Planning and Zoning Commission - July 14, 2025 - 2025-07-14 18:30:00

All right, it is 6:30 PM and we will call the July 14th meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission to order. We will place the roll call. Andres Spinelli, here. Radhika Krishna, here. Jim Winchester, here.

Scott Pullis, here. Jeff Rahn, here. Brandy Eber, here. Greg Stryke, here. Jared Gardner is excused.

You have a quorum. Thank you. And is there a motion to approve the minutes for Monday, June 9th? Moved by Commissioner Eber, seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Any corrections or objections to the minutes?

Hearing and seeing none, minutes are approved.

Next item are disclosures. Any commissioners have any items they wish to disclose?

Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In case 2025-0030 and 2025-0034, I would like to disclose that my spouse, Cassandra Gardner Rahn, did in fact submit a written public comment. She and I did not discuss the case in advance.

The first time I saw her comment was this afternoon when staff emailed it to all Commissioners. I don't believe that I have a conflict. I intend to participate in the case unless directed otherwise by the Commission. Thanks.

If anybody feels strongly that Commissioner Rahn should not participate, now would be the time to make a motion. I'm inclined to think he should participate? Hearing and seeing none, we will move on. Is there a motion to approve the consent agenda?

Moved by Commissioner Krishna, seconded by Commissioner Eber. Anyone wishing to pull any items from the consent agenda for discussion?

Hearing, seeing none. Any objections to the consent agenda? Hearing none, consent agenda is approved.

Next item of business, or next thing on the agenda, is the public hearings. Um, All right, I will, uh, now read the process by which the public may testify to the Commission. Procedures by which public may speak to the Commission at its meeting is: 1, after staff 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 Commission rules and procedures. Petitioners, including his or her representatives, will receive 10 minutes. Part of this may be reserved for rebuttal. Representatives of groups, community councils, PTAs, et cetera, will receive 5 minutes. Individuals will receive 3 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 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 2103-050(a)(4)(a). Commission recommendations to the Anchorage Assembly are not appealable. Following approval of the written findings of fact and decision, any party of interest may within 20 days file an appeal by filing a notice of appeal and paying the appeal fee and deposit in accordance with Section 2103050, the notice of appeal must be filed with the planning director on a form prescribed by the municipality.

If the appellant is not the applicant, the appellant's notice of appeal shall include proof of service on the applicant.

May we please have staff presentation in case 2025-0075? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a conditional use application for a stormwater sediment management facility within the Public Lands and Institutions District at the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, located at the corner of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and Tudor Road.

This conditional use is required by Anchorage Municipal Code 21-05010, Table 21-05-1, Table of Allowed Uses. The Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Facilities, is a co-permittee with the Municipality of Anchorage on the Anchorage Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System MS4 permit. The current permit written and regulated by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation dated August 1st, 2020, and expiring July 31st, 2025, sets forth the responsibilities and requirements of the Anchorage Stormwater Management Program. A new control measure required by the 2020-2025 MS4 permit is that permittees design, fund, build, and operate one or more facilities to process catch basin and inlet cleaning materials for proper handling and disposal. Catch basins and inlets are structures designed to collect and convey stormwater.

These structures require regular maintenance in the form of annual monitoring and sediment removal done on an as-needed basis, which is a separate Department of Environmental Conservation MS4 permit requirement. The municipality of Anchorage owns and has been operating a stormwater sediment management facility on Northwood Drive for years. And does not have the capacity to handle the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities' needs. This site will provide a needed facility for the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, who currently use privately— privately owned sites that are Department of Environmental Conservation permitted sites. The proposed stormwater sediment management facility will be located on state-owned land within a fenced yard at the southeast corner of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and Tudor Road.

The property address is 5420 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. The existing property is currently used for State of Alaska facilities, including Alaska State Troopers Anchorage headquarters and lab, a State of Alaska equipment fleet shop, a stands— a sand storage building, materials lab and headquarters building, public facilities headquarters, State of Alaska radio facility, road materials storage building, and other warehouses, offices, and storage buildings. Access to the site is by two existing driveways along Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue and one existing driveway along Tudor Road. Access to the site with the conditional use will utilize the existing driveways. A pre-application conference with reviewing agencies was held on April 23rd, 2025, in accordance with AMC 2103080C2.

The petitioner advertised and attended a community meeting with the Campbell Park Community Council on May 15th, 2025, in accordance with AMC 2103-080(c)(3). Attachment 2, application, includes the petitioner's affidavit of posting, community meeting summary, and application submitted to the Planning Department. The Planning Department mailed 301 public hearing notices on June 16th. 2025. As of this writing, the Planning Department has received no public comments.

The Campbell Park Community Council did not provide comments. Municipal reviewing agencies have no objection to the conditional use for a stormwater sediment management facility. Attachment 3, comments, includes all comments received by the Planning Department in their original format and are found on page 47 of your staff packet. The Planning and Zoning Commission may approve a conditional use application if, in the judgment of the commission, all 9 criteria have been met in all material matters. Planning staff has found that all 9 approval criteria for conditional use have been met and all 8 use-specific standards for a stormwater sediment management facility have been met.

Therefore, staff recommends approval of this conditional use for a stormwater sediment management facility subject to conditions 1 and 2 on page 8 of the staff report. I can answer any questions that the commissioners may have, and the petitioner's representative, R&M, is in attendance.

Any questions for staff?

Have the petitioner come on up.

Good evening. My name is Dave Whitfield with R&M Consultants, representing the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities here tonight. On this request for conditional use permit for a new stormwater sediment management facility located on their property on Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Avenue. Joining me tonight from Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is Renee Gensel, Kirk Warren, Burrell Nickerson, and Casey Eliason. While I won't need the full 10 minutes for my presentation.

I would like to reserve any time for rebuttal.

This project did go, as Mr. Hatcher mentioned, to the Campbell Park Community Council on May 15th. The project was generally well received, with most of the questions and conversation revolving around how the facility would operate.

Again, as Mr. Hatcher mentioned, the Department of Transportation and Public Facilities is a co-permittee with the Municipality of Anchorage on their MS-4 permit. A new control measure required by the MS-4 permit requires that permittees design, fund, build, and operate a facility to process catch basin and inlet cleaning materials for proper handling and disposal. The municipality has been operating their own stormwater sediment management facility on Northwood Drive for years, but doesn't have the capacity to handle DOT's needs. This facility will provide that capacity and will serve DOT currently and in the future. This project conforms to both the 2020 Comprehensive Plan and the Anchorage 2040 Land Use Plan.

It furthers Anchorage 2020's goal for public improvements and services, which encourages a well-planned mix of public and institutional facilities that meet the needs of Anchorage residents. It also implements Policy 6.1 of Anchorage 2040 that calls for sufficient transportation infrastructure to support the growth that the comprehensive plan anticipates. As the Planning Department staff report states, all general standards for conditional use approval have been met, as well as all use-specific standards for stormwater sediment management facility. The facility has been designed with the public's interest in mind. An earthen berm will be constructed around the north, east, and south sides of the facility to provide both a visual buffer and to mitigate any noise impacts.

The site currently provides adequate lighting and therefore no additional lighting is proposed with this development. The facility is compatible with adjacent land uses. The property is currently used by the State of Alaska for operations both day and night. Neighboring the site to the east is an MOA snow disposal site that also operates at all times of day and night in the winter months. The facility will not be large in scale and will operate intermittently only during the summer months.

As a result, no adverse impacts are anticipated. The project team has reviewed all conditions recommended on page 8 of the staff packet and have no objections. We want to thank you for your consideration here tonight, uh, and as always, we're available to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Any questions for the petitioner?

Uh, Commissioner Rahn. Thank you, through the chair. Mr. Whitfield, thank you for the presentation. My question relates to the permit itself. Looks like on page 17 of the staff packet application materials from DOT, the permit in question extended from August 1st, 2020 and expires in about 17 days.

Can you inform the Commission where DOT and the MOA are at in reapplication for future permit and if that process might affect this proposal? Thanks. Through the chair, Mr. Rahn, thank you for the question. I'm going to ask Renee Gensel with the department to come up.

Hi, this is Renee Gensel, DOT Maintenance and Operations. So essentially DOT and the muni are co-permitees under the MS-4 permit, which expires every 5 years. Typically DEC runs a little bit behind on their expiring permits. So for example, the MSGP expired, the multi-sector general permit expired at the end of March, and the new permit isn't out yet. Once it comes out, we have 120 days to comply with the new permit.

And in this case, I've already spoken with DEC, and we are in the works on getting an extension letter essentially that will cover us to give us an extra year or two to get this facility built because, as I explained to them back in 2020, state wheels turn a little bit slow in getting funding, getting design and all of that good stuff, getting permitting. So we should be right on track and DC is aware of where we're at.

I see no further questions.

Oh, we will open the public hearing.

Anybody wishing to testify, please step forward. Okay, we'll close our— nope, you have 6 minutes for rebuttal.

You're good. We're closing the public hearing.

What is the will of the body?

Uh, motion by Commissioner Pulis. Would you like to state your motion? Yes, I move in case 2025-0075 to approve a conditional use for a stormwater sediment managed facility Subject conditions 1 and 2 as shown on page 8 of the staff report. That's seconded by Commissioner Eber. Commissioner Pulis, would you like to speak to your motion?

Yes, I intend to support the motion. As noted in the staff packet, it meets conditional use and use-specific criteria. DOT maintains roadways in the MOA. This will assist them to do that, and there's no public opposition that I heard of, so Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Uh, with that, we'll call for the vote.

Mr. Streich, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

That motion passes.

All right, um.

Next up, we will be looking for a motion to combine cases 2025-0030 and 2025-0034.

That motion is made by Commissioner Rahn, seconded by Commissioner Winchester.

Um, Commissioner Rahn, would you like to state and speak to your motion? Uh, for the record, I will state the motion. Um, no discussion from me needed. I move to combine public hearing, uh, 2025-0030 and 2025-0031. 3, 4.

Thanks. Seconded by Commissioner Winchester. Any opposed to the motion? Hearing, seeing none, the motion passes.

The testimony will— time for this— these two cases will be doubled. Um, and can we go ahead and have staff's presentation, please?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Daniel McKenna Foster, Long Range Planning, speaking this evening about the Transit Support Development Overlay, or the TSDO as we've been calling it. This is cases— PCC cases 2025-30 and 2025-34. Um, just for the record, we did have a work session before this.

The slides that you'll see are mostly the same as the work session, but I removed a few of them. But we'll make sure all these materials are available. So, uh, Transportive Development Overlay, or the TSDO, is fundamentally about making the most of land and infrastructure as well as building an efficient transportation system. So it's about promoting housing, mixed uses, and walkability along transit corridors. It was called for in our comprehensive plans since 2001.

It helps put housing near transit, which leads to lower costs, more choices, and stronger transit over time. My sort of favorite quip as a planner is that transportation cost is always a piece of housing cost. So, you know, if you can look at things like that, as housing costs maybe rise in terms of proximity, you might get lower transportation costs. And it's an interesting way to look at things. The TSDO is wide enough to have a positive impact, at least the way it's designed.

It's based off of the tax incentive that was adopted with AO 2025-35 S-1. The tax abatement boundary, using that, it provides more opportunities and helps avoid putting all the new housing on higher-speed roads, just as a buffer for other types of housing, right?

It also supports small local businesses and mixed-use neighborhoods. There's been a lot of discussion about the uses. The uses, as I'll mention later, were based on the R-4A zone, which is sort of the mixed-use. Zone, the, the highest capacity mixed-use zone for Anchorage. And we have heard a lot of support, both people concerned about uses but also people who love the idea of sort of mixed-use, different types of activity in their neighborhoods, more that daily use kind of commercial and maybe non-residential type stuff.

So in general, TISDO allows lots as small as 1,400 square feet, 75-foot heights, up to 6 stories, allows the full use of a lot, no setback requirements or lot coverage maximums. It allows limited mixed uses, um, so again based on R-4A, and an additional limitation that the commercial use cannot be greater than 2,000 square feet per lot, and allows flexibility in design. Um, another— it sort of preserves or protects the property's underlying zoning except limiting drive-throughs where they're not already allowed. All non-residential development in a residential base zone must have at least one dwelling unit all the time, and existing natural resource protections or landscaping requirements are preserved. So that section of Chapter 2107 is maintained.

The concept of transit supportive development really fundamentally comes down to focusing stuff next to other stuff, focusing development on infrastructure. Infrastructure is really expensive for cities, and so it makes a lot of sense to have more people and goods and transportation there. It sort of makes the most of that, those efficiencies. So here's an example from Atlanta, Georgia. And again, these are sort of extreme examples of what transit-supported development might look like over 30, 40, or 50 years.

