive plan to the Planning and Zoning commission first or concurrently can support the home initiative and the residential zoning reforms under consideration as called for in policy 1.8 of the 20 240 land use plan such plan amendments must engage Anchorage residents and property owners in a predictable and transparent process of amending the comprehensive plan and that process is laid out in code the relationship of the comprehensive plan to zoning regulation amendments is mandatory approval criteria two reflects that Alaska law and the Anchorage Municipal Charter established that Municipal land use regulations such as zoning ordinance reforms and rezonings must follow the plan these legal requirements reflect that it makes the most sense to arrive at a solution after first making the diagnosis and setting the direction in the comprehensive plan Amendment uh in the meat of the review of the the the comprehensive plan consistency uh we first touch on the consistency with the Anchorage 2040 land use plan map then with the neighborhood land use plan Maps then touch quickly on the policies on the land use plan map the public hearing draft and the accompanying am which was provided in your packet the am is actually an attachment one at the very end and it briefly describes the approach of the home initiative the public hearing draft ordinance and the am uh misinterpret the direction of the 20 40 land use plan map and its colorcoded land use designation categories the landuse designations of the land use plan map provide broad categories of land use to illustrate General development intensity and primarily it does that for visual Simplicity and ease of interpretation so they are really a generalized representation of the land use long-term plan and the land use plan map does not support each of its land use designations becoming one zoning District each uh figure 1-2 on page six of the 2040 plan visualizes how the L use plan map rolls up multiple zoning districts into a few broader residential categories so that the zoning map remains a more detailed flexible blueprint so that there are more zoning District options than there are land use Supply map designations in its intro to the land use plan map on page 29 the 20 240 land use plan map defines how its land use designation categories relate to zoning and it reads most every land use designation has a corresponding set of zoning districts which can be used to implement it this allows for a range of possible zoning densities to reflect the site and surrounding area the area's land use designation does not imply that the most intense corresponding zoning district is necessarily the most appropriate for every parcel so for good or bad that's the adopted land use plan and I was the lead author on that project and the lead on the design of the land use plan map and uh I can tell you that it was a different time preco 7 years ago and I can tell you the thought wasn't there the anticipation or support for uh the kinds of change uh isn't there in the plan the plan is made to be amended and updated it does not anticipate nor support a merger of the R1 zones with the R2 zones permitting duplexes throughout the existing single family it just doesn't the plan does not support or indicate any rationale for converting all multifam zoned areas into mixed use zones allowing unlimited commercial entitlement on a property uh nor does it support merging the hillside zones so it is a departure from the land use plan map as currently adopted and uh the planning department recommends a public process to amend the land use plan the uh neighborhood and District plans do delineate single family detached land use designations so the public hearing draft ordinance further conflicts with the neighborhood and District plan elements of the comprehensive plan so for example the 2040 land use plan map single family and two family land use designation it's it defers to five area specific district and neighborhood plans including East West District plans and several other plans that each delineate on their land use plan Maps single family detached neighborhoods separately from two family areas on their land use plan maps and it defers to them in these cases these area specific delineations of the single family detached areas separately they apply as the comprehensive plan governing land use plan map designation in most cases uh and so it's more than about the 2040 and interpreting uh its its map it it really is uh further in those plans and and so we would recommend amendments addressing uh those issues as well to the comprehensive plan lastly consistency with the comprehensive plan policies uh they are listed and discussed in the staff report but briefly uh for the record that that the public hearing draft conflicts with Anchorage 2020 policies 5 14 41 49 57 and 72 it conflicts with Anchorage 2040 land use plan policies 1.1 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.8 2.1 4.1 4.4 5.1 7.1 7.2 so that is the the the the comprehensive plan as currently adopted and again it's a living document uh and and uh we're there with the uh assembly members and community and understanding that the L use plan map should be updated to reflect current needs the last approval criteria is that a uh title 21 amend Amendment must be necessary or desirable because of changing conditions new planning Concepts or social economic conditions the planning department finds that the standard is partially met that reforming single family only zoning has emerged as important strategy both nationally and locally that can help provide the kind of homeownership opportunities needed by contemporary households today and in the future it would also be beneficial to update the residential zoning regulations uh to allow more neighborhood scale commercial and non-residential uses and accessory commercial uses and home-based businesses in the residential zones and and not only in the multif family zones the multif family zones are only 10% of the land supply of urban residential Zone land however the reforming title 21 to integrate commercial uses into neighborhoods should be a thoughtful transparent focused and well-informed reform effort it should be accompanied by new Provisions in title 21 to mitigate impacts in residential neighborhoods neighbors uh glare lighting noise Etc and also to limit the size of the commercial uses to the neighbor neighborhood scale and uh to U scale the area rather than copy or expand commercial entitlements in the r3a and r4a zones which were designed for a different purpose as page 8 of the 20 240 land use plan explains the biggest land policy risk facing the municipality is to make land use decisions that result result in inadequate residential land Supply in this constrained land market quote such a scenario would make the current land capacity shortages and housing prices worse and in fact the 2040 plan did call for increasing residential uses in commercial zones like the sea developments that we find in the B3 that's along the lines of the 20 240 plan but the 2040 plan explains that is not enough that we must also double down on residential uses increasing residential opportunities in the multif family zones that the B3 housing is welcome but it's not enough uh lastly staff recommendation the home initiative uh we believe sets a good direction and is an important reform and it's R direction is uh good at least in concept however the planning department recommends the Planning and Zoning commission postpone action on the public hearing draft ordinance to allow the assembly minity to revise and bring back the proposed text Amendment before the Planning and Zoning commission for a public hearing including taking the actions in accordance with page uh 32 excuse me 33 of the staff report to just briefly accompany the revised public hearing draft with a public hearing draft comprehensive plan Amendment following the procedure of AMC 21036 comprehensive plan amendments secondly to accompany the public hearing draft title 21 text Amendment with a zoning map Amendment a rezoning following the procedure for resoning in AMC 21316 0 resoning and lastly to revise the title 21 text Amendment using the framework provided on page 34 of the staff report uh in conclusion the planning department is available and ready to work with the assembly the community on impr and improving and moving forward this ordinance so that we bring forward to the Planning and Zoning commission an ordinance that works for the municipality work works with the title 21 code and the comprehensive plan staff here this evening is present to assist and and answer questions and just leaving off uh comments received attachment five in your packet contains comments received as of the time the staff report was written and sent to the commission uh supplementary packet one contains additional comments received last week supplementary packet two provides comments received as a a 1:05 p.m. this afternoon um subsi of comments uh come from two public review agencies including the municipal project management and engineering department and the RightWay enforcement division uh comments from four neighborhood organizations including Halo and those include three resolutions and then comments from 27 individuals and uh I think turn back to the chair unless somebody has anything to add from the staff uh thank you Mr chair are there any questions for staff commissioner Krishna um I'll start since we have somebody from the mun's legal department here and it sounds like uh legal has weighed in um I will just ask uh what legal considerations the municipality would like us to beare Ware of yes um so I would say let me um to provide a summarized list um sorry please state your name oh yes sorry it's my first time at one of these I'm Alison bjo I'm an assistant Municipal attorney with the Municipality of Anchorage uh representing the municipality and so first would be uh consistency with the comprehensive plan this is a requirement of Alaska state law um and the Alaska Supreme Court uh in a decision specific to Anchorage has said that the Municipality of Anchorage that zoning regulations must comply with its comprehensive plan um and um to have um zoning regulations or a zoning decision that doesn't comport with a comprehensive plan could set the municipality up for um legal challenges and it just frustrates the purpose of a comprehensive plan which is to use a public process to set the direction of land use and to engage the public in uh creating that governing Vision um the next issue um of concern is uh that the the ordinance um in a de facto sense effectuates a rezoning yet right now there's not a uh change to the official zoning map being presented to you all um or to the public um and that the public processes as the assembly notes in their memo that they um submitted just tonight um there are small but uh there are differences in the public process for a rezoning versus a title 21 text Amendment and one of those is the mailed notice to um property owners and residents rather they own property or not in the municipality so there are those public process differences and um have giving the public the opportunities that code affords them to receive notice and ipate is a concern um and I would say that lastly um there to the extent that the ordinance um creates implementation if if it were to create implementation challenges as the planning staff brought up in their report those could easily become