Anchorage Assembly: Assembly Regular - October 6, 2026 - Continued to October 7, 2026 - 2026-10-07 18:00:00

Thanks.

Okay everyone, I think we're ready to get started. I'll ask members to return to the dais. Members of the public, um, take your seats and we'll gavel in in just a second.

Okay everyone, let's call this meeting to order. Today is Wednesday, October 7th. This is the continued meeting of the meeting that started last night on October 6th. Regular meeting, and we will go through our call to order— or sorry, we'll go to our roll call and then, uh, pledge and land acknowledgment, and then I'll speak a little bit to what will happen this evening, and then we'll get into our business. Um, so Madam Clerk, please call the roll.

Member Handeland. Here. Member Martinez. Present. Member Gerker, I understand, will join us later.

Yes. Member Silvers. Here. Member Perez-Rodilla. Here.

Chair Brawley. Here. Vice Chair Voland. Happy to be here for round 2. Member Baldwin-Day.

Present. I understand Member Scout is absent this evening. That's— yeah, she's excused.

Member McCormick.

Member Park? Here. Member Johnson? Here. Chair Brawley, you have a quorum.

Thank you. Ms. Baldwin-Day, would you please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the United States of America and to the flag of the United States of America.

And Mr. Johnson, would you please read the land acknowledgement? Yes, Chair. A land acknowledgement is a formal statement recognizing the Indigenous people of a place. It is a public gesture of appreciation for the past and present Indigenous stewardship of the lands that we now occupy. It is an actionable statement that marks our collective movement towards decolonization and equity.

The Anchorage Assembly would like to acknowledge that we gather today on the traditional lands of the Dena'ina Athabascans. For thousands of years, the Dena'ina have been and continue to be the stewards of this land. It is with gratitude and respect that we recognize the contributions, innovations, and contemporary perspectives of the Upper Cook Inlet Dena'ina. Thank you. So you'll note, members in the public will see that we have a continued agenda, and so Uh, one second.

Okay, so the clerk just confirmed again, um, we do not need to address everything that we did last night, so we are going to be picking up where we left off. And, uh, before we reopen the public hearing or continue the public hearing, uh, I'm going to read two items into the record. They are supplemental for item 13D. The first one is AIM unnumbered 2026, uh, subject AO 2026-85. sorry, it's a resolution from a community council, two community councils regarding AO-2026-85 that was received last night. We didn't have a chance to read it in the record.

The second one was received today. It is AIM unnumbered 2026, transmitting additional information related to 2026-85S, GAC case 2026-01, resolution towards responsible development within high-hazard ground failure zones, and to Planning Department Responses to questions on seismic regulation. Both of those are supplemental to the item that we are currently on, so they do not need further action. They are read into the record. Next, I will mention or explain, so we are continuing our public hearing.

This is a different day on the calendar, but it is a continuation of the same meeting that started yesterday evening. So after much consultation with our attorneys and the clerk around procedure, I want to give some guidelines for folks who may be here who were here last night or were here at a prior meeting. So, uh, the question has been raised, um, so typically we, or per code, uh, people testify once on items. Uh, the exception to this is if there is a substitute version, then people can testify a second time, uh, and speak specifically to the changes in that version. Um, because this meeting is the same, essentially the same meeting as yesterday, again, we're continuing a meeting that has already happened There is a distinction.

If you testified on September 15th for the first time and you would like to come back and testify again on the substitute version, you may do so and speak only to those changes. However, if you testified last night, the substitute version was read into the record well before the hearing started, and so those folks had the opportunity to speak to the substitute version, and, and some chose to do that, some chose not to. But essentially, my ruling as chair is that it would be in order to hear from someone who previously testified on September 15th and did not testify last last night on the new version if they have already testified. It would not be in order for somebody who testified last night, again, in our same meeting, to speak a second time tonight on the substitute version. So as is true with most of Chair rulings, or maybe all of them, it can be overruled by the body.

So I will note that there is an opportunity. The body can move to override my— or sorry, move to— thank you— move to appeal my ruling. And otherwise, that is how we are going to approach testimony tonight.

So with that said, our first item of business is to jump right back into our public hearing. So I will ask folks who are here to testify on Ordinance AO-2026-85 and the— and/or the substitute version to please line up, and we will open testimony. I will also note that we had a few folks that we did call last night on the phone who did not pick up. My intent is to re- to dial those 3 individuals that we attempted to reach and did not last night and to try one more time. So with that, I will ask folks in the room to step forward and we will reopen the hearing.

Sorry, sir, if you could turn the microphone on until the light turns green. There you go. And then state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Chair Brawley, assembly members.

My name is Jim Richardson. I'm a 35-year resident of Rogers Park. I participated in two citizens groups, Rogers Park and Turnagain, that you heard from yesterday, and I concur with their positions. I also agree with the majority of the people who testified yesterday that they're not in favor of MHOP and wish it would go away. I support the new S version of the ordinance as an improvement over the previous version, and I greatly appreciate my new representative, Assemblymember Janice Park, for her courage and responsiveness to her constituent returns— concerns.

I like the inclusion of a tiered approach to zoning. R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods have reduced heights, reduced lot coverage, and increased setbacks. I also appreciate the 10-year sunset clause. Economic conditions could change over this period of time. The zoning change process has been torturous from my perspective.

I'd like to pass along what an open process entails based on my 40-year career as an economist. I spent a great deal of my career advising decision-making groups on impacts and economic characteristics of decisions being considered. For many entities, for many entities, this was called a regulatory impact review, RIR. I was an economist with the North Pacific Council, a contractor to the Corps of Engineers, and looked at analyzing costs and benefits and distribution effects of actions being proposed. Most of this was carried out under rigorous rules.

The use of best and most accurate data was a requirement. Unsupported personal opinions are not included. The analysis is needed to be clear with assumptions and calculations shown in full. Peer review was frequently required. Conclusions needed to be clearly based on the analysis.

Most times results were presented in public without with any portion of the analysis subject to question. I believe there was a robust public process for the development of the Anchorage 2020 Plan and the 2040 Plan, legal land use plan, and these should form the basis of assembly action on zoning. The municipality should look into the beneficial and adverse effects of zoning change before moving ahead and just seeing what happens. Adverse effects to stable neighborhoods are particularly difficult to correct once they've happened. Yesterday you heard residents of Mountain View testify to that effect.

As an economist, I would also like it if the assembly members were more interested in learning about the underlying economic conditions facing both Anchorage and the state relating to future housing demand. That's my time. Thank you for this opportunity to comment.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is already on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Thank you, Chair Brawley. Good evening. My name is Eric Visser. I'm a local builder, business owner, and resident of the Sand Lake District. Now, um, I came here tonight because Anchorage has some very real challenges when it comes to producing housing.

We have a lot of regulation in this city, and many of those were formed with well-intentions and legitimate reasons, but collectively they add cost complexity, and delay. And at the end of the day, each one of those has to get passed on to that family and that person that wants to buy or rent a home. I listened to testimony last night at about— till about 10:30, and when I turned it off, I honestly sat back and I wondered, is this a city that I belong in? Is this a place that I want to continue to invest in and putting all the effort into making things better? Because I do care.

I spent the past decade in Anchorage building houses, volunteering hundreds, if not thousands of hours for local housing associations, building codes, and promoting better construction. And some of what I heard last night was discouraging. There was a lot of discussion about how big developers are going to come in and change neighborhoods and about whether MHOP was actually going to increase housing affordability. But the projects that MHOP is most likely to unlock is not these 100 and 200-unit developments. They're duplexes, they're fourplexes, they're small townhouse developments that your local contractor, your real estate professional, your owner-builder, and the small investors are going to take on.

They're $1-3 million projects, not these massive institutional developments. These are people that already live here, they work here, they spend their money here, and they're adding a few homes to the Anchorage housing supply. This is not going to transform Anchorage overnight. A property has to come up for sale. It has to make sense financially.

The numbers have to work. The financing has to work. And somebody actually has to take out their checkbook and write that check and put on the risk for this project. It's going to happen gradually over decades. And that's why I'm concerned about these Svirgins.

It's moving us backwards. We shouldn't be so afraid about what might happen in 20 years that we remove the flexibility of projects that could actually get done today. That's why I support MHOP. But I'll be honest, I don't think it goes far enough. We should be asking ourselves how we can, we can make Anchorage easier to build and less expensive to build in, not just for builders or investors, but for the actually family members and people that are trying to build a life in Anchorage.