Here's another great example, Arlington, Virginia. This is really, I mean, a lot of it's based on federal investment in the D.C. Metro in the '60s and '70s. And then sort of Arlington, Virginia responding over time with their land use to say, let's build up along this corridor. And so you do, you really have this sort of different type of urban feeling along that infrastructure. So the concept comes from adopted plans, primarily the 2001, uh, 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

You'll see in, in this diagram, this is from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, which is still the plan in effect. Those, those orange lines there are the original concept for transit corridors or transit supportive development, and that was, you know, 24 years ago that concept got developed. Bus routes change, development patterns change, but this was sort of the, the initial impetus of the idea. Building on that in the 2040 Land Use Plan, which was adopted in 2017, which called for, um, transport development as a growth-supporting feature. A big thing, you know, of 2040, the land use plan was to say we are going to accommodate growth and we'd like to see it in certain places, targeted areas, not only in, in transport development, also in town centers, city centers, regional centers, that sort of thing.

Um, it's also supported by the mayor's 10,000 Homes in 10 Years strategy, which under the remove regulatory barriers to help build and repair housing is, uh, this one allowed denser development where plans call for it, such as downtown, midtown, town centers, and transit supportive corridors. So it's building off the ideas from the 2020 Comprehensive Plan, the 2040 Land Use Plan, and current policy direction from the mayor. So looking at the map where this applies, again, I mentioned that it's based off of what the 2040 land use plan showed online for the transit supportive development corridors. So in this map, you'll see the dark purple areas are what is currently on the 2040 land use plan map online. That is the transit supportive development overlay as presented there.

But right now, that's just sort of, you know, drawings on the land use plan. It's sort of an idea of what could happen in the future. And here we are, the future is now, right? So on here, the lighter pink is the area that where this transport development overlay is being proposed would apply. And you'll see there is some difference there, right?

Um, and because I mentioned what happened is, um, in April the assembly adopted Ordinance 2025-35-S1, which was the tax incentive. And that allows sort of tax incentives for free if you build, I believe, 8 units or more of multi-family. Is that correct? And so then the, the thinking was, well, let's line up our incentives and make sure that our incentives are working together and just line up the, the Trans-Supportive Development Overlay, the TSDO, with that. So you're probably thinking, well, okay, how did you come up with those boundaries?

We spent a lot of time looking at those and working on those. And actually, we've gotten some comments here tonight which I think might even help refine them a bit more. But basically, the boundaries for PCC Case 2025-30 are based on the tax abatement boundaries for AO 2025-35S1. These include existing bus routes and Federal Opportunity Zones. Federal Opportunity Zone is like a federal program for incentivizing investment in certain areas.

It's based on census tract, I believe. Um, so actually I'll go back. You'll see here in the Boldoon area up there, there's a big square that seems a lot bigger than the corridor. That's because that is a Federal Opportunity Zone. Um, so we also removed lakes, wetlands, zone parks, and rights-of-way.

Um, and we removed industrial zoning except for those areas which were designated for rezoning within the 2040 LUP land use plan. Because that's another thing too, is every city does need industrial land. It's a— and it's identified in the 2040 land use plan as a priority for preserving industrial base in Anchorage. And then we added or removed parcels for contiguity. So we, we did just have a work session, and we got a little good comments from that work session.

We got a little A lot of good comments from the public during that as well. One thing that came up is being really clear that the intent of this is to encourage development in the places where it makes sense for development. So that doesn't include parks, that doesn't include wetland areas, doesn't include natural areas. So as we look at this, there are some areas where I think we can make some further refinements and be very clear. So this is an example of the map, and you'll see this highlighted area is technically within it.

That's zoned PR, but it's listed as vacant land and owned by the MOA. So I think in putting that together, it didn't hit one of the thresholds. But that's one of those changes that I think makes a lot of sense to really emphasize that this isn't about just developing anywhere. It's about developing in targeted areas where it makes sense and also preserving the parks. And I'll kind of plug another project the planning department is doing right now.

Another piece of 2040 was to go through a— sort of a housekeeping to rezone all the parks to parks zoning designations and really ensure that parks are really valuable. Let's make sure that the land use pieces and zoning regulatory pieces emphasize that. So we are working on that. We have a one— our first sort of first rezone using a new rezone process coming out later this year. But just to emphasize that I think we could probably make some refinements to this map to make sure that any of these park areas are not included, just to really emphasize that this isn't about developing in parks or anything like that.

It's about developing in areas with good amenities and access to good transit, and we want to just make sure that's clear. So another thing we talked about in the, the work session just now, and I'll touch a little bit, is, is how did we, you know, what were some of the decisions that got to this, got us to this point, and what are some of the things that got left on the table? One thing in working in the map is, is really thinking about how we start from the guidance of the 2020 Plan, what's published in the 2040 Land Use Plan, weighing that with the realities of federal incentives, mayoral guidance. And so this is just an example of versions of the map when we were working on this several months ago. So in purple you see that's the TSDO area as proposed.

In yellow, that's a quarter mile off of existing bus routes. And you can see that there are areas that are on bus routes that aren't included in the transit Transportive Development Overlay. We, we did not propose including those, um, just because we, we didn't want to get too far from the intent of 2040 and 2020. And again, you know, that's another piece about this is bus routes change over time. In fact, the bus routes that led to some of the Transit Supportive Development Overlays established in the 2040 Plan changed within a couple of years, and you can even see that the bus routes have been different ever since.

And so So it's really sort of threading the needle of what makes most sense in terms of practicality, in terms of transit's needs, in terms of long-term likelihood. So that's just sort of a peek into what we were thinking about during the months we were developing this. And on here, the purple lines are what's identified in the 2040 Land Use Plan as a Transported Development Overlay. That's interesting, too, because you'll see in 2040, it doesn't— actually extend all the way down Muldoon, so it doesn't include Muldoon as an entire corridor. It's sort of cut off, um, there.

So another piece is when you look at the bowl, it looks like this is covering a lot of Anchorage. Just going off of acreage, there's about 11,866 acres in the Transit Sorter Development Overlay, and that's only about 8% of developable land in the municipality. So that's all the municipality— that's Eagle River, Girdwood, Anchorage Bowl. So that's, um, it's a pretty small area, and that's taking out, you know, Chugach State Park, because that would make it an even tinier number. And then this is about 70% of developable land within the Anchorage Bowl.

So this map is just showing the bowl. It's just showing the 2040 land use plan boundary, just, you know, known as the bowl. So within that, it's, it's less than a quarter of the land. And so it's just saying we, we'd like to focus development on about a quarter of the land where we have a lot of infrastructure and it seems to make the most sense. So I'll do a quick overview of dimensional standards.

Um, TISU allows full use of each lot. That means you have, uh, full lot coverage is allowed. You have no setbacks except as required by building or fire review, and no minimum— and lot minimum lot dimensions are 1,400 square feet. Um, so, and one thing about zoning is just because it isn't restricted here, it doesn't mean it won't be restricted by other things. For example, the water utility, they generally require a 30-foot minimum lot width at the right-of-way to connect.

Or, you know, the fire department or building safety department, they sometimes will require a 5-foot separation. There can be easements. You can't build on an easement. So this doesn't violate any of those. Another thing we talked about is how zoning provides an upper limit, right?

It provides a ceiling, not necessarily a floor. So these, rather than thinking about what zoning will cause or predict or incite, you might even say, it's more thinking about, well, what are the limits now that zoning would allow? So this diagram shows something that would be in the transport development overlay corridor along Muldoon Road in a zone that's currently zoned R2-D. And the smaller houses, those, what's sort of the glass aquarium, you might say, is the current developable envelope. So that's looking at the allowable height, the allowable lot coverage, the setbacks. So if you were building, you could currently right now by permit build up that entire box.

But as you can see, most people don't. Those houses are more or less scaled, right? And then the, the one in the middle is a proposed TSDO developable envelope. So again, we're showing what's possible. We're not showing the absolute full build out.

Um, because we, we don't know. We—. A lot of this proposal was designed around allowing the possibility of 5-over-1 development. And 5-over-1 is a type of development where it's 5 stories of wood frame construction over a concrete podium, so it's essentially 6 stories. Um, but it's not clear whether that development type is really viable in Anchorage with our soils and that sort of thing.

But it's allowing the possibility of that, of that amount of flexibility. And I wouldn't be a good planner if I didn't reference the great cities of yore. This sort of mix of housing typologies is— it's a part of cities. Cities change, development styles change, and as cities grow up, this is sort of a natural thing that happens. This is Chicago area, another example from Chicago area, example from Seattle, a more contemporary example from Minneapolis.

This is actually a good example of a 5-over-1, but you see it's actually probably a 4-over-1. So it's got that concrete podium and then wood frame construction above. And this is— in the last 20 years, this was a real innovation in building technology. Because previously you couldn't connect— well, I won't say what you could or couldn't do. But my understanding is that once this became allowed by building code, it enabled a lot of new types of housing to go in a lot of city and urban areas.

And by having that density, it does allow the kind of things like You could have retail on the first floor or something like that. But it's not all about height, right? It also allows, because of the lot size and the coverage, it allows a lot of flexibility on the smaller scale. And it allows this type of housing, which my entire 10 years as a planner, I've always heard people talking about loving to do this. It's always difficult to do it.

There are a number of reasons why. Financing might be one, but lot size minimums are also often one. And so, you know, our lot coverage and that sort of thing. So it isn't just about high, it's also about a much wider range of flexibility in what could be built. Here's a sort of specific example, and this is— it's scaled, but, you know, don't— nobody's going to hire me as an architect or designer, which is fine.

This is an actual lot off of 8th Street, and it's about 4 acres, and the zoning right now is R-4. So R-4 zoning allows a range of housing types, but say somebody says, you know, I want to do the single-family housing product. Um, minimum lot size for that housing type is 6,000 square feet. So if you divide that up, you get about 22 6,000 square foot lots. So for Anchorage, that would be awesome to get that much housing, right?

But it would also get us a lot closer to our goals if we got more housing. So the, the top is, um, if you allowed to the Tisdale lot size, which gets down to a 1,400 square foot lot, and then you get 78, um, square— 78 of these lots. So 78 homes would would be even greater, right, for us to get it to our goals. Now again, these are sort of the extremes. Who knows if this would happen or not, but the top example is if you had that many more houses on smaller lots, everyone has access to the road.

The road is— I think it's the standard width, and that's what you could do. And you would even have a little green strip in there. So I'll go quickly through some of the design standards and some of the other stuff. Design requirements. From open space.

We had some discussion about that, really thinking about hopefully in more urban areas the municipality is fulfilling that role of providing public space and open space. It should be— TSDO is exempt for residential design standards, but those are already under moratorium currently. Landscaping standards do exist. So I mentioned that setback— there are no setbacks required, but if you have a property in a TSDO overlay zone and next to one that isn't, there will be a landscaping requirement, and the landscaping essentially serves as its own setback. Generally, it's 8 foot— starting at 8 foot is, is the minimum width.

So again, just because the code says you don't have to do it, it doesn't mean another piece of code, um, doesn't mean you have to do it. Um, multiple structures allowed on a lot, and developments are exempt from the height transitions for neighborhood compatibility. So again, not to bore you too much, but here is the landscaping table. You can see wherever TISDO is next to TISDO, there's no landscaping requirement. But where's TISDO next to another zone?

There is a landscaping requirement, and that essentially becomes a setback. Again, natural resource protection areas— if there are any conflicts, the provisions of natural resource protection shall govern. So that was something, you know, we heard a lot, and we make sure to make that very clear about it. District-specific standards. All— so I mentioned all resident— non-residential development except community uses in a residential zone must have at least one dwelling unit, and all non-residential development shall be no greater than 2,000 gross square feet.

And, and that's based on the idea of generally in most residential zones you, you might have a pretty, you know, a big 2,000 square foot house that, that could potentially be something else as long as you have another unit on there. Maybe you have the first floor becomes some sort of shop or something and the second floor becomes the residents or something. Um, and then permitted uses: drive-through service as an accessory use shall be subject to the most restrictive standards of the base zone or the transit supportive element overlay. Um, uses in— I think if you can get to the one of the packets that all the uses are outlined in the proposed ordinance. We had them up, but they're— they take up so many pages and it's so small.

So I'll just say that the uses are based on those in the R-4A zone. And again, R-4A was imagined as sort of the high-capacity mixed-use zone for Anchorage. And during the work session, we talked about, you know, are some of these uses appropriate for this overlay, like an aquarium, for example? And how do you— what's the trade-off between should an aquarium be a permitted use while some sort of rehabilitative care is maybe not? And those are sort of bigger policy questions, and we're hoping, and hopefully tonight we could discuss that a bit more.

And then there's another part of the present— of the ordinance, which is making conforming changes to the comprehensive plan. I'm speeding up a bit now that I'm looking at the time. And this is really about making sure that the plan is clear on how to do this. One of the biggest pieces of the plan where it's a little bit confusing is that the plan says it's transit-supportive development corridors, but then it says we're gonna— so that indicates to me, you know, to us, that you're going to, uh, development's going to support transit, but then it says that expanded public transit is going to support development. The problem is, to get transit to the level, you know, of 3-minute headways, it would take billions or maybe trillions of dollars.