legal issues um if we have an ordinance that if title 21 if it's hard to know what set of Dimension regulations or setback standards apply to Parcels um it seems like it could be very difficult for our planning staff to evaluate do site plan review or consider variances conditional use permits so I would say those are the big three may I follow up uh just to follow up it sounds like a comprehensive plan Amendment brought forward simultaneously with a version of this ordinance that was being voted upon would satisfy the requirement that this would you know must be in compliance or in accordance with the comprehensive plan yes um comprehensive plan amendments can be brought forward simultaneously with rezoning um legislation or applications so those can be simultaneous uh there are differences in the public process um under title 21.03 so just be important that um those public process procedures are followed but yes we could could have a world where uh we The public's engaged comprehensive plan mend Ms are written those come before you all um and then they are simultaneously considered and ultimately can be voted on potentially in even the same assembly meeting down the line one more follow and uh to the second point you raised about the zoning map um that would be brought forward if we were to proceed with the implementation of this title 21 text Amendment there's no timeline required is there I do not believe there's a there's no timeline in in code I think the consideration I think a important consideration though would be implementation challenges if you have a text amendment that red reduces the municipality from having 15 residential zones to five but the official zoning map hasn't been redrawn um so no code doesn't say these things need to happen within 90 days of each other uh but I think the implementation challenges would be the impetus for um perhaps doing them simultaneously thank you commissioner pulus in in this packet they provided they discussed this being an areawide rezone legally and that that was a different legal situation do you have any insight into that and you know they'll get to answer that question too but do you know anything about that comment I yes Tom oh I'm no you you should go ahead Tom perhaps I'll start with the history and then I'll stay away from the legal side but uh history uh the municipality has conducted area wides over history and institutional memory of the department is that we conducted a series of areawide resoning in chak Eagle River and outlying parts of the bowl former greater Anchorage area burough parts of you know the municipality in the 1970s and 80s and in that case the municipality decided to move forward with uh determining Zoning for uh broad sectors um in a series of area wides and each areawide covered a large area and in those cases those areawide rezonings they're just rezonings they follow the resoning process and so you have notice you have the the process in the4 land use plan recommends what we call targeted area rezonings which are like little area wides and uh we have not carried out any of those yet uh but those are also rezonings and that's where the municipality again would be facilitating resoning uh for an area more than you know one property but maybe a neighborhood or part of town the uh most recent areawide type resoning was in Girdwood in 2005 when we reone Girdwood from its old Zone into the 29 zones or so that it is today and that also uh followed the resoning process in which provided notice to all Girdwood area residents and property owners and that's uh our history and track record with area wise um this uh ordinance implementation would not be the first areawide it would be the largest but it would not be the first and that's our precedent thank you quick follow just quick followup to that the historical um areawide rezones were those kind of pushed by planning and zoning and you guys or was that more an assembly push back then if you recall you according to the L of the planning department someone decided that we didn't have time to amend the land use Plan before we went into the area wise we don't have time to amend the plan we need to just go ahead head and get you know the job done where the rubber meets the road and get this uh City zoned uh and so we were going to quickly do a series of area wides so we did not uh precede the areawide resoning with a plan Amendment at the time um it became a 12-year Journey kind of like the Gilligan Island um part because of that so it's kind of a hurry up and waight situation at the time the municipality uh well the greater Anchorage burough there wasn't zoning there wasn't zones and so they they moved forward that um so not sure I answered your question okay any further question for staff okay we will now invite the petitioners to come up 10 minutes and you can save any time for B thank you good evening U my name is Meg zotel I'm joined with the co-sponsors Daniel vand and Anna broy of the home initiative Anchorage needs housing that is not in dispute and in fact I really appreciated the comments by Mr yel we are in quite a bit of philosophical alignment the question is how do we get there we believe the home initiative provides that 50,000 fot view on uh what we need to do why we need housing what we need need to do is the home initiative it is one of a plethora of pieces of policy reform the Anchorage assembly is working on it is not the silver bullet on creating more housing but it will help what I heard tonight through the staff report in particular isn't that we have a um difference of specific opinion about something needing to change what we have provided with the home initiative is the Catalyst for that change and the way we have Prov provided that is by not only providing the broad policy Strokes in the S version but then filling in those details in that draft document you have we wanted to shore up the uncertainty and we did that after Consulting with the planning department and the mayor's office um hearing that they would not have the time and capacity currently to put those things forward so we did that work um and that is the work we've been out talking to the public about now I think it's really important we highlight a few things um Mr Davis mentioned seven years ago was when the land use plan map was last updated but we haven't seen any up zones since then so again what we're trying to do is take these best parts of what's in the land use map what we know the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan to be and catalyze those into action we hear comp plan amendment is needed a land use plan is um map is needed we know these things we plan to um we want to work with the planning department to bring those things forward um I we still disagree this is not a rezone we are not an applicant for a parcel-based rezone those rules are not the rules that apply here um Additionally the land use plan Amendment won't be a redrawing of the boundaries it will be a substitution of the zoning districts in the current land use designations right the land use designations are there those boundaries are drawn you're going to Simply turn those land use designations into the Consolidated zoning districts so um what I hope you hear tonight is there is more in common than not and that there are paths forward and a lot of them are Direction and recommendations by this body about how to achieve the shared goal of creating a policy reform that gives us another toolbox in our um our tool in our toolbox to increase housing Supply and encourage I'd like to re reserve the remaining time are there any questions for the petitioner I don't see any but I forgot to ask so we'll now invite the public up to oh so wait we are going to take the phone testimony first hello oh hello hello is this Donovan Camp yeah this is him yeah good evening uh Mr camp this is the planning and Zoning commission calling for public testimony on case 2024-the State your full name for the record and please begin your testimony all right my name is Donovan Camp all right yeah I'm calling to testify in support at the home initiative I see the home initiative initiative as part of a movement to simplify and reduce barriers to housing created by overprescribing zoning by doing this the initiative will increase the number and accessibility to homes and Anchorage like many cities in the US Anchorage has an extreme housing stock problem zoning code changes that are less prescriptive like home allow for greater options when building homes and adding additions Anchorage needs top- down regulation in how our town evolves it's exactly this overregulation that has gotten us to and other cities into this predicament zoning re form of this type has been very successful in other cities they've increased their housing at scale or at all scales and in doing so have stabilized the rent and home prices over to over time this is an Express goal of our community the Anchorage I see today is one that many of my professional peers are struggling to find affordable places to live in it's one where homelessness is just that much closer to those who are struggling where many folks are finding that housing and Anchorage is too expensive to be worth the perks of our Urban space and leaving I see the connected I see the connection to our city struggling to build new homes especially at the rates that will make an the impacts that we need this status quo has to change and our current zoning code with it our current our current plan for zoning has good goals and ideas I've heard from some of the proponents uh of the stat the status quo that the plan is the original strong towns methodology but this top- down prescription of land use is fundamentally not in line with the strong towns movement the founder Chuck ran actually spoke directly about this current plan and in a tweet not long ago uh tweeted that this is not representative of the strong towns movement uh home reform or home's reform is gentle it's a small step towards increasing the rates of housing that we build here in Anchorage and can build so I'm asking for the pzt or pz Planning and Zoning commission to support this direction of zoning reform I hope that the committee encourages the plan to reach farther in reducing the over prescriptiveness of our zoning codes I'd like to see items like allowing for plexes and other proven Pro housing reform strategies be recommended uh home initiative has uh made me excited for the future of home and I thank the committee for their time thank you are are there any questions from the commission all right thank you for your time we have no questions thank you hello hello good evening is this John Riley yes good evening Mr Riley this is the Planning and Zoning commission calling for a public testimony in case 2024-the Community Council this evening uh yes uh Mr Riley a member of the audience has requested you speak as an individual U we just would like to clarify are you speaking as an individual or as a representative of rabbit Creek community council um I I can speak as an individual as well it's fine all right thank you Mr Riley uh as an individual you will have three minutes to to testify please State your full name for the record and you may begin your testimony uh my name is John Riley and uh I'm testifying today in support of increasing the availability of affordable housing in Anchorage uh for success in ensuring an adequate Supply to affordable housing we first have to agree on a common definition