And I'll just say that, like, I think there is 99% of the population that has not come here to testify on this ordinance tonight. And those are the people that this really affects, the people that are out there trying to scrape by, trying to figure out how they're going to make a living in Anchorage, and the people that actually want to stay here. We do have the opportunity to do something positive for the city tonight, and I just recommend that you guys do so. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, what part of town you're in. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is already on.

Hi, my name is Janice Fleischman and I live off Potter Valley Road, and the ordinances at this point doesn't affect me there. The reason I'm here is that I have 85 employees and they— we have a good pay for our industry. We provide health insurance. We I have a 401, but my employees can't afford a house in Anchorage. They are paying so much in rent that they don't have enough left over.

And that's even if they don't have student loans in order to get a down payment. We've provided down payments for some employees to get some of our employees into housing. We'll hope to do more. But I'm in favor of this ordinance because it will help. It'll be one of the things that can be done to get more housing in Anchorage.

It, it isn't enough. There's going to also have to be everything from tax abatements to simplification of the building code to subsidizing it. And the land swap in Tozier is a really good example of things that the city can do to help provide a place. I was really devastated last night to be here and see people that I've known for 45 years, friends that I've almost I've always been on the same side of an issue on, and I respect and adore them, and yet they're violently, absolutely adamantly opposed to this, and that bothers me a lot. I'd like to know more about the substitute version, but I think that this version has changed 6 times, and it still hasn't been enough to appease people's fear of their neighborhood being changed drastically.

I don't think that this will change things drastically. I think that the last speaker spoke to that pretty very well. But I do think it will change Anchorage, and that's because Anchorage has to change in order to not strangle the next generation. In order to give them a chance to live here, we have to change things. We have to make housing more housing and housing more affordable.

I, I want to do everything in my power to help make that happen, but not at the expense of having so much discord. I really want to see how we can defuse this and make people understand that yes, their neighborhood will change, but if they don't, then Anchorage will change in a negative way because the people that we love that are the next generation down will leave, and they already are leaving. So I think that was kind of a mixed message, but there you go. Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward. Uh, microphone is already on. State your name, part of town, and you'll have 3 minutes. Hello, my name is Colby McMichael. I live in the Airport Heights area, and I will be testifying to the S version of the ordinance today.

The S version creates tier density, which is just a veiled way of keeping middle-income housing out of single-family neighborhoods and on the margins of our communities. MHP in its original form was already a major compromise that made a lot of concessions to single-family neighborhoods in terms of design standards. Looking at the S closer, it's pretty unimplementable in existing neighborhoods. Current R1 minimum lot sizes is 6,000 square feet. The proposed is 3,500.

So you can't even subdivide an existing lot into two new proposed lots. I understand that we continue to see this urge for compromise, this urge to water down this already watered-down version of this ordinance. This urge is motivated by fear, the fear of change and progress that the most privileged among us in this room today have. The neighbors who do not have the privilege to be able to come here and testify today because they do not have secure housing will have their voices go unheard. If your concern is shade in your lawn, if there will be enough parking, or the aesthetics of your neighborhood while our neighbors are dying in the streets, I hope you take a good long look at yourself and ask yourself whether you're really doing the right thing.

We've had enough of stalling. We've had enough of so-called compromise. Housing is urgent for those who don't have it. You have your home. Let us have ours.

I urge this assembly to pass the original version of MHOP. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. Mr. Norris, I know you testified on the 15th, so I assume you were speaking to the S version.

And are you speaking on behalf of the council or yourself? Myself. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage, testifying on the S version. I'm sorry that my fellow economist gentleman already left because I would love to catch up with him on the doings of the Corps since he left. I did hear him wax poetic about the robust public process, and he really appreciates that, which is interesting that he was in favor of a late-on-the-table item read into the record just prior to the public hearing opening. And then curiously, people were able to come up here and speak intimately to the details.

And I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but I just found that curious. A previous speaker did bring up that yes, version is written in such a way to where it can't be implemented in our existing neighborhoods. The existing R-1 minimum lot size is 6,000 square feet. Feet. In the S version, single-family, two-family, 3,500 square feet.

The math does the math. Uh, you divide 6,000 by 2 and it's 3,000, and that's less than what they would allow. So I think if we're going to be realistic about this being a compromise, then we need to actually compromise and not write it in a way to where it's going to be ineffective by design. And that brings me to the 10-year sunset. I find it I would say if you were to propose that in 10 years we review it and we make comment or we make recommendations for improvement, then that's something that I think I could get behind.

I think we should take stock of what it is that we do well and what we do not well. But to just kill something in 10 years unless an overwhelming amount of evidence in your favor is provided, when we've already shown so much evidence and people are still opposed, just doesn't sit right with me. So I guess what I'm trying to say is, if you are going to consider the S version, like, seriously, then you need to do some serious looking into it and how it's actually going to be effective or not. And I've spoken passionately about this in the past, and tonight I'm trying to keep it to the S version, but it is— it was interesting last night to watch our— the people opposed walk up here and look at these fine young people people who have been here all 3 nights of this and basically say, I feel you, I know it sucks, and also, are one, what you gonna do? And I didn't find that to be a very compelling argument.

This is the 5th public hearing I've been to on this. The first was before Planning and Zoning, and our oldest child just happened to be in the gallery with me that night. And by luck, our son was volunteering at the Lusak Library today, and he just happens to be here tonight. So our oldest on the first one and our youngest on the fifth, that's who I'm speaking for every single time I'm before you and all of the people like them. Because if you want to be a respected elder, you should be an elder worth respecting.

And the sacred pact is not between government and property owners, as we heard last night. It's between the older generation and the younger generation. So help me build a better ladder instead of burning it down. Thank you.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Um, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Gil Krushwitz.

I live in College Village. I support the S Amendment, although neither it nor the base ordinance will make housing more affordable. The base ordinance, with this sudden massive map expansion, would make radical changes to the comprehensive plan, and as proposed without proper notice to nearly 35,000 unsuspecting property owners. The S version addresses some of these conflicts in districts zoned and developed at lower densities with reduced heights, reduced lot coverage, increased setbacks, while retaining the ability to provide more housing such as ADUs, duplexes, and cottage courts more compatible with current land use. But in the base version, R-1 and R-2 zoning district standards would be effectively eliminated to allow developers to build up to a 30-foot tall building 5 feet from the side property line and 0 feet from the front line, covering up to 70% of that lot, with no requirement for any on-street parking.

And developments of 8 or more dwelling units receive long-term property tax abatement. Where is that money coming from? A 30-foot high building on a 6,000-square-foot lot could have 12 800 square foot dwelling units. Larger lots could have correspondingly more with no requirement for on-site parking. The resulting increases in on-site parking in these established neighborhoods will cause more problems with snow removal, emergency vehicle access, solid waste pickup, and would make our neighborhoods less walkable, less bike-friendly, and less safe for children.

But the stated intent of the assembly sponsors is to reach densities of 36 units or more per acre. The proposed justification for imposing this treatment on neighborhoods is that it could provide more housing and higher density developments, which might result in better bus service. It is more likely to result in less safe neighborhoods. It'll be interesting to see how many new buses will be funded in the upcoming municipal budgets. The TSDO MHOP process has been a discombobulated process of at least 7 versions and has been conducted with a total lack of transparency and little respect for existing land use patterns.

It should be rejected or deferred pending a planning process involving the community and planners getting out of the office for on-the-ground review of current land use patterns and municipal capabilities, rather than broad brush quick-fix notions torn out of magazine articles based on accounts of other places with quite different climates and economies. Failing that, please replace AO 2026-85 with the 85S version. It is the lesser of two evils.

Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. Hi, my name is Polly Sills.

I've lived in Alaska for 48 years. I am a 23-year homeowner of Rogers Park. I have a master's degree in social work, and last year I retired from the state of Alaska after 27 years. I spent 34 years as a social worker in this community, giving in various different capacities. Um, what I have now upon retirement is my house that I'm very proud of, that I put a lot of effort into maintaining and upgrading over the course of the years.

Anyways, I've attended a lot of special community council meetings and housing workgroup sessions over the course of the past year. I have worked hard to educate myself on the previous TSDO and the current MMHOP. I came last night ready to testify, but then I found out about the S version, making some of what I was going to say irrelevant. I'm glad to see the S version because it includes some beneficial changes that address some of the concerns my neighbors and I have about the MMHOP. I like the consideration is given to lower density R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods, keeping reduced heights, reduced lot coverage, and increased setbacks.