So we kind of have to start from, let's get the, the development there first, or allow it, and then transit can justify, you know, adding more routes or improving the headways and that sort of thing. And then there's some other stuff about where it says we want the density to support transit, but then the plan says, but you can't raise any of the density. And then here's an example of— this is one of the high-frequency routes. I think this is a 10-minute headway, or buses coming every 10 minutes. But on both, you know, north and south of the bus line, it's pretty inflexible zoning.

It only allows about 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. And so we have investing all this money in high-capacity transit, but we have all these, you know, some of these stretches where you just wouldn't have that many people who are likely to use it. So with that, I will be glad to take any questions. In our staff report, we recommended postponing or continuing this hearing until September, and we also recommended that the Planning and Zoning Commission go into Committee of the Whole to talk about this so we could have the discussion here. I guess we'll follow the procedure for public comment and then move forward.

But we've got to answer any questions or wait until later. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Christian, are you in the queue for questions for staff? Yes, I have one question before we get into public hearing, which is that on page 2 of our packet it states that property owners can choose to opt in. Could you just describe how you see this would be implemented if it were to pass the assembly?

That's in the staff report. It's page 2 of our packet. It says number 5, maintain current property rights. Property owners can opt into the overlay or maintain their current zoning. Yeah, I think the way that is, is you can opt into using the— excuse me, through the Chair, you can opt into using what it allows, but you don't necessarily have to.

So once the overlay applies, it applies, but you can't sort of exempt out of it.

Through the Chair to Commissioner Krishna, if I may. This is Melissa Babb, Planning Director, for the record. For instance, in the B-3 zoning districts, B-3 allows more uses and more types of buildings than TSDO would. So this would allow you to either use the B-3 or the TSDO and vice versa for those residential districts, for example, that are more restrictive. Then you could either choose to stick to your residential district zoning or use your TSDO.

Allowances. And may I ask a follow-up question? And do you believe that all of those cases would be covered under the section in here that states that, um, when there's a conflict with the underlying— when with the base zoning district, the more flexible standards shall apply? Do you— are those— is that synonymous with what you just said? Through the Chair to Commissioner Krishna, yes, that is the intent of that section.

Thank you.

Any other questions for staff?

Commissioner Polis. Can we just recap the downtown question that the Commissioner asked during the work session just one more time for the public? Yeah, thank you, Commissioner Paulson. Through the chair, during the work session, there's a question about how this overlay— it applies to all of downtown, and downtown has its own chapter of code, and it has sort of a specific design to it. One of the main aspects of that is that single-family homes are not allowed currently in downtown code.

This overlay, because it allows single-family homes as a, uh, a use type would allow that because then a property owner in downtown could make the selection to build. So it would be allowing that flexibility to build a single-family home, but from sort of the planning perspective or urban resources perspective, there is a question of is, is that the best use of land downtown to build that? And if I could sneak up, there were, there were some other questions where, uh, one was how much, how much land is vacant in the Transit Support Development Overlay. So there's about 11,000 acres of land from including all vacant, that's exempt vacant, utility vacant, residential vacant, vacant. And this is just going off of the property assessment data.

It's about 1,869 acres. If you get— if you remove the exempt vacant, which is probably a lot of public land, it's about 1,500 acres. And then there was a question of how much B-3 is in. And so B-3 and B-3SL is about 1,993 acres within the transport development overlay proposed, um, and about 170 of that is vacant currently.

So did I hear that right, that we're talking 10% roughly vacant?

Yeah. Okay. A little bit more, maybe. Him.

Any other questions with staff— for staff before we go to the public?

Seeing none, we will open the meeting— the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to testify, please step forward, state your name, let us know if you're speaking on behalf of a group or as an individual.

Hold on back. Let's, uh, work on, uh, find some buttons to push till— oh, there you go. The mic's on now. Is that better? That is better.

Okay, sorry. My name is Duane Hyman, and I'm representing St. Mary's Episcopal Church at the southwest corner of Tudor Road and Lake Otis Parkway. And I've asked for this paper to be distributed to you because there's some images that just help visualize what we're doing. Bottom line is we support TSDO because we think it's going to help and expand options for us to develop 120 or more affordable housing units on 9 excess acres that we have out of our total 19-acre campus. The, the first picture shows you the existing buildings that we have, including the Thomas Center for senior living, and then the potential road to come south of Tudor is where the conceptual 120 units right now looks like with existing zoning could be, could be put in.

I think many of you are familiar with St. Mary's. We've been involved in a lot of community things over the years. Currently we're involved with 69 partners in different service organizations, and we've had the state's first creative play school, and then the Thomas Center, and a whole bunch of other things. The next page, this one is the result of the last planning process that we went through, which is the 15-unit Thomas Center for Senior Leadership senior housing community. So this isn't our first development rodeo.

It's bigger and more challenging, but we have been through this before. The, uh, the work that was been done to conceptualize what we could do on the 9 acres was through a grant that we got to work with SALT, Michael Frederick's group, Agnew Beck and Dowell Engineers to do the technical work. And we have a couple hundred pages of due diligence that we've done that's on a website that's available to, to anybody. Uh, the next picture is an aerial view of how the proposed project would fit into the existing neighborhood. And it would be surrounded completely by greenbelt or public area.

It's just north of Campbell Creek Trail and just south of Tudor Road. It's actually one of the most beautiful potential housing development areas in the world— in the city. And our congregation is committed to only doing affordable or workforce housing on that property because that's consistent with our values.

One issue that we have is we have 3 different zoning types on the tract that we want to use. So it's Great— Great Mary's— St. Mary's Great Land Subdivision Track C has 3 different types of zoning, and we're— we've been in discussions with different assembly members about supporting unifying that zoning. And helping us by minimizing the cost that would be involved. And then the final two pictures are just different angles of what we're trying to accomplish. So thank you very much for the opportunity to show you what we're working on.

We've done some serious due diligence and would like to take some next steps to make this happen. Thank you. I have Commissioner Rahn with a question for you. Thank you through the chair, Mr. Hammond. Thank you for presentation.

Appreciate the graphics and the good work that you all are doing. Maybe a combined question for you and staff. Are the parcels that you're speaking about, do you know if they're currently within the Tisdale boundary or are they outside of it? Given the granularity or lack of granularity we have before us today, it's tough for me to tell. That's the same issue that I had, and that's why I made a specific request to make sure that it's in.

It looks like it's in, but when I pull it up for detail, I can't quite figure it out. But it looks like that little backwards J shape is in there already. Through the chair, I could put up the map and we could look if— let's see if we can put this up here.

So if I'm not mistaken, here's Tudor, and I believe this is the site. If this is the top—. That is, that's correct, right? See, well, that's the backward shape J there. Yeah, unfortunately you can't see on this map, but it does look like it is in— it's within the tax abatement area.

So it confirming that yes, it is.

Um, good question from Commissioner Krishna. Yes, again, and maybe to you and maybe to staff, but would, would the TSDO be preferable for you because it allows for such higher density than R-2 and R-3, and therefore would allow you to bypass the zoning process to develop the multifamily? Is that the, the benefit of this? Or could you describe, um, what other benefits you think you— this property would receive? A simple answer to that would be that right now we think that the existing zoning, if unified, would support around 120 units.

It's hard to tell exactly how much more could be built with TSDO, but if you just add another layer of housing to another floor of housing on the buildings it would be maybe an additional 30, but possible more. And then you get into the issue of the 5+1 or steel and that kind of thing. You get into all kinds of tradeoffs. If Tisdale were to allow for a lot more units, then you might be able to justify steel construction at a higher level.

And I won't put staff on the spot by asking them how Tisdale might change what's allowable on the site, but I think as a test case, that might be a— this might be an interesting site to look at. Thank you. We do volunteer to be a guinea pig to try and help the process. Thank you.

I see no more questions. Thank you for testifying. Thank you. Good evening. Jason Norris, South Anchorage.

As an economist, planner, and father, I support and I encourage you to support this as well. Let's start by focusing on the problem we're trying to solve here, which is there's not enough housing choice and there's not enough economic opportunity in Anchorage as it is. And then ask whether TISDA helps to solve that. In my world as an economist, we look at what would happen if we take no action and then we and compare that to the benefits we would see if we do take action. And I think it's pretty clear that with, with TISDO on the books, we would see a lot of benefits.

And I'll speak to that a little bit later on. I encourage you to frame this around like what the, the people who are going to need housing in the future need versus those of us who have had housing for decades prefer. There's a clear difference between the hierarchy just of human need versus human preference. And I say that as someone who's owned a house, and I do, my preferences for surrounding my house do not supersede someone's need for housing, like for basic shelter. I love that this is asking some hard questions about whether some of the things we put in place actually have value.

And whether they actually work. So do we need to force private development to subsidize our open space in a way that may disadvantage some communities and favor others? Do we need to force private development to subsidize the community's relative ability or not to manage its own rights of way for snow? Or do we need to force them to subsidize solar access for someone's yard in mid-December? When it may already be shaded by the, by the surrounding structures that are in place already.

You know, we figured this out. We asked this question with parking mandates, and the clear and obvious answer was no, it's not worth it. It was detrimental to the city as a whole, and we got rid of those. And I felt that that was a very positive thing that we did. And I just love that we're continuing that line of thinking and we're being cognizant of the burden that these items are putting on on, you know, society generally and private property rights specifically.

And I think that TSDO is refreshingly aspirational about the city we want to be in the future, which is healthier and more connected as a community. We have those unplanned interactions with neighbors as you're walking about to go grab a coffee or a bagel or what have you. And it makes us less car-dependent, produces less pollution. The University of Utah found that in walkable neighborhoods, there's a decrease of rates of obesity and diabetes between 15% and 20%. And Rice University found that holding other things constant, people raised in those neighborhoods actually make more as adults than those who weren't.

The science backs this up as a policy decision. And actually, one of our kids has joined me tonight. This is who you're really voting for. It's not me. I'm taken care of.

Me and my wife, we've done well. We bought our house. We're looking toward what the next generation is going to need, and we want to give them the opportunity to make Anchorage a home. And right now, we don't feel that they have that, and they're not going to have that unless we make some bold choices like this. And so this is really, in my purview at least, their only legitimate way of having that choice in the near future is for us to do some things like this.

And so you can be the commission that took an easy comprehensive plan compliant step toward helping us really get moving in the right direction and solving this housing crisis. And so I just ask you to support this and vote yes. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Oh, question from Commissioner Aron. Yes, sir. Through the chair, Mr. Norris, thanks for your testimony tonight, and thank you also for the written comments that you supplied. Um, in the staff packet, for everybody's awareness, Mr. Norris did submit, it looks like on May 24th, an email to the Planning Department, and that's on pages 89 through 91.

Um, while you did touch on a few of those items in your testimony, I feel it necessary to call upon some of those that you didn't and would appreciate you bringing them to the table here as well. Um, uh, 4 items. One, maximum heights. 2, Maximum commercial space, uh, 3, area for drive-throughs, and then a finish around the potential benefit, and not just housing related but child care related. Um, one, could you speak to whether or not there was any further interaction with the Planning Department after you submitted these comments, any back and forth of, hey, great ideas or not?

And then B, can you speak to that non-housing element of commercial, child care, or other? Right. So my ideas are mine alone. And to what I do submit, when I submit them to y'all, I'll send it to whoever because if it's a good idea, then it needs to be shared. And if it's a bad one, then go ahead and at least go through it.

But as far as heights, yeah, I do feel that in some cases 75 might be a bit much and in other cases it's not nearly enough. So I do feel that maybe tying maximum heights to the functional classification of the road that is fronting the structure may be an elegant way of addressing some community concerns that have come up. Uh, generally, if, if you were to put me on the spot tonight, I'd say 1B and 1C, then you would have a 45-foot height limit, 75% on 1 and 1A. And then, uh, Salt Lake City, Utah just put 105 for their town centers. I felt that that would be reasonable and also reasonable for our arterials.

And then maybe you go up from there. And in city center, I, I see no need to, uh, have any limit at all, right? We were talking about downtown and how we don't want to be restrictive on, you know, beyond Merrill Field, of course. So I feel like that could be a good solution there. As far as commercial space, I feel like 2,000 could be great for those small footprints, uh, and, and those smaller commercial concerns.

But if you talk about a taller building, you may want to allow a bit more, and perhaps 50— I think I said 25, but really 50% may be more consistent with some other best practices. And then the third one was—. I'm sorry, the interaction between commercial and residential mixed-use. You use child care facilities as an example. I— if I'm not mistaken, this allows childcare facilities in a lot of areas where it doesn't.