of affordable and thankfully the assembly has given us an answer to that question by providing an illustrated example in their slideshow um promoting uh AO 87s the illustration shows a new ASD Teacher Mr Lewis and calculates what he can afford for rent at 30% of his after tax income Mr Lewis's ASD salary is $ 55,1 168 30% of his after tax income or $1,076 is available for his monthly rent the price range for a two-bedroom apartment shown in Mr Lewis's School neighborhood on the Anchorage map which is included on the illustration is ,500 $1,800 per month the challenge here for Mr Lewis is that the market rate within three miles of his school is uh about 28% higher than what is considered affordable rent for his family Mr Le's ASD salary is too high to qualify for subsidized section8 housing uh but Mr leis is then caught in the middle between not qualifying for federally subsidized housing and uh being able to meet the affordability Target of 30% of his after tax income so increasing the supply of affordable housing by redesigning zoning and construction standards is the Paramount driver of the up zoning movement uh that's been sweeping across US cities and upserting has stimulated from housing Construction in some US cities however a 2023 literature review published by Yona Freeman in the Journal of planning literature found that upstanding efforts offer mixed success in terms of housing production reduced costs and social integration and impacted neighborhoods Is it feasible that passing 87s will be sufficient to solve the significant affordability Gap experienced by Mr Smith and allow his family and the thousands of Anchorage households with after tax incomes under $60,000 to realize the American dream of affordable housing can Market forces Drive Anchorage market prices for high quality energy efficient housing down to an affordable level for families like Mr Lewis while retaining acceptable returns for developers a 87s in current form does not appear to provide a clear mechanism to achieve our I'm sorry your time is up are there any questions from the commission commissioner Krishna sure sure if you would like to finish that last uh thought that you were in the middle of uh conveying that would be great okay thank you thank you um I suggest that before inage proceeds with major changes to our current zoning and land use plan we collect detailed data analysis uh of our current housing capacity by Price type location how it matches to affordability standards for the current and projected populations of Anchorage once that data is established we will need core metrics to measure our success thank you thank you for your testimony are there any further questions seeing none thank you for your testimony good night okay thank you all right now we're ready for inperson Testimony please step up and state your name for the record hi my name is David Evans I'm speaking on behalf of myself go ahead I endorse the rabbit Creek community council's written comments and I endorse and I'm going to read uh Rogers Park Community council's resolution that was adopted their September 11th 2023 meeting it goes like this whereas one of the proposals in the home initiative is a zoning change to allow two family dwellings that is duplexes in R1 zones throughout the Anchorage Bowl whereas the home initiative um states that it states that it directly implements the 20 240 land use plan but in fact that is false the 2040 land use plan specifically states that it does not recommend awide rezoning that's on page 75 and it appears that the home initiative would appear to do that um it says that this quote single family and two family areas are to have R1 sorry the lenes plan says that it's quote single family and two family unquote areas are to have R1 areas with single family dwellings at a density of three to five housing units per gross acre that's on page 37 as well as separate R2 areas whereas most of the Rogers Park Community Council areas zoned R1 and the Rogers Park Subdivision has an approximate density of four units per gross acre which is in the middle of the land use plans 3 to five range the number of units acre would be number of units per acre would be larger if adus are counted but title 21 states that adus not contribute to density my personal comment is is in fact of course in reality adus do contribute to density back to the res ution title 21 specifies maximum building Heights and loot coverages in typical homes in Rogers Park do not reach those maximums the proposed changes would increase the incentive for people to construct new larger buildings that do reach those maximums and any such new large structures are likely to significantly adversely affect adjacent neighbors solar access and privacy as well as neighborhood character whereas without ordinance changes to limit short-term rentals this initiative will likely also increase the in incentive to construct buildings that are used as non-owner occupied short-term rentals whereas earlier this year and that was 2023 in this resolution the regulations for adus were revised to promote their construction with the intent to increase anchorages affordable housing Supply whereas due to the cost of construction and other factors the proposed changes in the Rogers Park area are unlikely to significantly increase Anchorage of supply of housing especially not affordable housing now therefore be it resolved that the Rogers Park Community Council believes it is appropriate for the recent Adu changes to play out before new R1 zoning changes are considered and opposes the proposed zoning change that would allow duplexes in our one areas in Rogers Park and I would also like to say that the proponent recent statement that this is not a rezone and they're just going to substitute one zoning map for another from a practical perspective sure sounds like a reone to me thank you are there any questions I see no questions can I give you a copy of the Rogers part resolution for the record um I we believe that we have the resolution in our comment received is that staff is that Tom well you can bring it up just in case thank you thank you all right next up hello uh my name is Jacob Powell and I live in Anchorage and um I'm speaking on behalf of myself I'd like to tell a story and paint a picture of this situation but before I do I want to bring up a concept that I feel is key to this conversation and that's the housing ladder often times people that both support and don't support upzoning such as the home initiative criticize the lack of affordable housing that's being built as a result of up zoning but as an example of how we all move up the housing ladder my partner wants a goat and my townhouse I can't have a goat in my backyard So eventually I'm going to sell my relatively affordable home buy a larger one so I can have a goat and then I move up the ladder and then more people move up so every unit of housing that we build that's allowed by things such as the home initiative helps everyone in the community and there's currently a deep Division and Anchorage and that's not Republican Democrat that's not ideological it's between homeowners and those who don't own homes and I feel like this is incredibly important to how you're considering this testimony I'm incredibly unfortunate to live in a townhouse that I own and Midtown Anchorage but if any of you on this commission don't own your home or not in a long-term rental situation with a stable landlord I'd really encourage you to speak with those that you know that may not have this going for them people such as myself homeowners have a direct financial interest in making sure that no more housing is built that no one else can own a home because every single home that's not built is an increase in my own property value it's a heart-wrenching disappointment to think that the fact that I bought my home for $250,000 and it's now worth $300,000 is somehow a benefit to me but I have friends who want to buy homes that are adjacent to mind that can't because of that increase in cost and I like I said I think this Dynamic is really important to consider when you think about this testimony and the fact that people young people such as myself we can't live here I am a one of a million I'm so fortunate to be able to own a home but so many of my friends they're moving out of town they're staying in places that aren't tenable because they can't find a better place to live we need more teachers we need more electricians we need more everything in this city and we're at a Tipping Point with our labor with our housing and everything it's all tied together and if we don't take steps such as this to increase the supply of housing to take the pressure off of the market we're just going to keep going downhill as a city and as a state and there's no fix for that that isn't building more homes it's it's critical to everything I don't think this is a perfect initiative I'd like to see three triplexes and fourplexes included I don't think this is the final step just as the co-sponsors said this is the beginning of a process this is a part of a process towards more homes more density and making the dream of home home ownership and stability more affordable for everyone and I thank you for your time and I really want you to consider that um as you think about wait yeah sorry I come question from yep commissioner George yeah through the chair thank you uh thank you for your incredibly uh insightful and articulate testimony I appreciate it very much um as we consider this proposal before us um we have a an ordinance that contemplates um changes for Anchorage it does not contemplate changes for Girdwood or uh to the north and e river and Beyond um do you think that we're looking too narrowly at the problem in Anchorage as a whole uh do you think that we should be including all of Anchorage when we talk about housing I'm just curious like all of the municipality correct um I I don't necessarily think um this is overly narrow I think there's a really unique aspect of the Anchorage bowl and to expect that we can solve the housing problem in the Anchorage bowl by um increasing the supply of housing outside of the Anchorage Bowl is in my mind a little um shortsighted because people can always commute in an hour from the valley an hour from Girdwood that sort of thing but it's not actually addressing the problem here and the fact is most people would rather live in a place where they don't have to drive an hour every way and I think that addressing the problem where it is is so important um within Anchorage and um yeah does that that answer your question addressing the problem where it is I like that thank you yeah no more questions thank you okay thank you hello my name is Emily Weiser and I'm a homeowner in Airport Heights um I'm here to testify in support of the home initiative and I think one thing that maybe gets lost in the details sometimes is that the status quo is not working our current system is broken it's not providing the housing that we need so we can sit here all night and debate the details of this initiative but I really want to keep in mind the spirit of it which is to simplify zoning and make it more streamlined and make it easier to build housing because that's what we need it's pretty horrifying to to talk to some of my friends who are really struggling to find housing have unconventional or maybe even technically not legal arrangements for housing because they can't find or afford anything else