I for one have room to build an ADU and I would consider doing that, but I'm not sure at this point in time if I want to invest given the MMHOP as it's written. I like, um, the S version still allows for duplexes, ADUs, and cottage courts. I think that is good and will provide additional time to see how that zoning change that took place a couple years ago will impact housing needs longer term. I think one aspect of the MMHOP that has made myself and others particularly concerned was no requirement for on-site parking. I live in Rogers Park.

I see what happens when cars are left on the street and the snowplows come. Um, anyways, the— this is addressed by having the 10-year sunset clause, as if it turns out if it's just not working. I live on the east side of Rogers Park, Woodside East, the condominium complex that has some pretty serious homeowners association regulations. They have a habit of parking their— coming into Rogers Park and parking their motorhomes during the summer on our streets, taking up on-street parking. So we already have an issue with that.

Anyways, I still have some concerns that still exist even with the introduction of the S version. One main concern for me is the current infrastructure. Would, would it be able to handle some unknown increase in housing development and densities? I think that's That's a real concern, especially since I just watched my neighbor replace his sewer line this past summer without a permit. There really needs to be some solid answers to the question about infrastructure before developers are allowed to come in and build in an unconstrained manner.

If the development does happen and infrastructure turns out to be inadequate, what happens then? I guess I'm concerned because, you know, some of these developers would be given a property tax exemption for 25 to 28 years. And who's really going to be ending up with footing the bill. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes, and the microphone is on. Hello, my name is Kaytay Jilum. I'm a resident downtown Anchorage who has experience with housing insecurity.

I think that the MHOP ordinance is important to— is an important thing to implement in Anchorage. It's important to get more people housing and doing the best— and for us to do the best we can to get more people off the streets and into their own warm homes. I believe that the ordinance is moving us in a good direction, giving us a chance to give more people housing. Despite the fact that this won't fix the rising costs, rental costs and prices, we still need to get on to building more homes. Living downtown and traveling around Anchorage, I see a lot of vacant and unclaimed buildings around.

And right next to them are housed— are unhoused neighbors, cold and struggling or trying to sleep. The stress— the shelters can't take up enough people, and even with shelters, I believe we people should live in homes. We need people in homes, not in shelters. If the municipality wants people to live and thrive in Anchorage, I encourage us to work work towards a future where people have stable housing and improved living, especially if you guys aren't wanting the huge population of homeless people constantly building camps, sleeping on bus stop benches, and, and sleeping on private property. I encourage us to do the best we can to help the citizens of Anchorage.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward. Microphone is on. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Xander Eaton. I'm 19 and I live in the Huffman O'Malley area. I'd like to speak in support of MHOP. You've already heard about the essential nature of housing, uh, for the sake of everyone who can't afford a home, struggling under the weight of rent or forced to leave Anchorage. You've also heard from people who already own homes who are concerned about potential inconveniences.

If the people who've spoken before me haven't convinced you of the moral imperative to ensure that everyone has access to housing, then maybe you'll listen when I argue that combating the housing crisis with MHOP benefits everyone in Anchorage, even families like mine who are privileged enough to own homes in low-density neighborhoods. The fact that young people can't afford to build lives in Anchorage is not just a problem for young people. An aging community is a dying community. An economy can't be sustained without new generations, not to mention the loss of culture, vibrancy, and human connection that comes from everyone who grew up here being forced to leave. Plus, more affordable housing, meaning less of every paycheck going to rent, inherently strengthens the local economy.

Economy. Higher density housing in already developed areas would also be more efficient for the city's resources, meaning less potential need to raise taxes to maintain basic public infrastructure. And any effort to combat the housing crisis, even limited ones like this, will contribute to more affordable housing across the board and alleviating the homelessness crisis. If, again, the need to make sure everyone has a home isn't enough, if you can't find that basic sympathy for the most vulnerable, then I'll point out that every homeless person costs costs the taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars in additional public services from living on the street. Everyone pays the cost of the continued housing crisis, and it cannot continue to go unaddressed.

MHOP will be a great first step towards making Anchorage a better city for everyone, but I agree with the people before me who've said that it's not nearly enough. Thank you.

Your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Maxus Noblak. I live in the Government Hill area.

I was raised in a family where it was not difficult to afford housing or even afford our necessities to live and want more than what we had. But on this side of life, it was the people who were struggling to afford these things and always sacrificing some other aspect of life for another that I considered normal, that were utterly more vivid than people of the same wealth class. I spent and spend most of my youth around people who have less than I, and not for any external reason than other than my choice of friends. But as this cycle continues, I realize absurdly that it is becoming everyone around me with such a struggle, because this is not a working problem.

This is a community problem of building and consuming more than we need. There is the arguments of needing more parking for the vehicles of working people, but with this ordinance of MOP, if we use public transportation as the benefit it is for our city, we can resolve, and then that people will not live in places where there is blocked light around the city. But if affordable living gets so drastic, there will be no choice. I would rather have more housing for people and live under the constant shade of a home than less housing and constantly be under the sun and watch those less fortunate suffer. And what is hidden behind all these arguments is bitter money avarice and consumerism.

I see the multitude of Roger Hickle and Davis signs, and we must ask, why are we not spreading these into homes? The designs for new shopping malls and new office units, while there are less and less state-funded housing projects because of the cost of building of these projects on the side. These are working Alaskans we are forbidding from living, and you have to say that plainly and question it, because is that what the state is truly wanting to hold? We are prejudiced enough by our rates of crime, rape, and injustice. We should not be another foul party to ridding people of homes to live because we want to make room for more business that we don't need.

Take away the Raspberry Park project and build housing units built with a station for public transportation. Cut costs on new office buildings and countless shopping malls that only bring in more money to chain businesses. Give the children a roof instead of one to look at and wish upon. It's ridiculous that in a state where we have one of the lowest populations, we have problems with housing and expenses for the latter. I would love to stay in the state, but as I proceed in age, I cannot find a paying job that coincides with being able to live here any longer.

I have not been alive for very long, but seeing this happen in such a relatively quick manner is worrying. And by the next decade, if we do not solve this problem, it will be your family out there on the street because we didn't do anything about it now. There are so many ways to solve this issue, and it will take time and consideration, obviously, but we can't have a community without that. In a state where we are so locally tight-knit, this need not to be an issue. So go through with this MHOP and enlarging zoning for 70% rather than our current 40.

Would be nothing short of gracious for our lower-income communities and our general community in a whole. In short, offering housing to middle incomes without it being the cookie-cutter sacrifice, more diversity and more options for houses would build a more comfortable environment, and it would be the joyous change we could perhaps see every day. Implement this and see a better choice in Alaska, and ignore this and we, we will suffer by regret and poverty. Thank you. Next person, please come forward.

State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Microphone is on. My name is Reese James. I'm from the South Edition, but I grew up in South Anchorage in the Potter's Valley.

My family is well off, but a lot of my friends are not, and it hurts me to see people say that this issue is not urgent.

One of my dear friends, she works a full-time job and works hard. She lives in a trailer on Diamond and in a quite honestly dangerous situation, but she's forced to do so. She can't afford to live anywhere else. I have friends who I've talked to about how your housing should be 30% of your income. And they're amazed.

It's, it's just not that way.

And I want to acknowledge that I'm here because I can afford to be, and many of us are here because we can afford to be. But there are many that aren't here who will be affected by this that can't be because they're working or they're getting their rest so they can work.

I wonder why people are so set on their neighborhoods keeping their character. I don't know what that means, character. I don't understand why I don't fit into your neighborhood's character, why my friends don't fit into your neighborhood's character. And it— it frustrates me that that we're called divisive for calling people NIMBYs and being frustrated that you don't want us in your backyards, but the real divisive thing is you advocating us for not— advocating for us to not be in your neighborhood. We want to live in Anchorage, and MHOP in its original state is how that will happen.

Thank you. Thanks. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

And can you remind me if you've testified before? Okay, thank you. Hi, my name is Ash, um, Ash Tyrell. I'm represented by the Mountain View Community Council. Like I said, I have testified on the previous version, so I'll be testifying on the S version of MHOP.