We know that childcare is a big problem and something that the assembly has focused a lot of attention on, and I believe the mayor is as well. This will open up areas of anchorage to put childcare in neighborhoods so that people can walk their kids to childcare. It just— and it obviously allows for more supply which is a really big, I guess, benefit of this.

Did I miss one or are we good? Okay.

I see no further questions. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. Please state your name and let us know if you're testifying on behalf of a group or yourself. Thank you. My name is Alexa Dobson. I'm testifying just on my own behalf.

Um, I am an owner-occupant of a fourplex in Fairview, and I am here tonight to support the Transit Supportive Development overlay because it moves us closer to the future that I and people like me really want for our city. It creates the zoning flexibility we need to build, build vibrant compact neighborhoods with enough density to support real transit and walkability, and it does so in targeted enough, uh, in targeted corridors that were already identified by the 2040 land use plan as areas with the infrastructure and community to accommodate more density. The ordinance allows mixed-use development at the kind of densities that can actually sustain public transit, so 25 dwelling units per acre in the corridors, 36 or more in town centers. So that's the scale where it starts to make car-free or car-light living viable. Think of what we were just talking about with Jason right before this, being able to walk your kids to childcare instead of having to drive across town.

These are real changes that are going to be really significant for people's quality of life in the city. This also supports the kind of small-scale commercial presence we need in neighborhoods, and that's bringing me to a modification that I'd like to ask for, and that has to do with the non-residential development limit of up to 2,000 square feet, as long as it includes at least one dwelling unit. And the idea is to open the door for neighborhood businesses, so cafes like at Fire Island and Airport Heights, grocery stores like Nusa Gaya City Market in South Edition, local restaurants like Rustic Goat and Spinard. These are things that really make city living fantastic, but it excludes chain and big box stores because they drain neighborhood character and entrench car dependency. So great idea, but the way the ordinance is currently written limits all commercial use per building to 2,000 square feet.

So I would suggest it would be better to establish a limit of 2,000 square feet square feet per tenant space or establish a per lot commercial cap rather than per building, especially if the lot accommodates multiple structures. So we love density of housing units, but that's also really— it can be a great thing for businesses as well. We think about the K Street Market downtown. There's a physical therapy clinic, a bakery, a plant shop, a wine shop, and a grocery market all coexisting within a building of about 10,000 square feet. So my hope is that this minor adjustment will make the ordinance more welcoming to Anchorage's vibrant and beloved small businesses like Wild Scoops, Obsession Records, La Bodega, Butcher Block Number 9, and so on.

I did have a second modification I wanted to talk about, and that had to do with drive-through businesses, but it sounds like we have already advanced from just restricting them to banning them outright, which is awesome. Thank you guys. So the last piece that I will mention, in my day job I am a bike and street safety advocate. So I was kind of surprised to see comments from the Department of Transportation that pushed back on the Transit to Public Support Development Ordinance because they were concerned that it was going to facilitate kids playing in the street and more danger for pedestrians. And, you know, I really wish that that concern for the safety of pedestrians extended to the pedestrians who are currently dying in enormous numbers on DOT-owned and controlled roadways that they've known have been dangerous for a very, very long time.

So I really hope that we'll kind of keep that in mind and not have that attitude when it helps us push back on increasing density and availability of housing, but not when, you know, it could actually save lives on streets. So to wrap things up, I really just hope that we can, you know, design our city for the kind of everyday life people want, so you can pop down to the corner store for the ingredient you forgot for dinner. You can walk your dog to a local café. You can go out for a drink without having to worry about getting a DUI because you didn't have to drive. It still blows my mind that we ever had parking minimum requirements for bars.

Seriously. So people tell stories all the time about traveling to Paris or Barcelona, eating all the pastries and pasta, and they come home feeling great. They've lost a couple pounds. And that's because they're drawn to these human-scale places built to facilitate a healthy lifestyle full of walking and socializing and being outside. And we can have that here in Anchorage too.

So I'm hoping that this is a step in the right direction. We can move this forward and start building that future for ourselves. Thank you. Thank you. Question from Commissioner Krishna.

Oh, yes. And it's to staff, actually, just to clarify one thing that you mentioned. I do believe in this draft, drive-thrus are a conditional use. They're not restricted outright. Is that correct?

Correct?

Oh, is it? I might have been mistaken. I'm sorry.

Through the Chair, on page 15 of 103, it says permitted uses are the same except the drive-through service as an accessory use shall be subject to the most restrictive standards of the base zone or the TSD overlay. So, yeah, if it's more restricted, and I don't think in the I'll just double-check that in the use table as an accessory use, that the TSDO did not allow the drive-through service.

I'll get back to this.

Okay. I see no questions for you. We will follow up with staff answer after, if that's okay with Commissioner Krishna. All right, thank you. Next.

Hi, my name is Nithya Thiru, and I am a resident of East Anchorage and a long-term renter representing myself today. Sorry, um, can you restate your name please? Yeah, it's Nithya Thiru. Do you need me to spell it? Yeah.

It's N as in Nancy, I-T-H-Y-A, and last name is Thiru. It's spelled T-H-I-R-U. And you said you're speaking on—. On behalf of myself today, yeah. Thank you.

I was born and raised in Anchorage and have lived in the city for over 30 years. And I am here to testify today in support of the Transit Supportive Development Overlay. I believe that TISDA will help Anchorage address the housing shortage and move us towards a future in which housing is abundant and people can navigate the city easily by foot and transit. Uh, neighborhoods evolve and change. We are an urban community, despite folks who are resisting that identity, and we need to rise to meet the needs of our community in this urban environment.

Pretending we're not a city and resisting increased density will only entrench the problems that come with urban sprawl. Sprawl, poor public transit, the many pedestrian deaths we continue to see in the city, lack of affordable and attainable housing, and economic stagnation. I also wanted to point out to the commission that lack of housing and poor public transit often disproportionately impacts marginalized communities who don't have the same access to things such as single-family homes and personal vehicles. I think that TSDA will help everyone in the city thrive. Um, yeah, and that's it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Will Walker. I live in Spenard, representing myself. Um, I strongly support both of these ordinances and would urge your support on them as well. Um, as has been mentioned, I think our community is recognizing that we have a real housing crisis in Anchorage, and I think that these ordinances would be a big step at addressing that by especially reducing the regulatory burden and barriers to development, especially in the places and parts of town that could best support that development around kind of our larger roads and transit corridors, and allowing more flexibility of housing types in those areas as well that ideally could then allow for different units at different price different family models or situations or income levels. I also am really— I really support and like the mixed-use element of it.

One of the previous testifiers mentioned, you know, many of the neighborhood businesses that communities appreciate, Fire Island and Airport Heights, Rustic Goat and Spinard, and allowing more of those uses can help develop the kind of more vibrant neighborhoods and communities. Communities that I think would be wonderful to have in Anchorage and more parts of town and increasing that. Additionally, I think it could create kind of a better positive feedback between housing and transit and transportation by over time increasing the density in these areas along these corridors and then ideally helping to foster that kind of quicker service and increased routes of public transportation, better walkability in those neighborhoods. I'm especially excited about this as someone who lives in Spenard, I think one of the more walkable areas of town. I think we would really benefit from kind of these reduced restrictions to allow for better development in our neighborhood.

Our— the Spenard Corridor Plan itself calls for overlay districts to support transit supportive corridors. And so very supportive of that. I did submit written testimony last Friday. One thing to potentially take into consideration, I'm not an expert, but is how the proposed map relates to kind of seismic risk. And there are just a few areas that from looking at the seismic ground susceptibility map kind of parts of South Addition, the northern part of downtown, kind of north of 3rd Avenue, those are the kind of level 5, very high risk.

So I don't know if those parts at all make sense to potentially exclude from the map if we don't want density potentially in those areas. I'm not an engineer, so I don't know if those would have an effect or not. But yeah, I urge your support on these ordinances. And hope that we can make Anchorage into an even better place to live. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, mic was on. There we go. I have a point of order question. If I testify tonight on behalf of Turnagain Community Council, does that prohibit us from testifying on behalf of the council in September?

Yeah, you just need to choose one. Okay. And I, granted, I don't know what's going to happen in the future, so. So tonight I'll be testifying on behalf of myself then, to reserve our time. All right.

So my name is John Isaacs. I live in West Anchorage. I'm on the Turnagain Community Council board and co-chair of our land use committee. We support the concept of the transit-supported development corridor facilitating higher density growth within it, and also the mixed-use development. However, we have concerns with the geographic extent and the technical reach of this ordinance and the public process associated with it.

We feel it needs modification with input from all stakeholders in a more robust public process. In addition to the staff recommendations that the process is extended to a second hearing in September, I am requesting that a stakeholder working group be established to review and suggest modifications. Modifications to this ordinance. I served on a working group for site access that was very successful. We had a great group of stakeholders, and we resulted in a better ordinance with more compromise.

Later in my testimony, I will address some of the specifics that we might address in a working group. As currently written, the TSD overlay is a far-reaching proposal that covers a large portion of the Anchorage Bowl, primarily within, within developed older neighborhoods. The concept was developed and advanced in the 2020 Comp Plan, the 2040 land use plan. It appears to conform with general recommendations of some previous district plans like Spinard Quarter and Anchorage Downtown, and is refined at the parcel level with the assembly map that was adopted for the tax overlay. Um, when the parcel level tax overlay abatement map was approved this spring, we had supported that, but we had assumed the underlying zoning would stay intact and require rezoning for large multifamily units, uh, and other large uses.

Uses. However, the application of this ordinance and the overriding— and the overriding underlying zoning, both the density and allowed uses and the dimensional requirements, minimum lot size, setbacks, height limits, and the limited public notice for both the implications of this ordinance and how it's going to be implemented, we find alarming.

Theoretically, a 75-foot-high, 25-unit residential unit Building with minimal setbacks is proposed in this ordinance as a permitted or S-use in a single two-family residential district with no notice to the adjacent property owners. We would recommend at a minimum this be changed to a conditional use within the single-family, two-family to ensure that issues such as increased traffic and parking encroachment on neighboring parcels and sunlight shading be taken into account. A conditional use would also require public notice and public Hearing. Furthermore, although the staff report indicates that while property owners can opt into the overlay or maintain the current zoning, this provides no notice or protection from dramatic changes on adjacent properties. While it may not be the intention, this has the appearance of a large-scale, area-wide rezoning, you know, particularly where you're going from something like, uh, single-family, two-family to R4, and with higher density and again little public notice.

Um, I would doubt the numerous property owners within the overlay are aware of the existence and the implication of this proposed ordinances. When I contact friends and acquaintances, they have no idea this is existing or what it does, and I think that's a problem. Therefore, it's potentially a failure in good faith public process for something this magnitude affecting so many property owners. Going with the minimum public notice requirements is really not good enough. Also, the PCC is in the process of updating the 2040 and the 2020 plans.

A proposed land use change this significant should be part of that process and not necessarily taken off the table again with less public notice and involvement.

You might remember when the initial versions of the HOME Initiative were proposed for bowl-wide changes in housing type and density, it ran into quite a bit of substantial opposition and resulted and ultimately caused delays and resulted in compromise. I think it would be wise to avoid this. We recommend establishing a working group and developing recommendations before PZ approval, but certainly before assembly consideration. We would suggest that the working group include members of the administration, community councils, housing developers, and housing advocates and get their valuable perspectives. Things that the group could consider would be a review of the parcel maps and what areas may or may not be suitable for inclusion at this time.

For example, including half of Huntington Park and Turnagain really makes no sense. It was added as part of tax abatement. Consider whether a targeted area implementation makes more sense, particularly where an existing district plan have recommended doing so, or there's private or municipal vacant parcels that are available.

The override of all dimensional standards and potential modification of suggested changes should be considered. I liked what I heard with the suggestion for having different height limits for different areas. And then better public notice prior to assembly consideration and in implementing the ordinance. Um, I mean, right now, a current parcel-specific rezoning was going to get more public notice than this requires. Um, so consider our recommendations to either postpone or condition to establish a working group and review and modify this ordinance.

You know, finally, additional public notice and outreach is This is essential. Think about how many parcel owners in Anchorage have no idea this is being considered or the implications of the proposed ordinance on their properties, intended or unintended. Better to build public support than to dictate. If a public hearing is extended to September as recommended by staff and no action taken tonight, we will be submitting more detailed comments prior to the September meeting. So thank you, and I would be glad to answer any questions.

Commissioner Eber has a question. This is probably more towards staff, but he mentioned a working group. Was that considered at all for this project? I can chime in if you want. Through the chair, so this proposal didn't originate with the planning department.

It came from sponsors outside, and so we worked with the sponsors on that. And then the administration signed on as a sponsor as well. So it sort of had a group. It wasn't the same working group as site access. But I think we've talked about that.

It just comes down to sort of timing, I guess, and if the powers that be direct us to put something like that together or not. Yeah, through the chair, it seems like a great idea to have more conversations and more public awareness of what's happening here. I think that's one of the reasons you'll see the recommendation to continue the hearing until, uh, September. That would give us a chance to convene community meetings both at the community council level and also something more akin to a working group between now and then. So absolutely considered.