um in terms of more of the details of this initiative I'd really like to encourage you to look at making sure that when zones are pulled sticking with what's most flexible so of the existing regulations what's most flexible among that group and applying that that largest flexibility to the rest of the zones that are being added into that group which I think the the draft and attachment for does do so I support that and then also um so in my neighborhood Airport Heights we have a number of thre plexes and fourplexes that were built before the current zoning regulations if those were destroyed or demolished now they would not be able to be rebuilt because thre plexes and fourplexes are not allowed in our zone so I'd like to see those be allowed in the single and two family residential Zone that's proposed by the Home initiative um I think that is also highlighted it in the staff's planning Deport the planning staff's report um saying that you know we don't know if if just allowing duplexes would be enough that's not always enough to Spur development it doesn't always provide enough housing units and considering that any any addition of housing would be through Redevelopment of existing Lots in the vast majority of the Anchorage Bowl it's going to be peac meal it's going to be scattered it's going to be just a Sprinkle of new development or Redevelopment and so the more units can provide in that sort of Peace meal Redevelopment the better in terms of adding more housing which again is is really the bottom line as far as I'm concerned we need to add more housing thank you very much for your time thank you and I see no questions next hello my name is kelen Kenny and I'm here and representing the Northstar area of Anchorage I'm here because I support the home initiative because it's an opportunity to improve flexibility and increase Simplicity in our in our zoning code and will therefore help us address our housing crisis this is very important to me both on a personal and a professional level from a personals perspective every single time when I interact with my friends throughout the week it's often a reoccurring theme that there isn't enough housing that they don't know where they're going to move to or that they're not going to ever be able to afford to buy a home I currently have a really good friend who's unfortunately having to move to Fairbanks simply because she can't afford to live here anymore professionally I work with I often work with folks who are unhoused or are concerned about being evicted we need more opportunities to build the types of housing that allow people to exist in and to enter into a housing market that provides more affordable options than what we have now I would really urge you to think about as we're current as we're addressing the housing crisis in Anchorage how we want to help people re-enter into a housing market that at this time is incredibly strapped and inaccessible the home initiative is going to help address this issue by expanding where more more mobile homes are allowed and also and having more access to duplexes I would like to really kind of highlight what my peers have said that I also believe that we need more three and four plexes we just need a more flexible market so the people who are re-entering after coming from a place of not being housed actually have an opportunity to get back on their feet after they're coming out of transitional housing programs so I therefore wholeheartedly support home and I really see it as a step towards addressing these issues thank you for your time question from commissioner Krishna just just a clarifying question uh you said you were representing uh oh sorry myself yourself okay thank you yes hello please state your name good evening my name is Patty Rothwell and I'd like to start by saying thank you so much to the Planning Group thank you except you stole my thunder because a lot of that was in here um I'm here this evening to support suspending the 87s resoning plan and fund a 2050 comprehensive plan that would allow for public comment throughout the process I also support the planning staff recommendations to focus the zoning changes on targeted fill and Redevelopment with infrastructure and Services I was born here raised my family in Sand Lake with single dwellings beside us duplexes across the street condos and Tow houses backing up to my back fence and a mini strip mall at the top of the street that's literal I could throw a stone to each one of those different housing situations I love Anchorage I retired here I plan on staying to see my grandchildren start their amilies so I have a vested interest in seeing our community revitalized with housing my grandchildren can one day afford I would like to support a wellth thought out plan that would make that happen that came through our prescribed public process and is legal this plan does not meet that criteria we have no evidence areawide resoning would lower prices rezoning will not affect material labor Land Transportation price increases interest rates or address the concerns about Alaska's economic uncertainty upgrades in required infrastructure to support the higher density could increase the cost to the home buyer as well as the rest of the community these factors have either not been determined or revealed um I was going to go into the legalities of how it doesn't meet the 2040 the 2020 title 21 and the hillside District plan but that's been well covered by them but I would like to to add that Anchorage can't be it it it can't be homogenized not everybody wants the same thing I think the best thing for us would be for us to come up with affordable housing more housing but this plan is not going to Res be resolving any of the issues that I mentioned earlier I hope that we can put a plan together using the comprehensive plans updated and and and have everybody be able to come together without there being damaged to the pre-existing neighborhoods if you take every neighborhood and say that any neighbor could had could have vast variety of things somebody is going to be unhappy that they couldn't have the same neighborhood that they moved into 50 years ago with the anticipation of it having the same character thank you for listening to my comments tonight thank you I see no questions good evening my name is John Isaacs I'm testifying on behalf of attorney and Community Council uh I'm a council board member co-chair of our land use committee and the community council appreciates the opportunity to testify here tonight uh We've submitted detailed comments it should be part of your supplemental packet first I want to say that we're very active Council and informed Council and we've been following housing issues for years and submitting comments to the commission and assembly our Council understands the severity of the housing crisis we need to take prompt but thoughtful action to solve it this includes public process and we appreciate the efforts that have been made by the assembly sponsors to reach out and start engaging the public on this we support in concept reducing the number of residential zones from 13 to 5 and to make appropriate changes in the use tables and dimensional standards the devils in the details however we request postponing commission action tonight based on the following observations the assembly sponsors have indicated they'll be scheduling public meetings on the ordinance in April and May it's appropriate to postpone action till after those meetings when the public has more time to get information on the proposal to be able to ask questions and make informed comments to the commission it's difficult for the average citizen to navigate mpal websites to find the information they need to process and provide comments with a mar March 4th assembly webinar March 11th deadline the comments in the commission packet hearing tonight with changing uh information there was not enough time for us to prepare to inform comments on the details the first time we saw the initial details on the use tables and dimensional standards was a little over a week ago those are really kind of key pieces of this proposal in terms of what the impacts are um again there's just not enough time to review the material and work with our board and get um and get some formed comments we have some fundamental questions we'd like to be able to ask of the sponsors it seems unclear based on staff reports and others that if this proposed ordinance if it constitutes Area Wide zoning or not and what the process for adopting this ordinance and making required changes the 2020 comp plan and 2040 land use plan will be this is really one of the most significant and unaddressed issues and it's reflected in the extense of and thoughtful comments by the planning staff um the consolidation of the zones and the new use tables and dimensional standards is a complex proposal there's a lot of unresolved issues too little information on how this is going to be implemented and when and how and when the public will be involved it would be nice to have those details before you take action we support consolidation of residential zoning districts and implementation of AO 2023 87 if it doesn't inordinately increase housing density through allowed uses in new dimensional standards as long as the requirements of meeting 2040 land use plan and comprehensive plan are made with adequate Community involvement because Anchorage residents have put a lot of time into those two plans and they want to be involved in those changes um finally we would like to see and be involved in the consolidation of the residential zones and the 2040 land use plan maps and Zoning District Maps we feel strongly on this issue and there's really no detail about how and when that's going to occur I have to say that providing information in a commission or assembly packet and being limited to sub submitting public comments and testim testimony does not really constitute adequate Community involvement we need the ability to work with the sponsors ask questions get answers and have you know some suggestions made um but we feel the public process can be made more transparent and more deliberative without involving lengthening delays and addressing the critical need for more housing we our Council stays engaged we want to be engaged in the process and particularly I think we could come up with some solutions given that the commission has opened the public hearing tonight our Council requests that the public hearing be continued at a date after the assembly sponsors hold their public presentations in April May as indicated in the website this will allow the public to be more informed have a better understanding the proposed zoning changes in compliance with the 2020 plan the 20240 plan and what the additional opportunities for public involvement of the process will be uh we do recognize that those of us testifying tonight might not be able to testify again in the second hearing so again thank you very much for your consideration of this issue and we um encourage everyone to work on all the issues to address the housing crisis including making more additional Municipal lands available for residential development and making Municipal investments in infrastructure that reduce development costs thank you thank you I I did hear I have one question I heard you say you support clustering the zoning as long as it does not increase any density is that in inordinately increase I think you'll see some comments