It appears to me that the tiered design of this this proposed S version ordinance essentially keeps density in more developed areas, and I fear that it'll keep middle-income housing out of typical single-family areas, potentially perpetuating the history of alienating marginalized folks from the suburbs. Additionally, as previous speakers have noted, the S version makes implementation in R1 neighborhoods improbable. I also want to recognize that there are many voices that are not heard here today, and I want to honor those who are living without homes or working 3 jobs to make ends meet, ends meet, or simply do not have the ability to come to this meeting.

Housing is a human right, and I think Anchorage needs a solution now. So I urge our assembly members to support the original version of MHOP. Thank you.

Okay, next person please come forward. State your name, part of town, you'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening, my name is Jana Zdyk and I am a Rogers Park homeowner, and I want to acknowledge the many, many problems our city's facing. Yeah, with affordability. Sorry, ma'am, if you could pause for a second. What's your point of order, Mr. Wilk?

Ma'am, did you testify last night? I, I'm testifying on the S. So maybe if the chair could explain again her ruling at the beginning of the meeting. Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm like— No, it's okay.

Yeah, I know it's been confusing. So, so essentially, if someone has testified at the prior meeting, so just September 15th, they could speak again to the S version, which that's the folks who have spoken so far have. If someone testified last night, we're technically still in the same meeting, and so it's, it's essentially the same as if you came up again, you know, got back in line. And so, uh, so I do encourage anybody in this situation to please email us your comments, um, but I'm afraid we can't let you testify for a second time. Thank you.

Understood. Thank you. Sorry I was late and you had to— No, it's okay. Okay, thank you. Yeah, just a reminder for folks in line, I don't remember everybody's face, so I will try, but, uh, thank you.

So next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. My name is Marilyn Stack. I'm a resident of Northwest Anchorage. Good evening, assembly members, Mayor LaFrance, and staff.

I'm here tonight to ask your support for the S version that has been introduced by Assemblymember Janice Park. This new S version gets a lot— gets us a lot closer to a compromise on housing. As I've been listening to testimony over the last couple of weeks, it is clear that everyone who has testified sees the need for more housing. The question now is how we get there. The S version also removes seismic zones 4 and 5 from areas that are slated for high-density housing.

To have the city promoting not only building in these areas and providing tax tax incentives to builders just flat does not seem right to me. Safety is a huge consideration. MHP still pushes dimensional changes that are extravagant. There's plenty of room to dial it down and be more responsive to neighborhoods. Multifamily development should stay along main corridors, areas that have already been designated for multifamily or mixed use and not encroach into R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods.

So the last points I would like to stress are the 2040 LUP, Land Use Plan, and community goodwill. First, the 2040 LUP, as you have heard from others who have testified, is an award-winning plan that was passed by this same body of government in 2017, and it is meant to be our North Star. I would like to thank everyone who was involved with putting that together because it took a lot of effort and time.

Uh, and so in terms of community goodwill, listening to and acting on neighborhood concerns will go a long way to helping goodwill in this community. Many feel that the framework of MHOP has been so structured and inflexible that willingness to incorporate neighborhood suggestions have— has been largely ignored over the past year. This has led to a divided community. So I would suggest you involve the community. Read the 2040 plan if you haven't and follow it.

Again, please vote for version— or the S version of the— to the MHOP ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town.

You'll have 3 minutes, and I believe you did testify on the 15th. So speaking to the S version. Thank you. I'm sorry, sorry, I believe I remember you testified at the September 15th meeting, so you'll just need to speak to the S version, um, if you're going to testify again. Thank you.

Yes, that's correct. All right, good evening, Anchorage Assembly members, Mayor LaFrance, community members, members of the Muni staff, and all those here interested in a better Anchorage. My name is David Hanson, Spenard Community Council. Licensed architect here in Anchorage, and I'm here to speak in support of the S version of MHOP. Last time I spoke, I raised concerns about the economics of the proposed 40-foot height limit and what that could mean for existing neighborhoods.

As an architect, I spend a lot, if not most of my time, thinking about what makes a building economical to construct. More square footage, more volume, and more complexity generally means higher cost. A 30-foot height limit is not a barrier to building housing. With 8-foot ceilings, a reasonable floor assembly, you can comfortably accommodate 3 stories or 3 units within 30-foot height limit. That's room enough for duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, and other small-scale residential development.

These are real buildable opportunities, not just theoretical ones. I appreciate— what I appreciate about the S version is that it recognizes we don't We don't need the same development standards everywhere to create more housing. It allows for small-scale, medium-scale infills within existing neighborhoods while directing taller, denser development towards transit corridors and commercial centers. That's where the growth makes most sense. In my neighborhood in Spenard, we still have existing homes that provide relatively affordable opportunities for those people looking to enter the housing market.

We should be careful not to create incentives that encourage demolishing those homes simply to maximize potential development. The S version strikes a better balance and creates opportunities for additional housing without unnecessarily changing the scale or economics of the established neighborhoods. And importantly, it aligns with the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan's approach to neighborhood-compatible infill. We can increase housing opportunities, we can preserve existing housing and respect neighborhood character. Those goals are not mutually exclusive.

I encourage the assembly to support the S version of the MHOP. You have my email, you're welcome to email me if you have any questions or ideas for creative thinking. And again, thank you for your time and your work towards a better Anchorage future.

Thank you. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi, I'm Jason Katz-Brown. I live in North Star.

Personally, I recently bought a condo and it's really great. And that was after like 5 years living in Anchorage, bouncing between apartments and not finding good, like economically good apartment or houses to buy. I would love to see more housing and more affordable apartments. And I mostly want to speak to the sympathy I feel to my neighbors in Anchorage that I've heard testify against MHOP and my sympathy to assembly members who are in a tough spot here. First, it was really— it felt a lot when I heard the neighbor who was talking about her neighbor who was without a permit, like, replacing our sewer lines.

That really sucks. And in that situation, you feel so powerless. And that's just really bad. Of course, this is a separate discussion, but that feeling makes a lot of sense. And the fear of, like, the worst neighbor we know moving in next door.

That's the— I really feel that fear. I'm really sympathetic to everybody who's felt that. But of course, when we get a new neighbor, I think just the way the math works out, they'll probably be better than the worst neighbor you know. That's why the worst neighbor you know is the worst. And I think research, for example, from the University of Chicago constantly shows that we're always afraid of meeting new people and we kind of fear a lot of things about meeting new people.

And then after the fact, we generally feel grateful we got to meet them. We feel happier. I often have the experience of waking up in the morning for a coffee if somebody's reached out and wants to meet. I wake up in the morning, I do not want to meet that person. I feel tired and haven't woken up yet.

And when we've gotten coffee, we've chatted, I'm really grateful, I'm in a better mood. And I think that repeats day after day when new neighbors move into Anchorage. And same goes for crime. Research has constantly shown that we fear a lot of crime when there's new development or new buildings. And the research shows that that generally doesn't play out.

And usually 10 years on. For example, in Mount Laurel, they built a big department, department complex, did research before, and then 10 years after, and they showed that like the neighbors were super afraid of that new development bringing crime and other public safety issues. Not only did they not materialize, but 10 years later nobody even remembered that they had that fear or remembered even what that building was. And then that speaks to why I want to encourage members who are on the fence to vote for MHOP as originally proposed You're going to be up for reelection in a year or two, and then this is definitely— housing in Anchorage will continue to be an issue then. And as the testifier from Viscera Construction talked about, in a year or two, there will be very few new houses.

If anything, the issue will be just as bad. And it takes years and years, so much planning to build houses and like anything that people could be afraid of. So I want to encourage to have strength in voting for this and because just voting for what you believe in and without fear. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Next person, please come forward. And I know you testified on the 15th, so you'll be speaking to the S version. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Will Walker and I live in Spinard.

I think the S version has some significant unintended consequences that actually undermine the goals, both of the S version and the original version. Significantly, I think the sunset clause has real negative effects, especially because the default with the sunset clause is that the overlay expires, and this has to— and then that those— anything developed under that would then become a lawful nonconforming use, which would potentially have impacts based off of my understanding on the possibility of financing those types of construction, especially for multifamily. Um, also doesn't really have clear standards for what, um, will be evaluated and doesn't put the onus or require the studies that it wants to have. And so I think those have real big issues down the line that really undermine the project. Um, second, I think personally I'm open to the height transitions, but I think that it also could have unintended consequences.

