Anchorage Assembly: Second Worksession re AO 2026-85, amending Anchorage Municipal Code Title 21 to create new...

I'm going to call this work session to order. Um, thanks for your patience. We were making sure we had all of our documents on the table. So today is Wednesday, October 28th. We are noticed in this room from 1 to 2:30 PM.

This is a work session on AO-2026-85, the MHOP, or Missing Middle Housing Opportunity Overlay. I'm going to just briefly— well, I guess we'll go through introductions, and I'm going to make sure I orient folks to what documents we have before us, and then we'll get started. So first, please, in the room: George Martinez.

Kameron Perez-Verdia. Erin Baldwin Day. Anna Brawley. And then on the phone, I see Mr. Volland.

I'm here, thank you. Mr. Handeland? Happy to be here. Ms. Scout?

Present. Mr. Johnson?

Also here. And Ms. Silvers?

Here, thank you. And am I missing any other members on the phone?

Okay, not right now. I will keep an eye and announce folks as they come in. I'll also note we are joined by, uh, around the table we have Assembly Counsel, Clerk's Office, members of the administration including planning and our community economic development director, several members of the public in the back. And so we will get started. So as I said, I just want to orient folks.

So today, the work session's purpose is to talk about proposed amendments and the substitute version of the ordinance AO-2026-85. I'll note that all of these documents that we have in the room are also online, and I'll share— there is the original version of the ordinance, the S version, And these are the same as what's been on our agenda since October 6th. And then we also have a couple— our amendment packet from the October 6th meeting. So that's the stapled packet of amendments. That's what we'll be mostly referring to today.

And then there's one additional unnumbered amendment that is posted online. It says draft amendment from the administration. And so we'll talk through that as well. And then lastly, I'll note there is a table that we have in print and online. It's the MHP technical comparison.

Residential Dimensional Standards in the Anchorage Bowl. So we'll talk through that as well. But just so folks are aware, if you're in the room, those are all available on paper. So with that, I'm going to turn to the sponsors. That's Miss Baldwin Day, Mr. Martinez to kick us off.

Thank you, Chair. Appreciate the level set there. I want to first ground us in the purpose of this ordinance, which, as we have continued to say, is to increase housing supply, particularly along our transit supportive corridors where we already have amenities, infrastructure, utilities, access to transportation of all sorts. And that this is part of implementation of our comprehensive plan. Our— on the second page of our land use plan, in fact, it says that we should be looking for innovative ways to accommodate and encourage growth in housing.

And I think we need to recognize that the context in which we are working now is significantly different than it was in 2017 when the 2040 Land Use Plan was adopted. I actually think we have— Chair, would you speak to the suitcase that's in front of us? I think that would be a great place to begin. Sure, yeah, just very briefly. So folks, if you— I don't know if it'll show up very well on YouTube.

Below me in the front of the room, or in the middle of the room, is a small suitcase. I own the suitcase, but in it is the, uh, what we consider the Anchorage Comprehensive Plan. So the elements that are adopted under AMC 2101-080, I will note that I picked up the additional 1,600 pages that we did not have print copies of today from our printing office. So those are included, stapled in there, as well as bound copies and official copies that I received from the Planning Department library. I will note there's 8 things that are not in there that we may or may not actually have copies of that are in our comprehensive plan, and And I'll note that it's probably about 30 pounds, although I have not put it on the scale yet.

So those— that combination of things is considered the municipality's comprehensive plan per our code. And I brought it for illustration, but happy to speak to it later. Thank you. I appreciate that. And, and I think what I'd like to point out from the outset, because there's been a lot of conversation recently about implementation of our comprehensive plan and also interpretation of our comprehensive plan, is that there, there is no way to to say that there is a singular interpretation of this document.

I think that it's fair to say that we have many, many guiding documents that we grapple to understand and implement, to interpret, if you will. That is why we have different schools of American jurisprudence, which I'm sure that Mr. Hurt could speak to at length if we wanted to give him the time to do that. I will not put him on the spot today. That is why we have upwards of 100 different varieties of Christianity, because people read the same document and they walk away with different ideas and different interpretations. And I believe that that is somewhat at play with this particular item, with this ordinance, but also with many of the conversations that we have had over the last decade with respect to zoning in Anchorage.

There is a fundamental question about how we interpret what is in that suitcase, or at least parts of what is in that suitcase, and I would hazard a guess that no one in the municipality has actually read the entirety and digested the entirety of what is in that comprehensive plan. So that is the level set for today. I was hoping to give the sponsor of the S version an opportunity to speak to her substitute version. It appears that she's not here today. So I think we should move to potentially amendments first, if that is appropriate.