in the packet for example where you had um it might have been one of the two municipal engineering comments would said if you increase the density too much you increase them over what the capacity of the roads can support and I know in our neighborhood we've seen safety issues where you have on on-site parkings been forced onto the street and it's created safety so I think these are some of the things we need to think about as we look at what are those density changes we want more density but it needs to be done thoughtfully I think thank you y okay thank you very much I'm speaking for a group rabbit Creek community council as co-chair please state your name thank you thank you Commissioners for this opportunity my name is Ann Rapaport we the rabbit Creek community council have closely followed assembly initiatives to respond to anchorages housing shortage and are as concerned as anyone that people are leaving our great city and state because they can't afford housing and not that much housing has been constructed in recent years our members attended the housing Summit week in November as a council we routinely seek data and information on land use and planning from staff we have carefully analyzed this proposal to up Zone all of Anchorage and compared it to the 2020 comp plan 2040 land use plan Hillside District plan that covers our area and the Anchorage Municipal Code title 21 on res I'd like to give a shout out to the uh mun planning department for their careful analysis and excellent staff report that report emphasizes many conclusions we had reached it provides abundant reasons for you to delay action on 87s we appreciate the recent public webinar and the offer of the sponsors to meet with Community groups and we've scheduled a meeting with them next week these continuing discussions that John mentioned also and another ordinance version all point to the need to take a pause and redirect we ask that you provide direction for a comprehensive and collaborative public agency in assembly process and data Gathering to determine updates and changes to the comp plan land use plan and title 21 that could effectively efficiently and economically result in more housing and affordable housing we voted at our February 8th meeting to oppose implementation of 87s on a number of grounds most are also found in the planning department report you have our detailed submittal I'll summarize some of that opposition and provide some recommendations 87s is not ready for a decision there is no data demonstrating that current zoning constrains housing nor is there information on how upzoning will affect existing transportation and other infrastructure or future costs and capacities 87s fails to comply with many stated purposes of title 21 Planning and Zoning title 21 was developed with a lot of public input and conjunction with Muni planning staff 87s is only now receiving such scrutiny and comment title 21 calls for efficient use of existing infrastructure promoting development City centers and infill areas for efficient travel and promoting development that protects and enhances a variety of distinctive neighborhoods those same principles are touted by the strong towns Movement by who the leader Charles Marone was invited to speak at the housing Summit and again at the recent Alaska design Forum but those are not in 87s 87s does not comply with either the 2040 land use plan or 2020 comp plan please look at the recommended actions on the land use map uh 3-1 the planning atlas map pz2 and the land use plan strategy number six these maps and language explicit language explicitly call for targeted rezoning as does the comp plan the comp plan sites design standards as an essential tool for compatible infill and for distinctive neighborhoods design standards are left to an unknown future by 87s 87s does not comply with the hillside District plan or other neighborhood plans for example the hillside plan includes a carefully designed growth policy with strong justifications for varying residential zoning and density based on existing infrastructure and some of the specific features we have like on-site well and septic and natural hazards like slopes and soils the HTP provides for Selective infill in the lower Hillside near existing infrastructure but maintaining current zoning and densities in central Hillside and down zoning in a few parts of upper Hillside and also the conservation subdivision approach in sensitive areas the planning department found 87s to be inconsistent with title 21's rezoning procedures we request a legal determination around this issue we also recommend uh that you suspend the 87s rezoning effort now and instead fund a 2050 comprehensive plan with broad public Outreach and datadriven staff analysis we would expect this to include all the pieces needed for a rezone the design dimensional and development standards I think some of those were just now coming out so we haven't also had a chance to look at them um but it would include the allowable uses and needed code and plan amendments we ask the you encourage the assembly to convene Builders land owners developers lending institutions nonprofits and mun planning staff to drill down into the real barriers to building homes and particularly affordable homes in Anchorage sure the assembly can't do anything about high interest rates or the lack of skilled trades people or supply issues but what incentives will encourage the targeted infill that's already identified in the 20140 plan there's been tax incentives downtown that have led to several Innovative combined housing in commercial projects the nonprofit Cook Inlet Housing Authority has constructed affordable housing in spinard how can those successes be duplicated what codes can be simplified how can the permitting process be streamlined but retain the standards that promote diverse safe and pleasant neighborhoods our written comments include some other specific recommendations I hope you'll also consider thank you for this opportunity your timing was really good we got a question from commissioner Eber um yeah I was just wondering why you support funding a 2050 plan versus just revising the 20 240 plan because well the comprehensive plans are supposed to be updated every 10 years and it's been more than 10 years so it would make it seems that you know if we look at our past plans and processes it's timely to do that um if we can do it by modif by updating the 20 240 plan you know that might be another way maybe it's what we end up calling it but the process that needs to be done is to just really con everybody have the public process and start looking you know at all these specifics um and what what you know the planners meet with Builders regularly so what are they hearing the complaints about that are you know causing them not to build or that are increasing their costs we need to look at those kinds of things and see what we can do about them thank you see no more questions thank you please state your name and if you're speaking for yourself or for for a group hello my name is Adam Le I'm speaking for the university area Community Council um our community council on March 6th voted over 90% to oppose this case moving forward um we also struggle to find good data information about this case uh former presenters saying that it is difficult to navigate UNI websites stated a bit of an understatement to say the least um however we did Disc discover rabbit Creek community council's comments uh we invited them to present at that March 6th meeting and upon that this vote was taken and we've signed on to rabit Creek's Community councils given that we would not have had the time to submit very detailed uh comments ourselves that said we do want to emphasize that we also appreciate that the assembly is actually taking a look into a very serious situation with housing in our community um we are very much in support of the goal of trying to build more housing more affordable housing um and better neighborhoods and I'm saying this as someone who is a renter I've been a long-term renter as the price of housing has just blown up in Anchorage I have removed myself from the potential buyers Market because it is just well beyond my means to afford most of my living right now is as a delivery driver it's very satisfying work it is not set great with the ice but it is not something with the average house now going over $400,000 that I have any ability to look for in the future we've heard a great bit about a thetical questions our community council was extremely concerned with this we also believe in a very robust public process and the potential that this was not being followed was of great concern to the council and we are also concerned that should this lead to prolonged litigation this would just further drain Municipal coffers and we have already had enough of useless spending on bad lawsuits that could have been avoided there's also a concern in our area because we were never able to be given very impacts in our own area one of which is covered by The umed Neighborhood plan of the potential impacts of this up zoning and changes we're especially concerned because most of the roads around the area are very tight they are not meant to be arterials or collectors um some are going through very extensive repairs right now and with parking and offsite and such restrictions having been recently removed by a reform we're very concerned that those small streets could be easily overwhelmed because this is still a driving city um even with people mover moving at full capacity it doesn't serve huge chunks of streets in my area and the whole point of the comprehensive plan was to try and line up these denser developments with um existing infrastructure or to plan infrastructure as well this was the assertion back when mayor Burker witz was in office When people's movers whole structure was changed to the kind of Hub and spokes model that it currently has with some targeting toward uh Town Center in Northeast Anchorage uh centered around moldun Corridor um the main issue my Council has found it was a I'd say the primary reason for its opposition to this case and to and it support and signing on to Rabbit Creek community council's comments is that we haven't been provided with any data certainly no robust data um that shows that this sort of rezoning would address the problem or what kind of inputs have been happening I did read the 's replies to staff's report I was able to read most of staff's report and hopefully you could understand it and it doesn't seem that the data being used to make the assertions can actually stand up to a scrutiny about what is causing the data to be described um I can speak only personally on this particular experience but as I said I've removed myself from the potential buying Market because financing is extraordinarily difficult um at this point in Alaska I'm sure many of you know Alaska Housing Finance Corporation is moving toward being the majority uh generator of mortgages in the state it's a massive increase from where it usually went because commercially available mortgages even very affordable ones relatively from local credit unions are just not supportive um and that's not to say that most of the housing stock and Anchorage was built in the 70s and 80s it's in desperate need of renovation the fact that you're asking me to force Fork up 20% as a down payment and then making sure I can hold the mortgage but also then getting a house that is