My understanding is that The height transitions are based off of the underlying land use plan map designations. And much of MHOP— and this is based off of kind of geographic area and kind of underlying zones. And I don't know how those interface has really been considered much. And with 24 hours, I don't think we've really had much time to think through the unintended consequences of how those interface and kind of how they might undermine trying to have development in these corridors. Third, the S version kind of separates into 5 overlay categories, and I think that adds unnecessary complexity, especially because those middle zones don't really differ that much either from each other and ultimately from the original version.

And so I think they add additional complexity without much benefit, and I think simpler here can be more useful. Another issue with the height transitions, I think there's a drafting error on— in Section 4 that has urban high residential, and there's a mixed residential or mixed compact low. So I think at minimum that should be fixed. I also think there's an issue with one of the warehouse clauses or potential down-the-line issues that basically the one on Page 3, line 10, that basically sets a default that, you know, the zones are— that basically prioritizes neighborhood character, whatever that might be, over kind of transit-supportive development, which I think could have implications down the line for how we want to look at it. All the concerns I've heard over the last few meetings have been related to the effects on the neighborhood, so I think things that could be incorporated into some sort of amendment on the original version would relate to what do those kind of neighborhood— what about incorporating a neighborhood overlay category to incorporate something that could protect something closer to the existing building envelope?

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Hi, my name is Skyler Quinn, S-K-Y-L-E-R-Q-U-I-N-N. I'm the president of the Anchorage Homeowners Association. And we at AHBA, we support MHOP as currently written. We do not support the S version of this AO. I'd like to echo a lot of the comments of the previous speaker.

He clearly did some research and made a lot of strong arguments. Something I want to point out is, as written, the S version does not just affect seismic zone 4 and 5. It affects zone 3. The seismic maps are currently being updated as we speak. So if you're a builder, if you're a developer, you're not going to buy anything in a Zone 3 looking to try to build on it if there's this lingering potential that when these, these updated maps come out, it gets kicked up to a 4.

So Zone 3 is dead in the water out of the gate on this thing if it passes. I just think that that's a point worth, you know, mentioning. Additionally, when you get a structural engineer to design a house, they're, they're designing it permitted per the zone that the lot is in. So we're already accounting for these zones as is. We've been building successfully now for decades.

In this last earthquake, the new construction houses held up really well. So we don't like the S version. The 5 additional overlays is just— it's muddying the waters. It's making things more complicated. We've been advocating for zoning simplifications.

This is kind of moving in the opposite direction. The sunset clause, I mean, it might as well just say that this thing just sunsets in 10 years, because with all the restrictions put on this, I just don't really see it not sunsetting. So we don't like that as well. So we would urge your support for MHOP as written and not the S version. Thank you.

Thanks. Before you walk away, there's a couple folks in the queue with questions. Mr. Bolland. Thank you. I put myself in the queue, I think, before you sort of got to this in your testimony.

But, um, so you talked about there, there has been some development in Seismic 4, Seismic 5. Do you have any experience building in, in those zones, or could you just maybe tell me a little bit about your experience? I personally don't have experience building in 4 or 5 zones. I know others that do. And I know that when you build on any piece of land, the structural engineer, they look at the— they go to the wind chart, they go to the seismic chart, they look up all those loadings, and they put that into their equation when they're trying to design the building.

Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. Thank you.

And also, Ms. Silvers, please go ahead.

Thanks. Yeah, I had another question about the seismic zone 4. Zone 4 and 5. Is it your experience, or do you know if every single parcel within a Zone 4 or Zone 5 has seismic risk? Or is that something that you have to determine parcel by parcel through soils testing and other types of testing that actually determines if a parcel within those zones carries risk?

My understanding is if you're building a house, they just I think they just go from the maps and they use that Zone 4 or Zone 5. I'm not a structural engineer. I will say that. If you're doing a larger development, then I think that they do study the— when they do your geotech report, then they kind of get into the Zone 4 or 5 specifics more. But I'm not a structural engineer.

Sorry. Thank you.

Thank you. That was all the questions. Thank you. Okay. Next person, please come forward.

Microphone's already on. State your name, part of town. 3 Minutes. Good evening, my name is Robbie Rachel. I'm 19 years old and a resident of the Huffman O'Malley area.

I'm here to speak in support of the missing middle housing opportunity overlay. Anchorage does not have enough housing, and this is an issue that has been very personal for me and my family for a long time now. In 2021, we moved here from Fairbanks and planned to temporarily stay with my grandparents in South Anchorage while we found a home of our own. 5 Years later, we are still living with my grandparents because there has not been affordable, accessible homes available on the market. Both of my parents work and study full-time.

My father has worked for the state for 14 years. My younger brother and I have been students during this time, and my family has had to deal with crowded multigenerational household because we can't afford to have our own home. The options are so limited. The experience of seeing my parents, friends, and neighbors struggle to afford a home here has left me perpetually scared, not only for my future here, but for the future of Anchorage as a whole. The opportunity, uh, in the S-clause, uh, the S version, to create needed duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhomes, etc., in the lower density areas of town is something that I see valuable about this version.

Allowing more housing along these transit corridors and places where infrastructure and transportation already exist is a great first step, but it's a first step. It's not enough. I ditto any previous testimony on how the S version is restricting actual implementation of this overlay. The 10-year sunset clause should be adjusted to perhaps collect data on how MHOP works in that real time to ensure that we have a plan to adjust the overlay at that 10-year mark. Work instead of just cutting it.

Um, a successful city needs thoughtful, educated, community-oriented infrastructure and implementation. I urge you to continue developing Ordinance 85 and future plans like it. We need more flexibility, more housing options, and to continue creating opportunities for working families and young people to continue living and afford our city. I hope the assembly considers families like mine who already live here and for the young people who need housing to go when they leave the nest. I hope you take my words to heart.

Thank you.

Thanks. Next person, please come forward. And can you remind me, have you testified before? Hello, my name is Carol Howarth. I'm on the west side of Anchorage.

I commend the group who worked to draft this version, but I do not support it. Trying to fix an AO so that it might align with the comp plan as required, implying that it can retroactively to fix the problems with public notice isn't good policy. You are public officials expected to follow the laws and then in the process of making new laws. Last night, public testimony was really lovely if one actively listened in, which was hard to when it gets late. There was consensus on the real need for housing.

There were articulations of challenges, questions about processes, and lots of ideas. I love the few who recommend slowing down and doing some trials. That's because some trials are ready. Look at the Muni website, and I quote, "Spenard Corridor Plan, September 16, 2020. The Anchorage Metropolitan Area Transportation Solutions, AMATS, and the Municipality of Anchorage Planning Department initiated the public involvement process in 2016 for the Spenard Corridor Plan, SCP, a transit-oriented development plan intended to establish a comprehensive long-term vision for the Spenard Corridor from International Airport Road to Hillcrest Drive.

Anchorage 2020 Anchorage Bowl Comprehensive Plan identified Spanard as one of Anchorage's key transit-supported development corridors. These corridors generally run between employment centers, commercial centers, and residential areas. As an implementation step of the Anchorage 2020, the SCP becomes Anchorage's first transit-supported development corridor planning document. This plan presents an area profile, goals and objectives for the corridor, and it links recommendations for land use, multimodal transportation and connectivity, future road upgrades, and transit in a single document. The Planning Department contracted with Winter and Company, whose team comprised national experts and local firms with transit corridor and redevelopment expertise.

The planning process for the SCP involved public involvement efforts and community engagement in the Spenard area. The project team formed a Spinard Activity Committee to get input on the product. Continues on to talk about the approval process. I think transit supportive development is a good thing. I'm just learning about MMH.

What I read is there are challenges in implementation. A 2024 Harvard grad School of Design study noted that MMH has difficulty getting underwriting. They found a 1% premium on lending. The other thing, it doesn't seem to that MMH outlined is going to stimulate building homes that can be afforded by the young people that we have heard. Regardless of the need for housing, I'm not supportive of this because it doesn't follow the laws and policies.

I wonder why this S version does not ask for the use of 2103-160L to integrate the neighborhood plan maps into the official zoning plan. I wonder why on page 4 We still have legacy zoning from times of unification.

Thank you for your testimony.

Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Hi there. Hi there, I'm Veronica Slager. I live down in Bootlegger Cove.

Do you need me to spell my last name? Okay, no thank you. So I am not here necessarily to speak to either vehicle I just want to say that I bought my home and two adjoining lots, uh, about 5 years ago. The home is down on Stolt, right? It's, uh, right at the very end of 9th in Bootlegger Cove.