Yeah, I don't know. I did get communication from Member Parks. She is on the way. She was having trouble calling in, but I know her intent is to be here. So, yes, I think we should move to other amendments and then we will definitely make sure that we have plenty of time.

Okay, and so yeah, I think we can start with— oh, here's Ms. Park walking in additionally, but I know she just came in, so maybe we could start with a couple of the other amendments and then we'll come back to this version. Yeah, that sounds great. So starting with Baldwin Day Park Amendment Number 1. So this is the amendment that essentially is the anti-McMansion amendment. It does not permit, or it seeks to reduce, the lot size on which individuals can take advantage of 70% lot coverage.

Again, the intent here is to ensure that you cannot in fact build to 70% lot coverage on a 6,000 square foot lot or more. So if there are any questions on this, I think it's fairly straightforward, but happy to answer questions. Okay, question for Mr. Perez-Verdia, and then I'll remind folks on the phone, please text me. I'll be monitoring if you want to be in the queue. Mr. Perez-Verdia.

I'm assuming this, just wanted clarification that these amendments are intended for the original version or intended for the S version? This amendment, I don't think I will speak to other amendment sponsors' intent, but anything that has my name on it is connected to the original version. Thank you.

Ms. Park. Yes, Mr. Perez-Verdia, it is actually included in the S version.

Okay, I don't see any other questions from members on that one. I guess I do have one brief question, just to be clear. So can you— I know it says on the page, but making sure that I'm understanding. So if there is a single-family home without any other accessory dwelling units or dwelling ADUs, that this would apply. So if somebody built an ADU, say, you know, above their garage or a new building on their property, would they still be subject to this, this maximum lot coverage?

So this, this excludes ADUs. So if someone had a large lot and they wanted to add ADUs to their lot, then they could do so under this amendment and have more flexible lot coverage than 40%. Okay, thank you. Miss Park. Thank you, Chair.

I would also say, although it's addressed somewhere else, this, this would preclude the use of that property for short-term rental.

Okay, I don't see any other questions on this one.

All right, then let's move on to Baldwin Day Martinez Amendment Number 2. This one is also relatively straightforward. This is incorporation replacing Exhibit A with Exhibit 1A. I believe members have the explanatory notes as to some of the cleanup that was done and the policy choices that were made between this map and the 6th version of TSDO, which was the map that was originally introduced with this item. And again, happy to answer questions on that point.

Okay, questions from members on the map revision?

I do have a couple, and again, I'll keep monitoring the chat. So can you describe, I think there's been some confusion about when this map was produced, what are the significant changes, and kind of what is the rationale for us considering this map versus the one that was published with the ordinance in June? To the sponsors, or to the, yeah, sponsors. Sure, happy to take that question. So the genesis of this map was actually the multifamily tax abatement map.

We received a memo from the Planning Department Planning Department on February 11th, 2012— excuse me, February 11th, 2022, excuse me— which outlined the rationale for that particular map. TSDO adopted that map since the goal was to increase housing supply along those transit supportive corridors, which were incorporated into the multifamily tax abatement. And so that was the starting point, and then there were some— there was some cleanup that I requested. For the MHOT map in particular, which is the second version, the 1A— the A1, excuse me— that you see before you. So again, generally including residential properties within a quarter mile of Anchorage's most traveled roads and active public transit routes, which comports with the multifamily tax abatement.

The further refinement was consideration of some additional factors. So one was including contiguous parcels on a street. So there were many points in the multifamily tax abatement area where the map actually sliced a street in half, or there were properties on, you know, one portion of a street that were then excluded. There were cul-de-sacs that were half included. There wasn't necessarily some designation, or there were some town center areas adjacent to high-volume roads that were not included.

And then we also decided to include parcels within a quarter mile of a forthcoming public transit route, which would run along 36th Avenue. Again, a part of our transit network and definitely something that we wanted to incorporate into the map. And we also excluded parcels. So there are some exclusion of parcels that were determined to be in the Jay Bear crash hazard area. So those were the adjustments that were made between Exhibit A, the map that was originally introduced, and then Exhibit A-1.

Okay, thank you. And then I want to also turn to Administration Planning if there's any additional comments on kind of where, where you might see any significant changes between the map that was published in June and the one now.