straight out of 1981 that could have no end of potential structural problems that are tens of thousands of dollars more to fix and even with programs that help provide some funds for renovations and a loan you're still dealing with that uncertainty we're dealing with a rental market that is also extraordinarily condensed in one or two Mega landlords that can charge exorbitant amounts for very substandard properties and all this our Council very much request that you postpone this and do not support it because we are looking for more robust process and we are looking for far more robust and specific Data before we can change our uh council's opinion thank you I see no questions anybody else wishing to speak thank you Adam thank you please state your name and if you're testifying for yourself or a group yeah so thank you I'm Diane Holmes and as I prepare to downsize I want housing in neighborhoods that have retained their character with infrastructure suited for the elderly no no one is against more housing the 2040 lays out areas zone for growth many neighborhood plans even the hdp designate such areas is higher density being developed there Mr Spinelli now that three and four plexes can be built under residential code are we likely to see more affordable housing remember adus can double our density technically and today up zoning across the US is too new for adequate data to determine if more and affordable housing has resulted but initial data are not encouraging some statistics show that new construction is never affordable no mistake this is a bowl wide rezoning but why not promote growth in these 2040 designated areas and then take time to revise our land use plans legally and with adequate public input this well-meaning AO has been a moving Target for residents and poorly understood by everyone even an assembly member told one Council incorrectly that it would not affect them there's no evidence that a will produce more housing yet we all hear the desire for it with the belief it is a Panacea the sponsors are aware were aware long ago that their text amendment to title 21 was an illegal path to rezoning the incredible staff report lays out that this in no uncertain terms as you have heard before we must change the land use plans before the implementation can occur through title 21 if the sponsors had followed this advice last summer just think how far ahead we would be into legally updating our land use plans without potential legal action but there is nothing legal the way this AO has come before you neither has there been an adequate public process because it predisposes there will be five zoning districts among other things to me it is rather shameful the amount of resources that have spent on this flawed AO cost to the planning department the city legal not to mention citizens time like mine I suspect if you vote if your vote were to hinge on one thing it should be the legality of this I trust you haves the city attorney's opinion please consider planning's indepth recommendation and honor the public process and our land use plans thank you see no questions I'm glad this was adjusted for people that are less than 5 foot tall my name is elanar Andrews and I'm representing myself and about 10 Neighbors in the South Edition Community Council I don't need more than 3 minutes uh when I found out about what was going on with these ordinances to rezone and remap Anchorage I came to it late in a November community council meeting so I left the meeting and I said well let's see if we can get a delay I went and talk to my assembly person Dan volen who lives in my neighborhood and guess what neither one of our blocks is an r2m anyway I said why the rush what's going on he says well our Builders need to know now so they can get in the ground the share I said unless they found money that I don't know about you can't get money now to build unproven housing in different places the banks are very conservative so we went back and forth about what it would do I kep asking for delays so I had about 8 to 10 people meet at my house three times a week two to three hours at a time to talk about what this is why is it happening what does it mean we came to the conclusion that we needed a par legal and a planning person to understand this information that was coming to us like a fire hose I'm a former bureaucrat I was Commissioner of administration for the state of Alaska a business owner for 20 years and was on the Neighborhood Housing board for 12 years and we built or repped 1,200 affordable units all over Anchorage we kept panoramic view on Government Hill from being torn down excuse me we built SPO out on Lake Otis Hamstead Heath on the Old Seward Highway way and we did it right we took the village off R and took those torn down Apartments rehabbed them and sold them to the residen as their first home Housing Development didn't hinge or get started with zoning or rezoning it was all about citizen ascertainment what do the people want and you find that out by public hearings and then you got to have the money and the reason cook let in it can do it now and we could do it then it was Federal money there were tax credits if we had the tax credit credit program now that we had then we wouldn't have to make up stuff about why Builders can't build it's unaffordable for lots of reasons but I've not seen one piece of information nothing but anecdotal things that are very sincere I believe the People speaking but nothing to support that zoning is going to make housing more available when I asked my assembly person what it was for he said said well the young professionals need to come downtown I said listen I've been here I've had five homes in Anchorage I wanted to live in boot leers's Cove like we do now but I started Airport Heights so I just don't think that you have to disenfranchise anybody but be smart make your decision based on facts that are supportable or I'm not threatening lawsuit but I know government and unless you get this wrapped up you're going to keep hearing from people till it gets right thank you um com question coming in commissioner Krishna do you have specific recommendations sorry your voice is do you have specific recommendations for how you would like to see this commission change this proposed ordinance or yeah recommend changes um I believe in good government and public process from everything I've seen this has all been backwards we didn't come up with 2020 and 2040 by the L going away with housing enthus enthusiasts and consultants and developers and having private meetings for a year and saying oh I got something for you you got to have a public process and you have to take what you're coming up with to the planning department to the legal department and get those questions answered before something even comes to planning and zoning it's all been backwards and I predict it's not going to go very far thank you okay good evening my name is Martin Hansen I'm speaking uh for myself home ownership is precious it gives us financial and emotional security zoning protects those values this initiative is going to jerk the rug right out from under that security I live on a small street it's narrow it's Inlet Place most of the winter the few cars that park on the street because most of the houses have on you know on-site parking most of the winter that street has been moderately passable we'll always cross our fingers on the day that the garbage trucks come by to hope that there's room for them all it's going to take is one fourplex with eight Vehicles out on the street to make our street impossible and that is going to be true for every small Street neighborhood and Anchorage there's going to be safety implications and I don't know how those parents are going to get their kids in VI school if you allow this to go through and please don't make any mistakes don't play word games with me this is a rezone and it's going to affect everybody and it's not going to affect them well and I question the basics of assumption that we need to remove the protection that zoning provides in order to provide affordable housing Anchorage population as we all know is dwindling it's going down the anchor school district has six schools on this list that they prepar to close if existing housing will become available as people leave took years years of serious public process to develop our land use plans and zones uh and I see an attempt to wipe that away without any clear evidence that the that in the current economy we can build affordable new housing I think that's sad but I think that is the case the way to the home initiative is so bro way broad brush that I would love to see you come back and show me individual parcels and areas that can be developed and work on those rather than uh sweeping everybody into the same trash can thank you thank you hello hi there my name is Deborah Hansen I'm testifying for myself I'd like to note that ellanor Andrews stole my speech um so I'm going to have to talk a little bit about some personal stuff um a little bit of History lesson I worked for Alan tesi and he was the guy from the municipal attorney's office who was responsible for closing the gravel pits I I don't know if you remember the Sand Lake gravel pit or the one off of Lake oos in 15th and how dusty Anchorage was when those gravel pits closed people said you are ruining housing and Anchorage because where are we going to get the gravel from well we all know that all worked out just great because I ended up working for the Alaska railroad with Anchorage sand and gravel and a predecessor of the company now that brings gravel in anyway I'd like to say Anchorage is better for having closed gravel pits Anchorage is better for having title 21 I moved up here in 82 and it Anchorage looks a lot better it's a lot more livable place I love our neighborhood I'd like to keep living there I'm not real excited about um having off Street or uh not having off street parking uh we have a narrow Street my husband testified our son had had a very bad accident years ago if we had as many cars parking on Inlet place as there are now with the airbnbs and all the emergency vehicles could not have gotten on the street and saved his life and that's something I think that everyone needs to think about personally when you're resoning you by the way are rezoning my house we're in R2 amous I think the assembly rezoned it in December uh because we're at 6,000 square fet uh and when I bought it I felt we were pretty safe with the whole thing because it called for 8,000 square fet what you're doing in the South Edition you're going to rezone over a thousand Lots that's a rezone and I think as ellan mentioned you're going to have legal problems if you proceed with this so I really urge you to postpone it swinging a wrecking ball through the Anchorage zoning and title 21 and pretending that you're not is a mistake every neighbor I've spoken with in the last two weeks did not know this was going on and are opposed to it or wants to give input and there hasn't been a lot of opportunity for input the March 4th webinar was nice um they took a couple questions and even on the south Edition Community Council special meeting last week there were a couple questions but you're not getting questions answered I sat through those title 21 meetings back in the 80s and hours and hours and hours a frankly boring testimony but that's how the public gets involved you don't want to have everybody hate you and hate the assembly we