And then behind it has two lots that I bought the property, these three lots, with the intention of building apartments someday. It's R-3, and And in my dream, I would be able to build apartments or condos that would help relieve the housing, you know, problem that we have. For the last year and a half, I've explored affordable housing, and, uh, and I spent more than $100,000 putting together a package and submitted to Alaska Housing to try to get tax credits to be able to put something together, uh, and that's That's still an option, but I'm also pursuing condos. The point is, when I— again, in my dream, if we could have more ability to have more green space, more setbacks, and actually I'm a fan of higher rather than lower, so that especially my area, if I were to build something, I'd like to give people a little bit more than 8-foot ceilings. I'd like to give someone a 9 or 10-foot ceiling.

That's what that would provide. And I'd also like to be able to have it— that would provide a little bit more density. And I guess that's about it. I just— it sounds to me like— I mean, I know that there's processes in place for the whole seismic issue. You know, again, obviously I'm down right there where we're talking about, and I've already invested in major, you know, geo work.

Work. And it makes me wonder if we're going to take my project off the table, whether there's even a point. Why would I even have the jail work done if we can't— if we're not going to really follow the science? So anyway, that's my comments. Thank you.

Thanks for testimony. Next person, please come forward. State your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes. Marilyn Maxwell.

I live in West Anchorage. Turn again.

Area. Ah, this is so confusing. I try to follow this. I was here last night, I was here last month, and there just keeps— stuff keeps like coming. I spend all day trying to read everything and see what the changes are happening.

The process is perplexing to me. I don't see a process here where we're involved other than being able to testify.

And it's, uh, I, I've— I'm 20 years as a residential real estate appraiser. For those years was in the assessor's office with the city of Anchorage. Seen lots of neighborhoods, hundreds of neighborhoods, thousands of homes. I can tell you when I show up at those houses wearing fluorescent muni vest, there's not a lot of people that want to talk to you. And especially people who are building their own homes, working on their own homes, the first thing they think is we're with permitting.

And they are furious. They are— it is so hard for a property owner to get through that permitting process. And I wonder, I really wonder how many changes have been made with that. As we, as I look at this, at these proposals, I guess they're proposals. I think you get to decide.

We don't get to decide. But for example, driveways. Okay. We've already said we don't need, we've already excluded the need for off-street parking. Off-site parking.

Okay, but now we're limiting driveways to 20 feet. It doesn't say 20 feet wide, 20 feet long, but I think the intention is 20 feet wide. Is that— is that for one-family homes, two-family, three? We're going to put four families in a place with a driveway that's 20 feet wide? Let's say we have— I have an ADU at my house.

And my tenant now doesn't get a place to park. He has to park on the street because I have a two-car-wide driveway for my family, so I'm limited. I look at this map that's part of the— that was part of the S version, and it shows the mixed-use going along, and I look at the I look at all the way to the mid-rise mixed-use housing, which is very tall apartment buildings, and we still don't have any parking for these people. And I know somebody last night talked about Denali Street and how— oh my gosh, my time's almost up— um, being changed for snow load. Why are we talking about that, but yet we're increasing density.

Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. We don't care about it. Thank you for your testimony, ma'am. Uh, next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes, and I believe you testified on the 15th.

Yes. My name is Cole Lockard. I was born and raised in Rogers Park, which is also where I currently reside. I did testify last month, so I'm here to testify on the S version. I want to start by saying Thank you for taking additional comments today and for all the work that's been put into this.

I know it's been a long and oftentimes arduous process. I want to start by saying I agree with excluding seismic hazard zones 4 and 5 from the MHOP overlay. MHOP builds housing for the future based on the problems and trends we see today. Excluding, excluding hazard zones 4 and 5 MHOP also looks to the future based on the knowledge and concerns we possess today. Even the most seismically sound buildings can't withstand the land giving way beneath them.

These goals are aligned. They both seek to protect the future of Anchorage. Next, I appreciate the intention behind a tiered density approach as opposed to outright exclusion of R-1 and R-2 neighborhoods. That said, I believe the original version of MHOP is better equipped equipped to increase housing supply in Anchorage and reduce barriers for people who are interested in finding a home they can afford near their workplace or school. What is the message we send when we say, sure, we'll build housing that is more financially attainable, but only on the outskirts of our neighborhood?

Only if the housing isn't built near me. I want to see a vibrant, thriving Anchorage, and I believe MHOP leads us in that direction. Please amend the original MHOP to exclude seismic hazard zones 4 and 5 and vote yes on the original version of MHOP. Thank you.

Thanks for your testimony. Next person, please come forward, state your name, part of town. You'll have 3 minutes.

Good evening. Uh, thank you. First off, I want to say to all of you for your service. My name is Heath Day. I live in Midtown, District 4.

I want to step back a little bit and talk about your role as the leaders in our community and as governors. Your role is to help create and manage the public infrastructure and parameters in which we live. You're not enacting mandates. You're not the ones who are going to carry these things out. For example, despite removing parking minimums, People are still building parking and new developments.

To drive that point home even further, the 2040 Land Use Plan and the Comprehensive Plan were great documents that planned for us to not be in this situation where we would have housing and where this would not be a situation that we would ever face. But again, your job is to set the parameters in which we live.

With full appreciation for our elders, we are not imagining or developing a community for baby boomers or even for my generation. We're responsible now for the Anchorage our future generations will inhabit.

This is a heavy and significant responsibility, and our actions speak louder than our words. The repeated mantra for the past several years from detractors of zoning reform has been We need more housing, just not near my house. That's not being a responsible steward or a good neighbor. That's selfish. One of the best aspects of living in Alaska is our understanding of our connection to those around us.

We are not alone. We have inherited this beautiful gift of understanding from the people who stewarded these lands for thousands of years before anybody that looked like me showed up or started arguing about building heights or setbacks.

Likewise, your vote on this ordinance will not be the end of this conversation and evolution of life in this community.

Tonight I ask you, please do not govern from a place of fear or selfishness like so many of the comments we've heard. Good policy does not come from places of fear or selfishness. For the sake of Anchorage's future, I encourage you to vote for this and for all ordinances with clear understanding of your role and with our future generations in mind. Thank you. Thanks for your testimony.

Um, so, uh, I'm going to switch to the phone. We have 3 individuals to call, um, that were signed up yesterday that we tried to call and did not pick up. The first one, Mr. Brian Temple.

Hi, if you record your name— okay, as we said last night, when folks use screening apps like that, we are not able to get through, so please call the next person, Ms. Nancy Peace.

Hello, you can find my home phone.

Okay, uh, that was a voicemail. Uh, let's try Miss Janice Nyman.

Hello, this is Janice Simon. Hi, this is Janice. This is Chair Brawley calling from the assembly meeting. We are on public testimony for AO 2026-85. You can begin your testimony and you all have 3 minutes.

Okay, hello and thank you for hearing my testimony. My name is Janice Nyman and I live in a condo on Westchester Lagoon. I was able to listen to the comments of last assembly meeting and this is what stood out to me. One attendee noted how developers can benefit from The MHP planning, they cash in on years of single-family homeowners' property taxes, landscape, and community development. If adopted, developers will tend to purchase properties in established neighborhoods where they can have more success with sales.

Underdeveloped or undeveloped areas will remain neglected. I know this because I recently moved back to Alaska, where in West Seattle, when the upzoning occurred in my neighborhood, I thought it would bring value to my property. Instead, my single-family home lost its value. Parcels were purchased for land value only, disregarding the house value, and generally replaced with with 4, 4-story big block homes on single-family parcels, each selling for approximately $1 million.

I also heard the comments of an attendee supporting the MHOP plan and how they were disappointed in the lack of opportunity for younger or moderate income buyers to live in safe nice neighborhoods. I want to say the MHOP plan is not the solution in its current form. Forthcoming solutions need to look at these factors for a solution. One, economic construction is expensive. Think Habitat for Humanity and volunteer contributions.

2, Education. Train more people and provide jobs in the building industry. HVAC installers and plumbers generally have a higher income than architects. Study cohousing and mixed-use housing models. 3, Community.

I've heard architects, builders, and planners speak. We are a large room full of people who can contribute to the areas of volunteer and design or construction training. And for municipal input, the muni can provide support for design and land acquisition for real projects, as they have shown to have done already. Areas of growth could include this area right around Lusak Library, potentially perfect for starter townhome Homes. Areas along Fireweed could sustain mixed-use structures.