Thank you. No more questions.

Am I on? Yes, you, you are on. There's quite an echo there. Am I—. Should I stand back or what?

Closer? Okay. My name is Eleanor Andrews. I live downtown. I've lived in 5 houses downtown that I bought and remodeled.

I was at the beginning of the community councils with Lainey Fleischer back in 1977, been involved in and out. Um, I'm here as a person, although I am on the executive committee of the South Addition Community Council. When we heard about this overlay, when it was first posted, we called the planning department, and our board chair, John Thurber, was able to get the planner and Graham come to our meeting which we had last Monday. And we—. So we had a 2-hour work session which had mixed results.

We have a bifurcated meeting. People were there in the room, about 20, with about same number online, and it was just not good communication. There was too much fast talking, jargon, and whatever, and I felt like we were getting this through a fire hose. So, um, I am here to express my concerns, which I will read to you for the record. But I do want to say that having listened to the comments before mine, I see that there may be value in what you want to do.

But like that old blues song, it is not what you do, it is the way you do it. And the way we have done this is not have enough public notice or process before you take action. And, you know, another public hearing in September is good, but there needs to be a lot of work done in the interim so that when people come, either public or staff, there will have been very broad participation, which has not happened here. My community council is the only one, through our insistence, that got a chance to work with staff on this ordinance. So I'm going to read what I brought.

Not to be a Negative Nelly, but I'm sure that the next time I come I'll have something positive to say. In the last couple of years, we citizens have been flooded with ordinances changing or proposing to change fundamental residential zoning rules. These changes are upending values and goals built over Anchorage 2020's 4-year public process, which I spent years doing. With thousands of citizens spoke in public meetings. Since 2023— and this is when I got involved in our community council— zoning changes have eliminated residential and commercial parking minimums, eliminated single-family housing, redefined duplexes to include two detached buildings, approved a 3-year pause with certain designs for units 5 here's 5 units or more— waived requirements for variety across the building facades.

They will eliminate spacing among buildings, pedestrian access to front doors, sunlight design features and landscaping, reducing setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet for many neighborhoods. Now we're faced with a proposal to make even more profound changes to our residential neighborhoods. The Planning and Zoning Commission is holding a hearing on this proposal before affected neighborhoods who have been informed of this, who have not been informed of these proposed changes, much less given an opportunity to ask questions and understand its implications. It should also be pointed out that it was scheduled right after the long— the busiest weekend of the year. So we got notice and it was scheduled right after Fourth of July weekend.

People were doing other things. Public hearings and testimony should come after the affected parties have been notified and provided with a clear and complete summary of proposed changes and given the chance to ask questions or make comments.

The proposal finishes the shredding of traditional neighborhood power standards that invite people to walk, assure sunlight into neighboring properties, minimize traffic or neighboring streets, and build urban enclaves by targeting density and not sprawling. I've been in Anchorage for 60 years. The People Mover service was great when it started. It was enhanced once or twice, and it has been diminished or frozen for about 20 years. So to try to build a transit corridors that may not exist.

Transit has always been aspirational here. People want it, but they don't want to pay for it. The taxpayers don't want to put anything into it. And if any of you ever been to an AMATS meeting, you might as well get sentenced to prison.

Homeowners are being asked to sacrifice the value of their homes built in dollars and peaceful domesticity. There have been no consensus that homeowners want more zoning. We just want to achieve our goals of 2020. We need facts that change our values and goals to add to housing at any cost. 2040'S housing construction goals no longer apply given that our population is less than it was in 2010.

National organization planners have told us during recent planning effort that the Metropolitan Transportation Plan that Anchorage has is the least dense city that they work with, and this ordinance simply reinforces and adds up to that lack of density. So I just want to close by saying I'm a former bureaucrat. I worked at the municipality. I was Commissioner of Administration. I know process, and I know that the more people who are involved and are knowledgeable about change are going to accept it if everybody has a voice.

So I ask you to come up with a process for more public hearing, more public participation, so when you finish in September, people will be informed and can make meaningful comments. And thank you. Thank you. I see no questions. May I submit this?

I didn't do it before.

Sure. Okay. You can bring it up. Okay. Thank you.

No questions. I have no questions. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

All right, please state your name and let us know if you are testifying on behalf of a group or yourself. Hi, my name is Anna Boson. I am testifying on behalf of myself. I am also an executive board member for the South Addition Community Council, but not speaking on their behalf. My house is actually in the, the TSDO range, and I'm very supportive of having more housing.

I want the vacant lot across the street from me to be developed. I want any of the vacant lots in South Addition to be developed, and of course our adjacent neighbors as well, because I think it's a great walkable community. And really what I want to share with you, which I shared with our South Addition Community Council meeting, I brought my daughter here tonight. I don't have an extra $50 grand when she turns 16 to get her a car. So transit is part of a community experience that also affords our young people some independence And the more people that take transit by living close to it and having that as a reasonable, safe alternative makes it safer for our young girls, people who are visiting, who are not familiar with the area, and really our elderly to be able to stay in the community as well.

Cars are expensive. They're not necessarily safe. Transit is researched as a safe alternative, along with walking and biking. But we need the people to live actually close to everybody in order to get that kind of safety with numbers to really realize the, the transit that we, that we could have in this community. I see a lot of vacant lots and parking lots downtown, and it's very sad.

And so this is really an opportunity to fill in those areas that could use that tax base and those people there to support the businesses in our community. All of us here in this room, we have housing. But when I walked into the building here, I saw many people who don't have housing. And I know there's an idea that we need to really ruminate on this for months and months and think about it and maybe change the word from happy to glad or different other aspects of it. But those people don't have time to wait.

Costs for infrastructure and buildings just will go up and opportunities will be lost if we continue to muddle through little increments of thinking about it. This is really an all hands on deck situation with housing in this city. And so, yes, transit-supported development is one of those things. It's not going to be the thing that solves housing. But I think the mayor is very clear that we need to be doing everything within our power to get housing here for the people who are not in this room who need housing and for the future so that people will have a place to feel safe and connected to their community.

And I believe that transit and housing really need to be supported, you know, in Anchorage in order to see that realized. Thanks.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Stephen Callahan. I live in the U-Med district, speaking on behalf of myself tonight. I'm also the president of the University Area Community Council. Um, uh, basically what I'm hoping to, uh, see happen here is this get extended Through September, we— there are no community council meetings until the first week of September. Um, and we haven't had time to really comment on this.

Anyone from the community council area? Um, I don't think we've had time to read it. Hopefully we'll have a presentation from the planning department perhaps at the next community council meeting, which will be the first week of September. Uh, that's basically it. Um, the one concern that's come up in the past, and I believe I've mentioned it here in front of the assembly, is there is some concern in the U-Med area of losing the character of some of the long-standing neighborhoods that are basically R-1.

We have very little R-1 zoning in the U-Med area. And there's been some concern that, you know, this as well as other types of development could change character in a negative way.

That's all I can think of. And of course, we might be joining Tudor area. This might affect Tudor area as well.

Thank you. Finish the boundaries for the new community council areas. But I haven't heard anything from Tutor Area either, so it would be nice to have at least till September, if not more time, to actually get some comments back from people. That's all. Thank you.

I'll probably be back representing you, the university area. Okay, thank you.

Anybody else wishing to testify before we go to the phone?

If seeing none, we'll go to the phone testimony.

To the chair, Lori, right? So if it says 6067, is that the starting point?

Oh, it's public VoIP.

Okay, 9907.

Hello, this is Carol. Hi, is this Carol Howarth? This is speaking. Hi Carol, this is the Planning and Zoning Commission calling for public testimony in cases 2025-0030 and 2025-0034. Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group?

As an individual, please. Great, you will have 6 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony. Thank you. My name is Carol Howarth and I live in Assembly District 3.

My recommendations regarding AO 2020-530 are: 1, to slow down and be thoughtful. 2, If moving forward is written, please engage the community with mailed public notice and community meetings. 3, Look at the process used with the Spenard Corridor Plan and replicate that where it's worked and engage like that. The proposed zoning change to the multi-family mixed-use, as it's written, affects a really large portion of the city of Anchorage. The current blanket change within the overlay risks the creation of a city that I think appears to be without zoning.

So I'm going to ask each of you to close your eyes for a moment, and I want you to imagine your home perhaps your parents' home, one of the Cook Inlet Housing homes, it's the two-story over in Mountain View, or a Habitat for Humanity home that's a one-story over in North Mountain View. Maybe think of one of the cute houses or the log cabins over on Lois Drive. And then I want you to imagine each of these homes sandwiched between two six-story apartment complexes with no setbacks, no landscaping, no design standards.

Now in your vision, I'd like you to add the visual of a first floor with a 2,000-square-foot vet clinic, or how about a railroad passenger terminal. Now the last thing, let's add on the absence of sidewalks and no off-street parking. If this visual is not the intent, then these permissible uses and standards should be included only where they do make sense. I have no idea where these proposed changes are originating with the administration, but I am thankful that the Planning and Zoning Commission is taking public input. And that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Any questions? Okay, thank you.

Hello. Hi, is this Davina Napier? It is. Hi, this is the Planning and Zoning Commission calling for public testimony on cases 2025-0030 and 2025-0034. Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group?

Uh, representing a group. Okay, you will have 10 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony. Testimony. My name is Davina Napier, board chair of YWCA Alaska and resident of Jewel Lake.

For a vote, a yes vote on this ordinance. Housing has long been used to divide, to deprive, and to debase minority communities. The legacy of those deliberate actions can be seen in the housing crisis we are dealing with today. The long-term effects of segregation, restrictive covenants, redlining, and discriminating discriminatory lending have resulted in a situation where our minority communities must work twice as hard for half the housing. We saw the minorities were disproportionately affected by the subprime mortgage crisis and disproportionately left out of the recovery.

This AO can help to begin rectifying the harms of the past by encouraging much, much needed investments and redevelopment of the areas of our cities most heavily affected by systemic inequalities surrounding housing. Not only is this good for families, good for workers, and good for businesses, it's the morally correct thing to do. Please help Anchorage heal from the sins of the past by voting yes. Thank you, and I yield my time.

Thank you. Uh, I see no questions.

Hello, this is Tim. Hello, is this Tim Alderson? Yes. Hi, Tim. This is the Planning and Zoning Commission calling for public testimony in cases 2025-0030 and 2025-0034.

Are you testifying as an individual or representing a group? I'm just, uh, testifying, uh, as chair of the Rabbit Creek Community Council. Okay, as a group representative, you'll have 10 minutes to testify. Please state your full name for the record and begin your testimony. Uh, thank you.

Uh, my name is Tim Alderson, chair of the Rabbit Creek Community Council. Uh, Robert Creek Community Council, we, uh, support the broad goals of encouraging infill development and expanding mixed-use town centers and transit-supported development corridors. When targeted and intentional, these efforts can make more efficient use of infrastructure and public services and support a more walkable, transit-friendly city. However, we have significant concerns about both the scope and implementation of this proposal. First, the overlay map included in this proposal, Exhibit A, differs dramatically from the transit corridors envisioned in the 2040 Land Use Plan and Anchorage 2020 Comprehensive Plan.

By covering nearly all of Midtown, Downtown, and much of East Anchorage, this proposal risks being too expansive and diffuse to achieve compact, efficient development, especially in a city with declining population growth. Instead of reinforcing neighborhood centers, it would spread development in a way that encourages more driving, not less. Second, this ordinance constitutes major changes in land use policy and functionally rezones large portions of the city. Yet the public communication and mapping provided so far make it difficult for community councils and property owners to understand its full implications. The map is presented as small scale and does not easily compare to current zoning.

We strongly urge the Commission and Planning Department to ensure that this proposal is presented in clearly, clearly to affected community councils, and that there is sufficient opportunity for meaningful public discussion before it moves forward. Third, several proposed changes appear to override longstanding design and development principles that have been carefully incorporated into Title 21 and our comprehensive plan. For example, we oppose the allowance of 100% lot coverage. This could have serious consequences for drainage, particularly in areas where stormwater infrastructure is already outdated or overburdened. Additionally, we also object to eliminating minimum lot width requirements.

Lot width is a key to maintaining scale, access, and a consistent neighborhood character. The proposal to remove height restrict transitions and setback requirements at the edges of these, of these overlay areas is especially troubling. As written, this could allow 75-foot buildings directly about abutting single-family homes with no buffer. That threatens privacy. Sunlight, air circulation, and overall livability in surrounding neighborhoods.

We oppose the elimination of residential design standards for multifamily developments. These standards, such as facade articulation and windows facing the street, help ensure human-scale design and are not just aesthetic preferences. They affect how safe and welcoming our neighborhoods feel. Similarly, we oppose the removal of private open space requirements. In high-density areas, even small private or shared open spaces are vital to residents' well-being.