want stuff to work this is a good government we need housing here but we need to do it right and I appreciate your attention I sure hope you postponed this thank you hello my name is Duncan fiser I'm speaking on behalf of myself um the purpose of a system is what it does if we take that to be true then the purpose of planning and zoning and Anchorage is to restrict housing Supply we have if you look at a graph of our new homes built it's been really low for over 10 years we built about 3,000 homes per year for a couple years in the 80s and have slowed and stopped to nearly zero there's very little space for infield development in town um on Green Fields sorry very very little space for Greenfield development and most of our new development is going to come from infill um there's been a lot of talk up here about the comprehensive plan I think it's good to note for people that there is no single comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan for people who don't know is 50 plus different individual plans Each of which includes a neighborhood plan which has its own opportunities for public input all of the community councils get to make their own neighborhood plan and each of those plans is part of that General plan um so to say that there hasn't been public input in the 2040 plan or this is a little ridiculous um that being said The more public input you have on any topic and I'm sure Planning and Zoning knows more than anybody that you get people coming to these for the smallest things for somebody adding a sidewalk to their house somebody wanting to have their culdesac have no sidewalk on one side because there's going to be a lot of cars all of these things are just minutia that are not going to that are always going to have the effect of limiting what can be built and that's what the home initiative is aiming to change the uh from this like the goal is just to increase the ability of byright development because that's really where housing is getting built is byright development you're not building on a lot where you need two special limitations and you have to have a sun study or anything like that we have to be able to build like we used to do build all over wherever why not like you don't if you live in a there's no compact that says you have a right to a if you bought a single family detached home that you have a right to always live in a neighborhood of single family detached homes you own your property and your property rights for the most part stop at your property line there are obvious externalities that must be controlled noxious uses you're not going to live next to a Refinery but we have lots of controls on that already to say that density is a I've Heard lots of comments like people saying who is going to Bear the burden of density that's a little absurd this densest places in the world are some of the most beautiful places Barcelona has 50,000 people for per square kilometer and very few cars and is great for it we don't have I understand that we're a winter City and people drive a lot but the same thing with saying that limiting uh or removing parking requirements is going to fill the streets with cars it's not developers are still going to build parking on in buildings we're it's going to be incremental i' would strongly advise you to please pass uh 87 in its s version as soon as possible thank you thank you anybody else wishing to testify invite the petitioner back up for rebuttal I'm G to put the podium back up because I need to be able to read my notes one second we need a Universal Design Podium okay thank you um so I appreciate all of the engagement here this evening um I want to start out by reminding us that what home stands for and why we deliberately name this the home initiative it's the housing opportunities in the municipality for everyone it's not just about preserving those who currently have housing um and have housing that they like it is ensuring that there is housing to meet everyone's needs and currently we can't do that under our um current scheme now what is you know I want you to ask yourselves what is the opportunity cost of doing nothing we had um from staff mention when the land use plan was last updated but nothing's really happened since so just sticking by the same old documents isn't working um so I ask you what is our priority what are we trying to achieve here we're trying to achieve another tool in the toolbox to increase housing and we had some conversations about well will this increase housing will it reduce the cost I will tell you that we have heard over and over every time a developer has to come for a rezone that it's not only the monetary cost but it's the uncertainty delay and opportunity costs that really puts a property and Jeopardy of being developed additionally there's the opportunity cost for adaptive reuse we often think about development is from the ground up but what about the houses we have Sitting available today that um are housing less people the average size of a family is decreased but houses are larger additionally we need to acknowledge the housing reality I live in a single family R1 neighborhood of the six houses around me only half of them are truly single family anymore they are just not being used that way our code should reflect our reality all of that said you have choices before you and we've spelled out some of those you can recommend um approving know the s for approval with the details but what I really want to put forward is what I think is a compromised position I would ask that the Planning and Zoning commission delay this for 60 days till your meeting of May 20th for the sponsors and the department to bring back to you a full package a comp plan Amendment a land use plan Amendment which would have to be published to the public by April 29th um any tweaks to those details that draft detail document explore expanding the single two family zoning to include three and four plexus that make that single family Zone takes up 46% of our current zoning so let's explore that I'm hearing a lot of opportunity and so I think that that is a way forward without considerable delay keep the urgency Keep The Fire Keep Us on task please and in the meantime we can have the lawyers get together to reconcile the notice issue um you know what's the best way to figure out an issue between two lawyers is put them in the same room until they come up with whatever the solution needs to be to move forward um finally um you know it doesn't affect too much what the assembly process is it will allow us to continue you know as the sponsors with our engagement plan um and it would necessitate a postponement of the current scheduled um assembly public hearing but only by two weeks so it really does kind of keep that General expectation we're moving on that timeline overall I think that it's really important not to be paralyzed by the complexity of this issue that um keeping it at the why the what and the how the why is we need housing the what is this piece among many and how is in the details in that document and it is a lot to ask this commission to reconcile all of those things and the staff report and our position so ask us to go back and do it together but keep us on a tight timeline please um the final things I want to say is that this isn't about throwing out design standards or the parts of title 21 that work a lot is preserved here um and so I think a lot of the concerns are um just a lack of understanding and continued Community engagement will help bring that along and we need to ensure that Community engagement occurs within the processes so that we can actually get to decisions and make change in our Community to try things if we are constantly in a um constantly in a revision period to every public comment received over and over again um we never move forward to try something and I think the biggest failure for us will be to do nothing nothing isn't an option at this point um and so we would like to work collaboratively with the department and the administration um with your guide on what you would like to see and on your timeline I think that is a um recipe for Success um that really accomplishes that housing opportunities in the municipality for everyone thank you do either I have a minute do you guys want to jump in okay I wouldn't want to seed the time with co-sponsors without not checking thank you okay uh question from commissioner pulus just thinking outside the box and not wanting to hit reset on all your guys hard work did you guys ever consider just trying to get in what you're trying to get in into the current zoning you know classifications cuz like the middle housing and all that kind of stuff I feel like all that stuff's going to happen in targeted areas no matter what we do so if we could figure those areas out and put those in those areas you know maybe there wouldn't be as much push back so I think that's part of the answer and we've done a lot of that work but it doesn't take care of um you know uh adaptive reuse of a single family home right it it's limited to just where three and four plexes can be and that's one part of the solution it's that missing middle but it's not the only parts of the solution and I look at our current zoning code with the 15 zones built like a crazy Dr Seuss house with a special limitation here and an a here and something else here this is the idea to kind of reset that table get us a more modern streamlined version that we can hopefully not have to have these wonky add-ons moving forward so it's a two-fold process any further questions for the petitioner or for staff commissioner George thank you through the chair I question for the petitioner I during the testimony I had asked a question of one of the speakers that I neglected to give you the opportunity to also uh weigh in on and so uh in order to rectify that I figured I would uh take the opportunity to talk about um why this ordinance is targeted specifically to the Anchorage bowl and not to uh chuek Eagle River North or gwood South one of the things that the testifier said really made a lot of sense to me which is to solve the problem where it is but I can't help forgetting the last two years I heard about how much Girdwood needs housing and uh and why aren't they part of this this solution yeah um Fair it's a very fair question so Girdwood has its own comp plan as does Eagle River like right so they have separate systems so we thought we would start where the problem is and frankly in our literal own backyards we represent the bull and so so that is why we are starting here we fully acknowledge that gwood has um a housing crisis an acute version that's very special to Girdwood um and their density requirements already in Girdwood are higher than in a lot of neighborhoods in Anchorage already as well when you look at how they are set up um they already pretty much allow duplexes nearly everywhere and things like that so they not starting from that same position where 46% of their zoning a single family zoning so right we're starting from where we're at Anna go ahead yeah and I'll just briefly add to my knowledge um the chagi river plan was uh appro approved in 2006 and the Girdwood plan is from the '90s but they are currently in the process of updating their plan and so and I know that housing has been a huge discussion there and so again with the idea that um zoning should follow plans um I think it's really up to the chukan Eagle River Community when they would like to