Thank you. And your time has expired. Sorry to interrupt you, and I'll encourage you to send comments by email if you had other things you wanted to share. Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, so that concludes folks on the phone. So I will ask one more time, is there anyone wishing to testify on AO-22685? Please come forward. Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed.

What's the will of the body? Chair, I'd like to move to postpone this item until the meeting of November 4th. Second. Okay, there's a motion by Miss Baldwin-Day to postpone this item to the meeting of, uh, November 4th, second by Mr. Boland. Do you want to speak to it further, Miss Baldwin-Day?

Yes, I would. So, so we had a substitute version, um, laid on the table last night and a raft of amendments. And I think it's really important that before we take up this discussion and debate that we are all on the same page with respect to how those amendments and how that S version interact technically. I think that is something that is best done not in this environment. So I would prefer that we have an S version or work session to give the sponsor of the S version an opportunity to speak to her intent and for sponsors of amendments to be able to do the same.

And I would hope that we would be joined by some of our technical experts who could talk to us about how all of those things work together and then come back to this conversation when we are all grounded in what our code does and doesn't say.

Okay, um, next I have in the queue Mr. Handeland. I was going to ask a question on if we were going to have a work session, and it wouldn't let me cancel to get out of the queue. Okay, no problem. Yes, and I will just say briefly, um, that we do intend to, uh, I always intend to schedule work sessions when they're asked. So, um, thank you.

Next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair. I just want to encourage my colleagues to support the motion. And one thing I wanted to remind folks were, as one of the original sponsors here, the original co-sponsors promised to not introduce an S version along the way, to maintain the integrity of one version and then work through amendments as such. It's intriguing to just to hear that folks are like, "Hey, there's an S version," and it's inviting to some folks, but that was a challenge in the past where folks said there's an S version at the last minute, and so sponsors shouldn't be doing things like that.

And so we haven't. But I think it does allow the opportunity for some additional bridge building.

But I think we've heard a lot of important testimony. I think we've heard lots from folks here in person. But this is a small— and it's been identified today— this is a small subset of the voices that we've heard from. And I think that's important, that if there's at least one thing that I do recognize is that the issue is more important than a particular urgency of a one day. But there is no perfection in, in the, in, in the approach.

There is the opportunity to advance a thoughtful conversation, and I would hope that people see the ability for a pause— not a pause, the procedural motion is a pause— but essentially an opportunity to have had these voices digested filtered in, and then a work session, uh, to see how there can be additional bridge building toward advancement. And I think that's worth the additional time. Um, and so I appreciate that support for my colleagues as well.

Okay, next I have Ms. Park.

Thank you, Chair. Um, I just want to say I appreciate the mover's motion And that, uh, bridge building is my concern. Absolutely. I think we've heard from a lot of people of a lot of concerns. They deserve to have been heard, and I'm willing to work with anybody to produce a policy that is the most advantageous to the community.

So I, I will be voting for that. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, Mr. Hanlon, back in the queue. Yeah, so I just had a kind of a more procedural question on this. As we kind of continue on this public, or the, uh, the process of amendments and maybe, uh, other versions coming forward, uh, how does that impact, um, the public process? If there is a— if it's substantially different, does that reopen public testimony?

Um, yeah, I think it's a good question, and I can also ask Council to speak to it generally, but I think, um, the, the— there is discretion to reopen the public hearing in a situation where the ordinance significantly changes, um, impact. So, and I don't want to speculate what that would look like here, um, but if it, if it looks significantly different than it did not look like it did before in a very material way, um, that is generally an argument to reopen the public hearing. I will also say in the past, however, there have been many processes that I've seen and been part of where there is public testimony, there is discussion about changes, maybe there's a work session before or after that testimony or the hearing is closed, and then generally a version is brought forward that is responsive to those changes. So that is something that I think we haven't done a lot recently, but is a common practice of this body. And so I guess the short version is It is something that we can do.

It requires reopening the hearing, but that is an option. And it's also true that in many cases we have taken in public testimony and then taken action without opening the hearing. And I'll invite Council to speak to that further if there's any clarity on when we may or would be required to reopen the hearing. Yeah, I guess I would just summarize by saying that the body is always free to reopen a public public hearing if they want to. We only advise you that it's, it's likely necessary when the character of the AO has been changed.

So significant changes can take place through the amendment in the S process without reopening the public hearing. It has to be so significant that the actual character of the AO is changed to a degree that, like, the public— like, you're amending sections of code or titles of code that weren't included in the title, or things like that, or the entire purpose of the has changed.

Okay, thank you so much. Thank you. Okay, I don't see anyone else in the queue. I also know we do not have a youth member with us this evening because they are probably doing high school, and so we're doing high school things, uh, so, so we won't be turning to them for a vote. So members may proceed to vote.

Member McCormick?

Yes.

On a vote of 11 to 0, AO 2026-85 has been postponed to the meeting of November 4th. So I'll note briefly, so we are back on the rest of our agenda, and you'll see— members can see there's a shorter version of the agenda. It only includes the items that we have not taken action on at this point. Certainly happy to entertain motions to change the order, but I think the plan right now is to move through our remaining public hearing items. Items in the order that they are presented.

So next I'm going to go to Item 13E, AO-2026-105, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 1.04 acres, CEB3 SL District 2, CEB3 District 4, Lot 1, Block 3, Schroeder Subdivision East Edition, Plat 1971-298. Public hearing on this item is now open. Anyone who wish to testify, please come forward.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, um, public testimony on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Handlin to approve, second by Mr. Gerker.

Uh, any further discussion on this item? I don't see anyone in the queue.

Members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member McCormick?

Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, item AO2026105 passes the body unanimously. Next, uh, we are on to new public hearings. So the first of those is item 14B, AO-2026-109, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 7.9 acres from I-2 to BPR district for a portion of the Port of Anchorage subdivision, Edition 12— or sorry, Edition 2, Track J, Plat 2012-19. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of Move to approve. Second. Motion by Ms. Baldwin-Day, second by— to approve, second by Mr. Perez-Rodilla.

Any further comments on this, Ms. Baldwin-Day? Nothing from me, but happy to give Mr. Dole or anyone else from the administration an opportunity to discuss this if they'd like. Okay, would anyone else wish to make comments on this from the administration? We'll pass. Thank you.

I don't see anyone in the queue for this item, so members may proceed to vote.

Member McCormick?

Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, AO-2026-109 passes the body. Next, uh, 14C, AO-2026-111, an ordinance amending the zoning map and approving the rezoning of approximately 0.27 acres from R-5 to R-2D, District 4, Lot 2, Block 4, Abbott Loop Manor Subdivision Plat P647A. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Vohmann to approve, second by Mr. Presverdia. Any further discussion?

Okay, not— uh, Miss Baldwin-Day. Yes, I just wanted to point out that this is yet another rezone that would be rendered unnecessary if something akin to MHOP were in effect. Thank you. Okay, I don't see anyone further in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item to approve.

Member McCormick?

Yes. On a motion of 11 to 0, this item passes. AO 2026-111 passes the body. Next we have Item 14D, AO 2026-110, an ordinance reassigning implementation and oversight responsibilities for the 20— 2014 Anchorage Wetlands Management Plan while amending several sections to correct Correct textual errors and update diagrams. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion to approve by Miss Baldwin-Day, second by Mr. Presverdia. Would you like to speak to it further? Nothing for me. I'm happy to hear from planning if they've got something to say, but otherwise I Thank you. I'm good.

Okay, I'll just turn to the administration, see if there's any comments you would like to make.

No comment. It speaks for itself.

Okay, seeing no one else in the queue, members may proceed to vote on AO 2026-110.

Member McCormick.

Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, AO 2026-110 passes the body unanimously. Next we have Item 14E, AO 2026-112, an ordinance amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 2107, Development and Design Standards. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Vohland to approve, second by, uh, Ms. Park. Mr. Vohland. Nothing for me, thank you. Member Brawley.

Thank you, I've got myself in the queue. Um, I just want— I just had a brief question and I wanted to make sure that the intent was clear, so if I could ask planning to come up. And as they're walking up, I'll note one minor piece of discussion was that this is a very broad title and the actual scope of it is very small. So anybody who read it would be very surprised to see that it is not changing the probably over 100 pages of design standards. It is allowing a very specific thing.