These requirements can be met creatively without sacrificing building capacity. Finally, we acknowledge that the proposed overlay would allow a range of commercial uses that could activate neighborhood centers. We strongly recommend that some of these uses, such as gyms, theaters, hotels, 24-hour restaurants, still undergo a site plan review or conditional use process. Local input is essential when higher impact uses are introduced near residential areas. Uh, RCC, Rapid Creek Community Council, supports the goal of compact transit-oriented development, but that vision should not come at the expense of neighborhood compatibility, human-scale design, or public engagement.

We urge the commission to slow this process down, improve outreach to the public, and refine the overlay boundaries and development standards to better align with our city's adopted plans and community values. Um, that concludes my comments on 2025-0030, and I have some comments now on 0034, very brief, which is to say our council unanimously supports the updating housing density minimums in these transit corridors. Compact infill near transit is a smart strategy. Uh, smart strategy. It uses public services efficiently and helps advance the goals of creating walkable mixed-use areas.

We also support the proposed expansion of the area considered for pedestrian and street design from a quarter mile to a half mile radius around transit corridors. This broader approach better reflects how people move through neighborhoods and, uh, access transit. However, we strongly urge the Commission to retain the original language that commits to expanding, expanding high-frequency transit service alongside infill housing. Simply stating that housing will create future demand for transit weakens the core idea behind transit-supported development. Without reliable service in place, ridership and the success of these corridors will lag behind.

That concludes my comments. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you. Lastly, I just note that our comments were submitted today, and so I was hoping that they were going to get laid on the table. I don't know I don't know if they did, but they were submitted to planning as a byproduct of kind of this fire drill process and the fact that all this kind of came over the holiday period. So hopefully our written comments made it to you. I was told that they would and—.

They made it. I think I— okay, great. And I concur with Mr. Isaacs. I would just say as chair of the council, this is not part of our official comments, but idea of a working group or, you know, a chance for some more outreach and more to get involved would be something that Rabbit Creek Community Council could really get behind. So thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. I see no questions.

That's it for phone testimony. Anyone else in the audience wishing to testify, please step forward.

Seeing none, I will— all right, there's been some discussion about possibly entering Committee of the Whole so we can have a free discussion. There's been a lot of testimony and staff recommendation for extending the public hearing to a future meeting in September.

What is the will of the body? [FOREIGN LANGUAGE] We have a motion to go into the committee a whole. Made by Commissioner Polis, seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Commissioner Polis, do you want to speak to the motion?

Um, sure. I think because it was recommended by staff and everyone agrees based on comments today that we should go into committee of the whole and discuss some things that we talked about.

Alrighty. Uh, that was seconded by Commissioner Rahn. Any further discussion?

Any opposed?

All right, we are now in committee of the whole.

I will pass the chair position aside and maybe we can all just talk freely.

Anybody wishing to kick things off? Would it be helpful if we went page by page and that way our comments are on similar topics and staff has some guidance on each item?

Mr. Chair, I forget also, I have a list of the things I heard. I could repeat those back if it would be helpful or however you all like it. So I will take your direction.

Yeah, me personally, I am pretty good with everything except Except for I do agree that the 2,000 square foot of commercial space is big enough for just about nothing. And so almost nearly useless.

That's just my comment. But let's hear from everybody. Maybe would you prefer to go through the ordinance page by page, or do you want to hear from staff first? Anybody? Do you mind?

Have a preference. I'd like to hear from staff, um, so we don't work on things that have already been documented and are in staff's queue. If I might, I think things that I was hearing in the testimony today, a lot included about process and making sure that we're giving enough time. I think we're achieving that in part by the September delay, if you choose to do that, and then we'll be committed to doing more active outreach as well as something akin to the working group idea in the meantime. Um, substantively, your feedback would be particularly valuable on some of the concerns we heard about heights, setbacks, uh, lot coverage, uh, sort of some of the dimensional standards, your perspectives on if those are the right numbers or if there are alternative ways to achieve the goals of increased density without changing those numbers.

Um, and it would be useful to hear from you all about the area I think our assumption is that using the same area as the multifamily tax incentive would be the most simple way to move forward, but your perspective on how— what principles or guidelines we might use to adjust the map would be helpful. So I think as a— in terms of a person who might be doing some of the work between now and September, your perspective on those items would be especially valuable. [SPEAKING CHINESE] And just to add to that, also maybe some commentary on the use as well would be helpful. Thank you.

And now, Mr. McKenna Foster, you want to start with your— what you have also? I—. They—. Everybody covered it so far, but yeah, just heard a lot about process, the graduated heights, the commercial space by building or tenant space, uh, the question of drive-throughs. And I want to speak to that specifically because we heard some comment, uh, public comment on that.

That was one of the things from the cutting room floor. I remember we—. There was a lot of discussion about that, right? Drive-throughs, they're not really conducive to a walkable environment, but a lot of anchorage has already been built with drive-throughs. So the way the code is written now, it says you can't have a drive-through in a residential area.

So the TSDA does not create the allowance for a drive-through, but it does not prohibit an existing B-3 where drive-through is allowed as a accessory use. So if that— that could be a big question, and that would— it'd be helpful for that too, because, you know, you know, you could limit or prohibit all drive-throughs within the Tisdale area. That would sort of align with it, but it is— that would be a big change for property owners. For property owners, that would change their, their allowances. So that— I'll just speak to that.

And then one other thing I heard about the extension, and also possibility of publishing a more specific or zoomable version of the map. And I think some of those would be pretty simple to do, I'm assuming. So those are just my list. Thanks.

Thank you. Okay, that— we heard from staff. Um, what do we think? We ready to go through this thing page by page?

Commissioner Krishna, this is— I'm going to elect you to maybe lead us through page by page. I happily will. Okay. I'm starting on the big numbers on our packet. So number— page 13.

Are there any thoughts or questions or comments on the the text of the ordinance before we get into specific sections of code.

I'm interested in learning more about the, um, history around town centers, and in lines 35 through 37, it's acknowledged that town centers have not seen market increases in the desired type of development.

Would you like staff to answer that now or, um, bring back information at a future date? Future date would be fine. Wonderful. Any other questions on page 13 or 14?

All right. Page 15.

I'll start maybe while people are looking at that page. I think I'm having just a lot of trouble reading the sentence on lines like 35, 36, 37. Help me understand this. All nonresidential development, except Except community uses in a residential-based zone must have at least one dwelling unit. The except appends to which clause, I think, is where I'm having trouble understanding this.

We're talking about all non-residential uses, all non-residential development in a residential-based zone, or— yes, I think that maybe moving the except around might help me understand what that's referring to.

Through the chair, I don't know if we use through the chair and committee of the whole, but yeah, the intent there was that a community use located in a residential zone would not be subject to that, but we can definitely clarify. So you're saying that B-3 generally that's not in a residential zone would not have this dwelling unit requirement? It's only non-residential uses? It's only— yeah, help me understand what the dwelling unit requirement applies to. So say, for example, you had a community center, which is a community use.

You know, the use categories in Title 21, they start with residential, then they go to community. You, you could build a community center without having a dwelling unit beyond the community. Say it's an R2M zone or something like that. So that's the intent. Whereas in B3, a community center It looks like it's already a permitted use, but, um, yeah, so the intent there is that if you have a residential base zone, R-1, R-2A, R-2D, R-2M, and you're building something that's not residential, you always have to have something, a residential unit, unless it's one of these community uses like child care or a community center.

And again, I'm not looking at the TSDO use table, but So that's the thinking. If somebody said, oh, I want to, I want to build a neighborhood recreation center, that the muni then would not necessarily be having to build a dwelling unit with alongside a neighborhood recreation center in a residential, a base zone of a residential area. Okay, but in B-3, there's no requirement for dwelling unit. Um, and then the, the second part of that sentence, all non-residential development so that includes any B-3 on any of these major corridors— shall be no greater than 2,000 gross square feet. That applies broadly to B-3, except does the flexibility section mean that this isn't really in effect because B-3 generally will be more flexible than this?

I [Speaker:COMMISSIONER STEINGASSER] think that could be clarified to say maybe in these— in residential areas. So it's really just to clarify that. If somebody is in an underlying base zone, R-1, R-2, whatever, and they're doing non-residential use, that's where the 2,000 limit is. So somebody in B-3 isn't all of a sudden limited to a 2,000 square foot—. Got it, got it, got it.

Non-residential. Yes. I think some clarifications in that section would—. I had to replace non-residential with commercial, and then I could read it. I agree.

I think that whole section needs to be— it needs some help.

[Speaker:ANDREW] And I think the problem there, which is— this is also my understanding is developing— is that it's not binary commercial residential, that there are these in-between categories like community use that fall between them. And so that's why we're saying non-residential. But, you know, that's a bigger question about Title 21 and how we're organizing it. I think there's also some typos in the use table that we'll need to clean up that will help to distinguish those subcategories. Commercial versus community.

Any other thoughts on this page, on this section? With respect to the 2,000-foot square foot issue, if this is the place to address it, um, I'm not ready to throw something else out there in terms of a better approach, but I heard tonight that other approaches need to be brought to the table and discussed, and understanding that on the department's list of things to do. Just wanted to reinforce that. I tend to agree with that. I think maybe like on a percentage basis, um, I think that was what was one of the ideas that was thrown out.

I don't know what else was thrown out, but I'll just add that the—. What was mentioned was 10,000 space downtown, 10,000 square feet, which if you're building an apartment building might be ideally what you would you would look for as your commercial space below you. So that's like a real-life example that you can go look at and see. But just to give you an idea, like a lot of times in the building code, you might be limited to 1 occupant for every 300 square feet. So 2,000 square feet might give you 6.6 occupants, which is next to nothing.

Another example would just be a Great Alaska pizza company building that I'm aware of is 1,600 square feet. They make pizza and they have a counter. There's no seating, no nothing, and that's 1,600 square feet. So 2,000 square feet is not much of anything when it comes to commercials. If I could weigh in on this, I mean, that's all— that's also a limit.

So it does allow a pretty wide range of non-residential or commercial uses. But because of that 2,000, it really does limit. So even though people look at the table and they say, oh, there's a ton allowed here, like you're saying, functionally, maybe there isn't that much allowed. I guess I'd also add one of my main complaints with the R-4A, the reason, you know, we see R-4A but we don't see R-4A buildings. It's been around a while.

It's too limiting. I think what is like 20%, 20— I mean, it's just a too small of a percentage of commercial, in my opinion, to be viable. And some of the public comment was about developers making money. And I just want to remind everybody that if developers don't make money, the land stays vacant. So.

If [Speaker:PB HARMON ZUCKERMAN] I could, I'll weigh in on this, too, is this applies to the residential base zones where currently there isn't really that much commercial. So it— It does. 2,000 Is pretty limiting. And so that in itself is a sort of limit on many of the uses. And one thing, though, that you bring up, a good one, is R-4A would allow a bit more flexibility than that, and this maybe would constrain the R-4A, even though R-4A is currently unused.

But just something to think about. This is looking at where the overlay applies to existing residential commercial zones like R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4. So right now, there really isn't much commercial. I don't think there's any commercial. Maybe there's some non-residential uses in there, some community uses.

So just some food for thought.

Any other comments on page 15? Moving to page 16. Any thoughts or questions?

I may have missed some of the discussion earlier, or maybe it didn't exist. Line 15, item D2, around exemption from residential design standards, just now catching my attention. Curious if other commissioners have consternation or comments about that.

My personal feelings is that residential design standards do not accomplish the goals that they were intended to— intended to serve when they were put in place and could all go away, in my opinion. And I think a prior ordinance has now kind of made it almost a moot point. So it—. Currently they're under moratorium, but they're slated, if nothing changes, they will come back, I think, in 2028. So for the next, you know, couple years, but currently they, they could come back.

So, um, I do kind of see an issue with the landscaping requirement because whereas we don't— on this section we don't allow, like, no— I guess you can build, essentially build lot line to lot line, but you can't build lot line to lot line if you have to have required landscaping. So it kind of seems to counteract one of those, I guess, formal— I don't know what I'm trying to say— formal things that actually prohibits what we're trying to do.

Any other thoughts on page 16? Questions? All right. Moving to the table of allowable uses on page 17. I guess I will start by just clarifying my understanding of how flexible this is.

So if, you know, for example, homeless and transient shelter, we just allow— made a change maybe 2 years ago, 3 years ago to allow that in all B-3.

It's not permitted in transit supportive development, this table, but it is permitted in B-3. So the more flexible rules apply and mean that it would still be applied if the underlying base zoning was B-3. Yeah, I'm looking— homeless and transit shelter is a conditional use in B-3. So this overlay would not negate that. Okay.

But you could put an aquarium on an R-1 lot technically if you could somehow figure out how to do it, because that's more flexible and permissive. If it met the use-specific standards, and potentially, yes, under these uses. And it was 2,000 square feet. Right. That's right.