update their plan and have that that convers ation um we do know that when uh members of the assembly brought that conversation uh areawide last year there was a lot of um push back and so again to the idea that um it needs to involve the community I think that's a question to ask the Eagle River Community and the gwood community thank you um I see no questions in the que uh I have a question for staff the petitioners have requested Ed that we delay the public hearing is currently still open do you would you like to comment on your views on that or how we could can we leave the public hearing open and move to delay now uh Mr chair I it's a mechanical question right where you're wondering what when is it appropriate to close the public hearing um and it's a great question and I'll be honest I don't know the answer to that um I believe you could reopen the public hearing but it' have to be due to New Evidence or change circumstances but I by no means an expert on this um so I would defer to the clerk or some of the assembly members are actually pretty good with this stuff too so um they may know thank you um so um assembly items that have public hearing we can move to continue the public hearing to a date certain and so it the public hearing remains open um and in assembly rules if there is then a substitute version or additional new information that wasn't available for the prior public hearing people who've previously testified can testify on that new substitute version as to the changes or in this case potentially the comp plan and land use plan amendments that would be brought forward so while you're here typically I would close the public hearing and then we would make motions are would we do this before closing the public hearing so the other option is you could close the public Hearing in order to make motions but um if I were sitting in your chair I would move to continue the public hearing to May 20th for purposes of and then any other instructions you so wanted to give let me ask you one mother question I believe we might have three public hearings on May 20th would we still want to go that date or is there another date that you think might work so I picked May 20th because we for the comp plan and land use plan amendments you have to have 21 days notice um and so that would have been April 29th um if we push out to the first meeting in June we start to push the um the assembly process even further out um I think we actually get into the first meeting in July um and July as we know is a um uncertain time in the municipality during an election year okay thank you uh Mr Davis yes thank you just adding to the uh Point regarding uh bringing forward uh to the comprehensive plan that does require a public process and so we would release those public hearing draft comprehensive plan amendments uh for a public review period uh before uh before bringing that case to the commission thank you is I guess now we'll open it up to the commission prior to closing public hearing is anybody feeling like they want to make a motion to postpone just a point of order um under our uh code I believe it's under the text amendments procedure AMC 21103 210b but I may be mistaken um we may have to uh take action or the item is back before the assembly within 60 days unless we request an extension is my understanding um and so if appropriate I would be willing to make a motion to include the request of the assembly for an extension um if the body feels that's appropriate and I'll maybe defer to the staff it was mentioned in the uh in the staff report the procedures for how the Planning and Zoning commission reviews items sent to it from the assembly uh yes we may have to look at the code uh just really quick like but in general uh there is a point at which uh the Planning and Zoning commission uh uh that the assembly uh would be uh W would have the uh Liberty to move forward with the Amendments uh after a certain 60-day period unless the Planning and Zoning commission does request an extension so uh I think I may have to quickly run to title 21 and give you a clear answer to that but there is a there's a 60-day Time point at which the assembly could move forward unless the commission requests an extension just let us check on that I guess while Tom checks on that I would just mention that the um sponsors at the assembly are here telling asking us to delay so I don't think we need to worry about them running away with it but um is anybody else have anything to commissioner Garner thank you um I guess another question just procedurally for the planning department um you know Tom you you referenced the need for um notice in advance of any changes to the comprehensive plan and I wasn't clear if you were suggesting that that is somehow in conflict with the proposed uh timeline that we're talking about here with the 60 days um or not what was your what was there something further I guess you were trying to say there oh yes thank you uh so uh yes you have a a comprehensive plan Amendment would be a separate case that we would bring forward to the Planning and Zoning commission obviously can be concurrent with uh the um uh changed amendments or the revised ordinance uh for the text Amendment to title 21 and uh uh honestly to do the math but there's a possibility there you not to not to be a downer but to uh just to make sure that uh we can carry out what uh we're thinking of but uh there would be a time period which we would need to uh work together to develop uh some amendments to the comp plan uh agreed upon uh proposal uh bring that out you know ideally a comprehensive plan Amendment uh like uh you know like that the policy 1.8 of the L use plan map recommends that it be a process to engage the the public and so it's it could be more than a matter of you know uh you know bringing out a public hearing draft you know with the minimum public review period saying here it is you know here's your month and a half or what not to review it but uh is to meaningfully engage the public in a process of determining those uh but uh even the the minimum time period we'd want to check and make sure we could carry out what we're you know committing ourselves to so check on that as well while I check on the other question sorry appreciate it thank you um commissioner Krishna sure just to the department I I think as we move forward with a postponement I would also like to request another work session in 30 days we didn't get to talk about special limitations or floor area ratio or the bonus table um and uh it's I think it'll be too hard to do so at a meeting or in the hour before a meeting so I think we need um some time outside of these scheduled meetings and our our other commission business to really dig into um all the provisions in this ordinance and um have some time to ask for the information we need to provide good recommendations Mr yel uh thank you Mr chair I'm going to turn the floor over to my uh colleague in the municipal attorney's office she just having some technical difficulties so I'm hitting the request to speak button for her um I'm doing quick code research to try to answer your questions about the process required to consider um to have comprehensive plan amendments come before this body and I wouldn't say I have the perfect succinct answer yet but this would be governed by by title 21.03 point7 um and the big requirements from the um notice requirement table in chapter 21 are published notice and notice to community councils um but this procedure requires um so substantive amendments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning commission shall be available for public review at least 21 days in advance of the public hearing before this body and then there also needs to be departmental review a chance for the planning department to review and they per code must um shall provide um a report to you all uh and then um then the assembly after you uh have made your recommendation then the assembly notice procedures kick in which I believe is well we know that there's also a kind of a period where the public must have time to consider that before their chance to testify in front of the assembly thank you you're for Mr Davis yes thank you Mr chair uh just following up on uh uh commissioner George's question regarding the uh the need to uh request an extension after 60 days um so this would be a a request by the Planning and Zoning commission uh to request an extension uh uh for it to take action on uh this case the text Amendment uh to give it more time to take action you make that request to the assembly so that the code reads that uh as soon as possible after the public hearing but no later than 60 days the planning and Zone commission shall make a recommendation to the assembly to approve or deny the text Amendment based on the approval criteria um if no recommendation is made within 60 days then the Planning and Zoning commission may request an extension of time from the assembly to take action so you don't need to request an extension today uh the commission could uh request at a later date to to to extend um so that wouldn't need to to to uh make that request tonight um is did I hear it correctly that it's after the close of public hearing uh that's correct thank you we're going to have a five minute recess for staff e okay a motion by commissioner Krishna would you like to State your motion sure I move to continue the public Hearing in case 2024-25 to allow the Anchorage assembly to revise the Public Public hearing draft of the home initiative ordinance uh including the recommended actions shown on page 33 of the March 18th 2024 staff report and to reopen the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning commission oh and to continue the public hearing that is seconded by commissioner Eber commissioner Krishna would you like to speak to your motion um I'm I intend to support the motion anyone else wishing to speak to the motion now would be the time where you would add comments of what you might or expect to see in the next 60 days oh commissioner Gardner oh thank you um I intend to support the motion as well I just wanted to note um I guess as a request with reference to the work session I recognize we're kind of operating under a pretty tight timeline here but to the extent at all possible I think it would be helpful for us if that could be held sometime other than um immediately before the um the proposed May 20th um continuation date and um speaking for myself as well just in terms I know there was a request um from the sponsors for input on um potential topics we might be interested in hearing more about and um I am curious um to see if there's any input with respect to a ability of three and four plexes and when and how that may make sense to include and also for myself I was curious to learn more about um I know one of the concerns in the staff packet was removal of some minimum um residential requirements in some of the zones um which were not included and to understand exactly a little further the thinking um on that and specifically kind of what interests are being served um by removing some of those minimum requirements anyone else wishing to speak to the motion seeing none I will call for the vote Mr strike how do you vote yes thank you that motion passes uh is there a motion to adjourn moved by commissioner Eber seconded by commissioner Winchester any opposition to that motion hearing none we are adjourned thank you thank you Mr [Music] strike