So I wonder— I was going to ask our planning director to briefly speak to not just what this does, but why, why we're seeing this. This. Thank you. Of course. Thank you, Chair Brawley, and thank you for clarifying too that this is a very minor change.

And the reasoning behind the change was because we are trying to update those tiny little pieces of code that are related to the 3 and 4-plex reform that happened a couple of years ago, um, just to make sure that we are— all of those leftover pieces of code that weren't touched during that reform process are, um, meet the intent of, of those changes. And this particular change was just a minor tweak that gives, um, 3 and 4-plexes the same allowances when it comes to landscaping, or, you know, no landscaping, that single-family and 2-family residences enjoy at the moment. So that is the backstory on that. I hope that clarified what we were doing here.

Yeah, thank you. No additional questions for me. Um, the last thing I'll mention before I will turn back to others is I've said this, I believe, in, in other kind of informal meetings, but I want to put the intention there because it is within this title, uh, not certainly within the scope of this ordinance. One is that we have paused certain design standards ordinance. And so that was done in— I think it was February 2025.

That is live until January 2028. My intention is to put forward an ordinance to extend those and also to really take up the bigger, longer question of what should our design standards and our code look like. And so I just want to again note, this is not— that is not at all what this ordinance is doing. It is much narrower in scope. But I think the bigger question still needs to be answered.

And of course, it is tied to our comprehensive plan. Because so much of our plan, both the 2020 and 2040 plans, call for standards there. So I just wanted to broadcast that out into the world. That is not something that will happen quickly. But in the meantime, we have been seeing some results from that pause.

So beyond that, I will save that discussion for another time, but wanted to make that note here. So next, I will turn to Mr. Boland. Thank you. I said nothing for me, but I guess I will just say I really support this work. I think it's a good follow-along to the triplex and fourplex reform that we did, and a big part of those conversations that we had as part of that— I think it was a 6-month working group process with the Planning Department, Building Department, fire inspectors, traffic, different departments, assembly members— a big thrust of what we were trying to do with that work is say, how can we treat triplex and fourplex development more similarly to, um, single-family homes and duplexes?

And so looking at the dimensional standards, looking at the building code, and so this to me is one more of those check marks where we can make it easier to build, to build missing middle and to treat small multifamily similar to how we treat single-family homes. So I think it's a good step in the right direction. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. No one further in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member McCormick? Yes.

Okay, on a vote of 11 to 0, that item passes the body unanimously. Next we have item— and I should say I misspoke about the Design Standards pause, so I'll just correct myself on the record. The pause is until May 31st, 2028, so I misspoke, and not January 2028. Next we have item AO-2026-113, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly to reauthorize certain boards and commissions by amending the sunset provisions in Anchorage Municipal Code sections 4.90.10 010, 4.50.110, and 4.60.035. Public hearing on this item is now open.

Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second.

Motion by Mr. Volland to approve, second by Ms. Park. Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Volland? No, thank you.

Okay, don't see anyone else in the queue, so members may proceed to vote.

Member McCormick?

Yes. On a vote of 11 to 0, item AO 2026-113 passes the body unanimously. Next we have item 14H, AO-2026-117, an ordinance authorizing a second amendment to a land lease located on a portion of Track J, Port of Anchorage Addition Number 2, according to plat number 201219, between Don Young Port of Alaska and Alaskom Inc. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Anyone at all?

Seeing and hearing no one, uh, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve. Second. Motion by Mr. Voland to approve, second by Miss Baldwin-Day.

Any further comments, Mr. Voland?

Okay. Yeah, I, I'll just say I don't have any. I know that, um, we passed a Track J item earlier this evening, um, and Track J has been sort of a subject of conversation with my constituents, very important to Government Hill community. I don't have any concerns about this, and And we can go ahead and approve this. Thank you.

Okay, I don't have anyone further in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on this item.

Member McCormick?

Yes. Jared, is your computer working?

On a vote of 11 to 0, item AO 2026-117 passes the body unanimously. Next, we'll move on to item 14-I, Ordinance AO 2026-120, an ordinance of the Anchorage Municipal Assembly amending Anchorage Municipal Code Chapter 3.30 Personnel Rules Part 2 and Chapter 6.10 to require the number of full-time equivalent positions for each municipal department, office, and agency, excluding utilities and enterprises, to be included and approved in the annual general government operating budget, and establishes an upper limit. Public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify.

Seeing and hearing anyone at all? Seeing and hearing no one. Public testimony on this item is now closed. What's the will of the body? Move to approve— no, I'm kidding, just kidding.

Move to postpone to the meeting of November 4th. Second. Okay, motion by Mr. Gerker to postpone this item to the meeting of November 4th, second by Ms. Baldwin-Day. Would you like to speak to that further? Yeah, we just have— we have a lot of work sessions piled up in the next couple weeks, so we thought we'd give ourselves a little bit more breathing room, uh, so we're not all cranky with budget stuff.

At the same time. Thanks. Okay, any further comments on this? And I'll note, um, the request for a work session has been heard, and we will work on scheduling offline. Is there any objection to postponement of this item to the meeting of November 4th?

Seeing, hearing none, this item was postponed to the meeting of November 4th. And last on our agenda this evening in terms of public hearings 6, Resolution AR-2026-272, a resolution of the Municipality of Anchorage appropriating an amount not to exceed $936,000— $936,157 of Ben Boeke and Dempsey Ice— Dempsey Anderson Ice Arena capital reserves within the Anchorage Park and Recreation Service Area Capital Improvements Projects Fund 461800 for the Dempsey Anderson Ice Arena boiler replacement, Ben Boeke Ice Arena dehumidifier replacement, Dempsey Anderson Ice Arena condenser fan replacement, Dempsey dehumidifier repair, and Ben Boeke and Dempsey Anderson Ice Arena CO2 pressure valve relief replacement projects. It was a mouthful. Uh, public hearing on this item is now open. Please come forward if you wish to testify, anyone at all.

Seeing and hearing none, public hearing on this item is now closed. What's the will of the Move to approve. Second. Motion to approve by Mr. Mullin, second by Mr. Presrudia. Would you like to speak to it further, Mr. Mullin?

I see one person in the queue. Ms. Baldwin-Day. Yeah, thank you. I'm curious, and forgive me if I missed it in the memorandum, what is the remaining balance once we have appropriated all of these, what is the remaining balance in the capital reserve fund?

Through the chair to Member Baldonday, I don't believe that is in the memorandum itself. I think I might be able to fish that out of email, but it will take me a minute, and it is possible I will have to get back to you. That's totally fine. Yeah, it is not going to affect my vote on this one way or the other, but I am interested to sort of see just what is the balance, what do we have left in capital reserves, and how does the total here comport with sort of the overall pot of money in the kitty. So, thank you.

Okay, sounds like that is a follow-up for offline. I don't see any other members in the queue, so members may proceed to vote on on this item.

Member McCormick?

Yes. Member Silvers, is your computer working?

On a vote of 11 to 0, this item passes the body unanimously. That takes us through all of our public hearing items. So, uh, last on our agenda is audience participation. If anyone in the audience would like to participate, please come forward.

Okay, seeing and hearing none, then we will do assembly. And I should also know we're not going to do executive session, uh, so assembly comments. And I'll start this evening with Mr. Handeland. I always appreciate spending another evening with my 11 best friends up here. And have a good evening.

Mr. Martinez. No additional comments. Mr. Gerker. No additional comments. Ms. Silvers.

No comments, thank you. Mr. Perez Verdia. No comments. Mr. Buland. No comments.

Ms. Baldwin-Day.

For my colleagues' awareness, I will be out of town until next Thursday, and so if I don't get back to you via email or text, please don't take it personally. It's because I'm trying to unplug a little bit. So thank you all, and thank you for your work over the last couple of days. This has been really intense, and I appreciate all of you and the work that you do. Thanks.

Next, Mr. McCormick.

Okay, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. We seem to have got the same memo to get out of town. I also will be checking my messages from afar, and please reach out if you need me. Thank you.

Okay, and Mr. Johnson? No comments, Chair. Thank you. Lastly, I'll note, um, thank you everybody. I know it is hard to slot in an extra meeting and a few more hours of your day, so I'm glad we were able to end early, um, and we will have, um, a little bit of a break.

A reminder, no work sessions on Friday. We have some meetings tomorrow, and then I hope everyone has a good holiday weekend on Monday as well. So thank you, everybody. We are adjourned.

Let you take me seriously! Oh—.

Oh—.