Yes. Yep. Questions and comments on the table? Last item in the first main section, Manufactured Home Community. I would just question if updated language may be necessary around MDUs or MDUCs.

Great question. I think it will depend on how the assembly decides on the mobile dwelling unit ordinance. But thank you for pointing that out.

Mm-hmm. I think everyone has heard me loud and clear on the downtown code, but I I'm struggling to see how this is sort of an addition to the downtown code, which I think is already well designed for maximum density. So I think justification there would be helpful.

If I could speak to that also. The code as it is, is very tightly designed around uses and housing types as if there's a real difference, right, between an attached single family and detached single family and townhouses and duplexes, when for many people there's not that much difference. So I guess one way to look at that is, what would you think if it just said you could have one unit on a lot in downtown? Would you have the same reservation? Is it about that it's one unit or it's the housing type, I guess?

I think it would be the one unit would be just as, you know, unappealing, I think, given the level of public infrastructure that it takes to support any given unit downtown. I think one example that comes to mind for me is Japan, which has cumulative zoning. So everything that's allowed in lower zones is allowed in higher zones. And I think you see pretty high levels of density in Japan. So I think this is again where, do we need to prescribe it or will the market sort this out for us?

I think that's a genuine question for us to consider here. I think it's— so which is all to say, it's a great point to make, could come up I think anyway, I'll just say great point. That was sort of something we're thinking. Yeah, I'll make the counter, which is that downtown is the place where short-term rentals are most likely to be market desired. And so it's very, I think, quite low likelihood that any given unit in downtown, given the lack of other restrictions, would be owner-occupied.

And so I would just have you consider that when you're thinking about residential units in commercial zones, in really high-density commercial zones.

On page 19, during the work session, I did call to order the question around social service facility, and the response I heard from staff while I I appreciate the context and the nature of it. I would ask staff in the work to be done that this is discussed as well. And again, the response I heard was around what is the community tolerable of, understanding that this use table came from a prior time that we may no longer be living in now or look to live in in the future. So ask that be reworked. Thanks.

Are there specific uses you wanted us to look at, or just in general some of the ones that were not included? Unfortunately, this table doesn't show a lot. It doesn't show some of the uses just because there's so many that some are removed here. But, um, sure, general statement, but my specific interest is around social service facility currently being listed as requiring conditional use, um, and perhaps testing that for something less restrictive.

Other thoughts on the table?

All right. Then moving on to page 28. Go ahead. There's a question— I guess if we're skipping all the way to 28. 27.

Warehouse or wholesale establishment. General permitted use. Is that intentional? That seems funny.

2,000 Square feet.

Well, I mean, 2,000 square feet isn't in code yet.

I got a question, actually. There's some footnotes on some of these and we can't read them. For example, page 23, a fueling station. It's not allowed. It has a footnote.

So are we not allowing fueling stations along major corridors? Is that what this is saying?

I think what we had talked about is it would still be allowed if the underlying base zoning is B-3. Because then B-3 would be more flexible. All right. Yeah, and the footnotes— we are trying to move away from footnotes because it adds another layer that's really hard to figure out. But the footnote for the fueling station is uses with structures of the gross floor area over 20,000 square feet require major site plan review.

Oh, OK.

Other thoughts on pages 23 to 28?

All right then, moving on to page 29.

Not hearing anything, we'll move on to page 30. Um, this is when we get into the lot coverage and setback. Requirements.

I do have a question for staff. The 1,400 square feet area, like, I guess, how did that— where did that number come from, or what was the train of thought on 1,400 square feet versus 2,500 square feet or something else? 1,400 Is— 1 acre is 43,560 square feet, so that's about 30 dwelling units per acre at that. But, you know, even if you have an acre to— you couldn't actually develop it at 30 dwellings per acre because you'd have to put in utility, like, streets and stuff, right? Or somehow.

But so that's— the code is interesting. In some places it connects to an actual dwelling use per acre, and the lot sizes are tied to something real like that. But in most places, like the 6,000 square foot, it's almost unknown where it came from. Back in the day it was 7,000, maybe because in, you know, 1910 or 1915 that was what people thought was normal. But so generally that is tied, I believe, to the 30, 31 dwellings per acre.

Okay. And here you can push back if we're asking you for too much, but I would really like to see some test cases. I think we're having trouble. I would like to see how this would really be implemented. I think I totally understand the vision on the bar, right?

On a major corridor. I think the picture is really makes sense for this transit or the streetscape-facing commercial mixed-use development. I think because it extends so far, I really wonder, like, I'm thinking about the North Nunaqua Valley R1 700-square-foot cottages, right? Like, not on DeBar, a block or two off DeBar. Like, how would you— what would this allow you to do on one of those streets?

I think the other example I'm thinking of that— I think it's just like I'd be curious to see the rendering, right? To see like what would you be allowed to do with the landscaping with some of the other requirements. The other case I'm very curious about is, you know, I wrote the Mountain View Neighborhood Plan and I think that the history of development in Mountain View is is that Mountain View had full lot coverage 8-plexes, right? And I know there are requirements that prevent that from ever happening again, but I'm curious to see how, right?

I guess to that, I would say it's difficult. And, you know, a lot of times there's the burden of proof is sort of placed on, well, demonstrate that it could work, something has been basically illegal for 70 years, right? Nobody has tried, nobody's actually put money behind trying to do a 1,400 square foot lot development. And the best you have is me on SketchUp creating that one on A Street. So yeah, you could do 78, but I'm sort of like a food theorist and you need to ask a chef who could do it.

In terms of the other, I mean, and we could explore that. I think it would just take, we did something similar with the site access test fit where we hired a group to go through. We could potentially do that if we have some professional services. Just to jump in, there are some examples nationwide of zoning code that supports a 1,400-square-foot lot. I believe—.

I can't remember if they're in Austin or Houston where they've had that minimum for a few years now, and there are some housing developments that, that do exist. At that size. So we can dig that up and maybe provide some case studies. And I think also personally, minimum lot size is one of the changes I'm most excited about in the ordinance because of that small single-family, right? Like, less lot, smaller house, cheaper house, more walkable, right?

The distance between houses is a major factor in how walkable a neighborhood feels. So I think, you know, starting from zero as a baseline is a good way to have a conversation about What is the value of a 5-foot setback? How much— what value is that creating for the public that we're going to impose that cost on the private developer, as opposed to starting from the 50-foot setback and walking back the other way? So very open to thoughts and feedback about what those numbers look like. They don't have to be zero, but I think the goals of walkability and affordability are served by allowing more efficient use of land and smaller lots.

I would be interested in some examples of northern communities in particular, of places that have been done at the 1,400 square feet. I'll just add real fast, um, we recently built like a 3-bedroom, 2,000-square-foot ranch home up on the hillside, mountain views, a couple moving up from San Diego. Their parents decided to have a 1-bedroom built on the lot, ADU. And we had like a big barbecue up there for like employees and we all went through and blah, blah, blah. The 600-square-foot, 1-bedroom ADU, everyone went in it and said, "This is what I want.

I'm done with my house. I want this thing." Like it was unreal how many people said they wanted this 600-square-foot ADU, 1-bedroom ADU as their house. They loved it. Um, the reason I mentioned that is because 1,400 square— 600-square-foot house is about 42% lot coverage on a 1,400-square-foot lot. So the 1,400 does make sense for a 600-square-foot little house with 42% lot coverage, which is similar to your, you know, your basic lot coverage.

And one local example of that sort of building style that you might want to check out when you're in the area is down on Cordova Street, Cordova and 12th or 13th, I believe. There is one lot that has 4 small cottages on it that was developed within the last 3 or 4 years that could be an example of what might happen if this were to pass.

So to the previous point made, 600 square feet on 1,400 square foot lot, why not go smaller? Is 1,000 feet reasonable? And have other communities tried that? Currently, in our current zoning code, R-4A has no minimum lot size. Um, downtown also has no minimum lot size, so it is something that exists in code currently here in Anchorage.

So maybe I'm not putting two and two together, then why are we seeing a minimum lot size in the Tisdale?

That is an excellent question and maybe something we should consider.

I will add a little bit of information to that, though. There are some minimum requirements for AWU, which I believe Andre is very familiar with. So despite the fact that the code would not require a minimum lot size, there may be some requirements based on utilities servicing the sites. Yeah, I wasn't going to get into AWU tariffs and requirements for services, water and sewer services and the infrastructure that basically make, you know, when you get to a certain point, if you were going to actually build at a 800-square-foot lot, let's say, you'd probably not be calling it a lot at that point. You'd probably be moving to a condo to avoid AWU tariff requirements for one water and sewer per lot.

Transition to maximum height then as part of this table. We heard some recommendations of different approaches and pathways. I heard from staff about having discussed terracing but not wanting to necessarily move in that direction. Again, I don't have a silver bullet on this, but I acknowledge that it's an area that needs to continue to be worked. I'm generally supportive of increased height to help achieve the objectives of the TSDO, and there seems to be some basis for this 5-in-1 type approach.

But again, more work to be done. I think I tend to support it on a tiered basis, as some of our constituents spoke about, you know, on our longer arterials a little bit higher, kind of getting less and less through the, you know, which I feel like if you look at those pictures, you know, the development in other markets tends to just follow that in general. So I think we're getting into maybe page 31 too. Could you, could you describe what the height transition section says? I think we just have part of it in our packet.

And this would, that would apply within 200 feet of any lot designated as large lot residential, single family, two family, Yeah, yeah, maybe if you could go through what the height transitions in here are, that would be good.

I might have a diagram of this. I just want to make sure it's for the right one. If this is the one where it's rise over run, it basically establishes a plane and says you can't build within that plane. So it sort of protects neighboring areas. And we've been having this discussion for a long time, 2 is like the general understanding of property rights is you have moving up, but not necessarily moving over.

Let me see if I can find— I don't have it. I think there's also been some comments in the packet about having height requirements that are tied to the classification of the road, and I would not support that. I think because we're about to look at and recommend some road classifications coming up soon. So it's not like those are fixed and immutable either. I think that a simpler approach that's not tied to other decisions would be easier.

Yeah, we— and I'll let everybody jump in too, because we did talk a lot about that. That's something— and, you know, the plan does mention it. But every time we've gone through the process, you know, when we went through R4A, a lot of the comment we got was like, that it makes it that much harder. One, you have to build your— this image doesn't show it, but if you have to build your building like a ziggurat, it just means that many more cracks in the building where stuff can get in. And it adds some construction cost.

We also don't know if it, you know, like, does it work? So this image is the sort of sunlight protections as it currently is, I believe. And it says that, you know, if you have a lot, you're sort of protected. You have to preserve these viewsheds. But it doesn't always— I don't know if it's applied evenly.

For example, we don't apply it to trees, right? Trees can interfere with this viewshed, and we don't really enforce about that. And this is also one property asserting a sort of right of ownership up and above other properties. So even on these, these are lots that are built under the normal developable envelope, and I think they actually still violate this sort of, let's call it a viewshed array or something. So traditionally this viewshed rule has been applied to higher density, but not necessarily lower density.

So I think from our perspective, we've always been sort of asking for some, a larger sort of policy decision about are we gonna sort of codify whether there is a right to sunlight, and are we gonna apply it evenly? And it's, I think it really just comes down to trade-offs. It does. Is it more important to have this sort of trade-off between what one person— is their property right versus somebody else's property? Do I have the right to actually go to this certain height, or does my neighbor have the right to have unimpeded sunlight over my property?

And I don't think that's been resolved, but it— our perspective in creating this was simpler is better, and we can always kind of go to those more complex ways. It also doing it by functional classification or another one. It—. Anything can be done, it just adds to more complexity, and then the more complexity, it gets difficult to implement, you know, when it comes in. And we have to— like, right now, some of this is based on where it is in the comprehensive plan, so it's not even where it is in the zoning district.

So when somebody comes in for a permit, you have to look at what the comprehensive plan designation is, not even what the current zoning is. So that's why I think we generally, when we wade into those deep waters of transitions and complexity, we sort quickly jump, run back to the beach, but I'll let anybody else jump in. I think just to— so let's take the extreme example of an R-1 zoned lot. Could you achieve 75 feet in height in any scenario with the height transition requirements that are in here?

I think that would just be a question to maybe look at and come back, because I think it's the, the example that's going to be going to come up in public hearing and in public discussion. So I think an answer about what is actually achievable in some of these single-family, current single-family neighborhoods would be helpful. I think, yeah, we find the boogeyman, the worst-case scenario, make that test case out of that. And so we can draw a picture of the boogeyman and everyone can see what he looks like and maybe not be as scary.

The boogeyman being the tall building without the height transitions? The boogeyman being the very tall building on an R-1 lot next to a small cabin. I mean, this, this is sort of the boogeyman. The, the dimensional standards for R-2D and R-1 are similar, and here are the developable envelopes of both. Um, I, I guess my problem with this one was that there was a large green space between the road and the buildings.

And I don't know if that makes a difference or not, but it appeared—. I don't know, I could find another example. Or sandwich, you know, two of those tall buildings and one tiny little cabin. I mean, but yeah, identify the street corner so that somebody knows exactly where it is, and maybe that'll help. I think what's just not in our packet on page 31 is what the height transitions actually are.

So it's— I don't think we're clear on what requirements are attached to that. So in this proposal, excuse me, there would not be any requirements for height transitions.

I think it's also the case that we don't have to solve every problem at once, and there's a sequencing thing at issue here. Height transition, sunlight access, northern design will all come up as part of the working group that the Assembly asked us to convene around design standards. So, you know, there's always the risk you allow someone sneaks in really fast and builds the 5-over-1 in the middle of the neighborhood while we're considering that.

So there's like, there is a sequencing question there, but we can also to some degree separate the concerns. But to the degree you all have a solution to the problem of How do we allow the 5/1 where we want it but not in the middle of the neighborhood, I think would be open to ideas from the committee as well as the public as we move forward through the process. [Speaker:COMMISSIONER BRYANT] I'll also add for anybody listening or watching, this section is on page 25 of 33 of Chapter 6 of the zoning code. And that's where this outlines that if you have these higher density districts, they're subject to to this daylight plane, and that daylight plane is what we were looking at here. So basically even some of these, but again, it only applies to higher density.

So if this lot right here was R3A, they couldn't build this building, but if it's R1A or R1, you're allowed to build it. So it applies a higher standard to higher density, but somebody could build a bulk structure that's violating that daylight plane, but it's R1 or R2D, and so it's not considered. Considered the same. So, but that's in Chapter 6 on page 6-25 or 25 of 33, the PDF.

Any other thoughts or questions on heights, page 30, page 31, before we move on?

All right. Moving on to page 32.

Exemptions from private open space requirements. Any thoughts or questions here?

Nothing to add but appreciation for the discussion we've already had on this topic, and I as a commissioner feel satisfied with the responses I received from from staff about this, that the tension between public versus private responsibilities around open space. And I personally like where the TSDO is headed in this direction.

Thank you, Commissioner Rodd, which also reminded me, compliments very welcome. If you like something about the TSDO, it's also very valuable to hear that too.

Other thoughts on page 32? Let's move on to page 33, residential design standards.

Seeing nothing, page 34, which is our final section, final page. I love that design standards are exempt.

I, yeah, I'd like to bring up line 45 of Section 10. I think I've heard some public testimony about the map in the area, and I think the department, uh, should be prepared to talk about why the 2025 multifamily tax incentive area is the correct area to adopt for this. Um, I think Rabbit Creek brought it up, I think Miss Andrews brought it up, uh, obliquely through the planning process and everything that went in the 2020 and 2040 comp plan. So be prepared to discuss why That's the best area to apply this to. And I think one policy decision there to highlight for your feedback is the text of the plan says half-mile diameter, but the 2040 plan use map, the visual, shows a half-mile radius.

So, uh, we went with the radius, the half-mile radius. So you're within a half mile, so it means it has a mile width. So that's generally— we were thinking walkable, bikeable sort of distance to promote the transit, and also making sure we weren't concentrating the development on some of our scariest, biggest roads, which is not exactly where we want people living. That policy choice would welcome this Commission's feedback on if that's the right choice or how to think about making that choice. Otherwise, it includes town centers, opportunity zones, downtown and midtown.

I think we already heard some feedback about downtown. It's potentially valuable. Feedback about any of those other choices is also valuable. Yeah, it doesn't have to be exactly the same. There is some nice elegance in that.

But yeah, that's some of the motivation. Yeah, I know I've been asking for downtown to maybe not be in this map, but I will say that in general, I really appreciate that you just picked the same map as the multifamily tax incentive. I think it streamlines the whole thing. We're not talking about parcel by parcel, should this be in this, should this not. I will say I have two broader thoughts.

One is Opportunity Zones are a specific and very new federal tool, right? Have they been working? Have they been used? I haven't heard very much about their use, and so I think it's— I understand why you include them, but I am curious about sort of how we imagine that to be effective, and what if they go away, right? Yeah, I think I can speak to that.

Member Martinez and Member Zolotow, during the discussion on the multifamily tax incentive, mentioned that it's a priority of the current presidential administration to emphasize opportunity zones. So yes, it is potentially a temporary thing that's not 100% proven, but it also seems potentially worth experimenting with. So those are good considerations to raise. And then my, my very last general comment, um, sorry to hog the mic, is just, you know, I think we've said the word transit a whole time and I haven't seen comments from the transit department. So I would love to hear how, um, this furthers their goals and what their long-term goals are and how land use can support, um, uh, support their level of service or help create a case for greater service.

Thank you.

You will notice some comments from AMATS, and BART has been heavily consulted through the process, including the initial drawing of the map for the multifamily tax incentive. But point well taken. Thank you for bringing into discussion the map as it's presented. And again, I appreciate the discussion had around the basis for multifamily tax incentive areas. When I look at this through the contextual lens of transit, I think about connectivity.

And I sat through this meeting circling about 8 areas where I feel like there's lack of connectivity and islands exist. And so maybe some additional information about why those gaps do exist, one being north of Merrill Field between the downtown area and Mountain View, another on the southwest, Raspberry Road to, you know, Spinard. Right?

Not going to resolve those now, but maybe in the work to come are there some additional pieces where if you're playing Catan or Carcassonne, you have a chance at winning the game. Sorry, that's an arcane reference to game players out there.

I'm just showing on the map here that a lot of the gray— I'm sorry if the color doesn't go through— these, these areas are sort of industrial zones. And, you know, down here, a lot of this over off International is industrial, some of these areas. So there was a lot of discussion about making sure we didn't— one, because we want to preserve industrial land, but two, you know, generally that is a place we really don't want to encourage too much housing. But, um, and also mention on the transit comments, we spoke with transit one or two weeks ago, and they wanted to convey that wherever this map is, it doesn't guarantee future service, but more people do make it easier for them to make the case to add service. So they don't want to be, you know, beholden to this, but it's one of those sort of like, well, we'll jump first, then you jump after, maybe.

So—.

Well, I will point out that we made it through the proposed ordinance page by page. It is 9 o'clock. We're currently in the Committee of the Whole and the public hearing is still open. Seems like it could be a good point to stop unless we wanted to keep, keep working, working away. What, what does everybody feel like doing?

I think the only thing we didn't discuss was the— when we come back again. And I thought there was a good point about community councils don't meet again until September. So if you guys made the effort to go talk to community councils, you might get all of them in September, but you might have one or two you couldn't fit in and have to go beginning of October, you know. So like maybe we would extend to October or November. I don't know.

Does anyone have an opinion on that? Well, I'd just like to also point out that the Planning and Zoning Commission is is not the last stop for changes to Title 21. So there would be a meeting, potentially a second public hearing at P&Z, and then another one at the assembly. So there's plenty of public process left to go. All I'm saying is people asked to come talk to them and they're not going to be convened until September.

So they're asking for a little more extension than September possibly. That's what they asked. I think you will, you will notice in your packet a number of letters of support from community councils already. There has been substantial feedback from community councils. There are some that meet during the summer, so those folks will be able to reach out to in advance.

Um, it is a good point. I think one of the disadvantages of potentially pushing back to, say, one of your meetings in October is that potentially it's going to impact the financing window for folks, so it might delay the building season by another year. But, you know, there could be a bunch of delay after you at the assembly level too. I think there is some value in figuring out a lot of these details now before we submit a version of the AO to the assembly. So, you know, pros and cons for you to think about.

I mean, just to add to that, Graham, every time we have a meeting, someone says they didn't get enough time, enough time, enough time. So I'm just pushing on that a little more. Yeah, but I mean, I'd say if they're not making the effort to pay attention, then maybe they're not that concerned. Maybe they have a job and they can't check the website every day.

If I may, we're also trying— we have a— the Muni Planning News, we're trying to get more and more people so we can always get people directly connected as well. We're just building that up, but we do see that there is sometimes this gap between the information, the way people get to it. So we want to provide— and we send that to the FCCs as well. But that's something we're really endeavoring to do and improve that connectivity. So the people who— I know it's still a boring email, but we do want to get all this stuff out to people.

So that's something we're building up to. I think you guys do an amazing job getting the word out. I just think some people— don't get it because they, you know, can't pay enough attention. It's hard. And certain people do and certain people don't.

So I'm not complaining. I'm just saying. We hear it every time. If I may, there will be a representative from the planning department at the FCC meeting on Thursday for the executive members of the community councils so that they will hear an update to what has happened at this meeting today.

And maybe to some of the testimony's point, I think we are also planning to convene people, right? So not just going to community councils but engaging. We've heard from a lot of community groups today, not just the councils. And so making sure we're trying— I think that's something, you know, we're always trying to do a better job of, is how can we reach out and make sure folks know. I think one of the reasons that the assembly passed the rezone reform ordinance that has enabled this process is that You know, we didn't want to spend $75,000 sending individual mailed notice to every property owner when we're making a policy change.

But we do— that means that puts an onus on us. And we made a promise to make sure we were doing deliberate community feedback. So we need to do that. And I think some of the feedback today is telling us we need to do a better job of that. And that's feedback well taken.

And I think that came up during the HOME Initiative, too. I mean, that's what you guys literally were like, we You can't send notices to a million people, like, I get it. Do we need a motion to come out of the Committee of the Whole? If so, I move to end Committee of the Whole.

Motion to come out of the Committee of the Whole moved and seconded. Any objection? Hearing none, we are out of the Committee of the Whole.

Based on what I have heard, we now need a motion to postpone to a future meeting on unprescribed date in September.

Continue. Continue. That's what the motion should say, continue, not postpone.

Motion by Commissioner Christian. Would you like to restate your motion and speak to it if you would like? I move in case 2025-0030 to continue the public hearing to a date to be determined, September 2025.

Motion is seconded by Commissioner Eber. Would you like to speak to the motion?

Is it also necessary to move to continue case 0034 to the same date in September? If so, I will amend my own motion and ask if Commissioner Eber will still second it.

Yeah, they've been combined, so I think the intent is there. I intend to support this. I would encourage staff to make this the earliest possible date. I believe that the more agendas it comes to, the greater chance of public participation, and I do believe that the very high level of public participation participation today is a sign that the public is aware and can continue to be aware, and the Commission can elect at that date to request even more public process if we feel that it's necessary. But for now, I would ask that we move forward quickly.

Anybody else wishing to speak to the motion?

Hearing none, we'll call for the vote.

Mr. Strike, how do you vote? Yes. Thank you.

That motion passes.

This is Commissioner Strike. I do have a question.

Go ahead, Commissioner Strike. We are moving on to the, uh, commissioner's comments section. Of the agenda. OK. Well, my question is since this has been— since these two initiatives have been moved and are to be continued, I would seek some clarity as to who the actual sponsors of this and these two initiatives are, if for no other reason to avoid any ex parte communications that could still take— that could take place. From what I was hearing in earlier— discussions and testimony that the sponsors was not— this was not initiated by the Planning Department, but that the Planning Department was working with the sponsors on these two.

So I think it should be clear who the sponsors are.

Does staff want me to take a stab? Go ahead. Well, I think in general, ex parte communication is going to apply to all of you with everyone on matters that are before you. But to answer the question more directly, this has been sponsored by Members Baldwin-Day and Member Martinez, and the mayor is also likely to be a co-sponsor.

Likely to be, but she did not.

The paperwork in front of us says this is from the planning department. The planning—. Correct. And the planning department testified that they are— that they worked with the sponsors on this initiative as it was presented to the planning department. So the planning department has been engaged.

I'm just— was asking for clarity, which we got, who the sponsors were.

Usually we see this in any other case through the petitioner, um, process, and we We see who the parties are. I just wanted clarity as to who the parties were. Can I use the initials? Commissioner Strike, page 13 of our staff packet says submitted by Assemblymembers Baldwin-Day and Martinez, which is what we heard tonight and prepared by Planning Department.

Okay, thank you. If I may, not to delay you further. Go ahead. The, the process that we're using today is the recently adopted process that the assembly approved for municipally initiated rezones. So I would say that sort of petitioner in this case is the municipality, and we're trying to avoid with this some of the awkwardness that we experienced during the HOME Initiative where specific assembly members were sponsors.

Thank you for that response and the effort.

All righty, anybody else have any comments before we entertain a motion to adjourn?

Move to adjourn. Is there a second?

Second. Motion to adjourn by Commissioner Rahn, seconded by Commissioner Eber. Any objections?

Good night. Thank you, Greg.

Thank you.

If they owed you money. I won't need a betty from you. Oh, you, you're stronger than you think. Don't let these wounds sting upon me.