Through the Chair, for technical questions, the 2 members to, or 2 folks to my left will be addressing those and can speak if there's any technical things. I will only speak if asked on like an administrative, administration position or something like that. Thanks for the clarification. So I guess what I do have is a technical question, which I think is mostly just confirming what the sponsor said. So this map has multiple changes to it from the original, but one of the primary ones is making it consistent with the tax incentive map, is that correct?

Daniel McKenna-Foster, Long Range Planning. Yeah, we did assist in creating this just to try to align those better with the existing tax abatement. I believe that was AO-2025-35.

OK, thanks. And then there was a mention of pieces that are removed, can you, like the, for example, around the crash zone of, I believe it was Merrill Field, can you just kind of generally point us on the map? Obviously not parcel numbers, but just so I'm making sure that I can see exactly what we're talking about. Again, Daniel McKenna-Foster, Long Range Planning. So the, the, I think it'd be most accurate to say that JBER has an accident incident crash area, and they sort of provide a layer, and that's kind of directly south of their main airport, sort of some parts in Mountain View and a little bit south of the highway, about, I think, kind of along Taku Drive.

So it was really just aligning those layers which existed, and those layers are also identified in the 2040 Land Use Plan Atlas, but just making sure that those are removed if there were any in the previous boundary. Okay, thanks. And then last question, approximately how many Um, what is the net gain or reduction of the number of properties on this map, roughly? But so between the June version and the September version, again, Daniel McKenna-Foster, I'm looking, I believe these numbers, I think we had 31,947 parcels in TISDO version 6 from last year and 32,102 parcels in the MHOB boundary.

Okay, thank you.

Uh, one second.

Okay, thanks. Just conferring about order of amendments. Is it first? Is there any other questions on the map? Um, Mr. Perez-Verdia.

And then I'll note, I know Ms. Yowers, um, will not be able to stay the whole time, so our— the intent is to go to her amendments after we finish discussion with this one, then we'll come back. So, Mr. Perez-Verdia, go ahead. So this may be an obvious question for those of you who have been heavily involved in this, but can you just give me a very layman's term rationale for the— is the primary decision here its proximity to transportation? Is that the easiest way to describe the choices that were made in terms of this overlay? Is the relationship And then in the distance between these parcels and transportation, is that, is that the main sort of like criteria that was used?

So I, with respect to the, to the tax abatement area, which was used as sort of the foundation, yes and no. So the rationale given was parcels touching transit supportive corridor boundaries. Outlined in the 2040 Land Use Plan, some areas that extend a half mile on either side of existing people mover routes, parcels within the R-Down plan area, and parcels within the ongoing Midtown District plan process. And then there were some actions that were taken to further refine the boundary from there. And so building on that, it was an attempt to sort of clean up margins and things of that nature, and also sort of overlay with the tax abatement.

In place. Is that—. Yeah, I mean, it's just a— it's— yeah, it's a— it's a— I'm trying to understand why, why my property was in there and his wasn't, and why—. Why—. What, what generally the rationale for this is.

Is it to capture as much as we possibly can? Is it— is it relationship to access to transportation? Is it, um, you know, I understand that the whole cleanup piece, but I'm trying to really, really understand the, the, the overall rationale for why these were selected and others weren't. Yeah, fair question. So yes, access, access to transit and access to transportation options, and also sort of by definition where we already have built infrastructure.

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you. Okay, and Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, so just a question on the removal of those crash zones. So with that, it's— we're not, I guess, saying that nothing can be built in those areas. It's just the Mhop overlay. Is that correct?

I will actually defer to planning on that. I think there's some other analysis that's going on.

For the record, Mélisa Babb, Planning Director. That is correct. This removal is just the removal of the MHP boundary. It does not prevent any other construction or residential, um, that is already allowed in those areas.

Okay, so essentially with this, we are saying that, um, we just don't want increased density in these areas of increased hazard, correct? Through the chair, yes, that is correct. OK, thank you.

OK, Mr. Presidio, or actually Ms. Park and then Mr. Presidio. Thank you, Chair.

It doesn't— I think maybe it's not a thing to worry about right now, but I seem to recall from Friday in the budget discussion that if we were pressed, we would be moved to main bus lines from from the Muni bus service, and I'm wondering whether that would impact any of these areas. And if we then encourage building in an area that is removed from the bus line, if we're not inadvertently encouraging more people to use cars in, in those areas because the transit is not available.

I mean, I think, you know, that— I think that's certainly an eventuality. So this overlay would remain intact regardless of what might happen with bus lines in the future. I believe the document that Member Park is referring to is a slide of proposed cuts proposed by department if a 5% cut in the budget were required for next year. And there were a couple of bus lines, one particularly that goes out to Sand Lake area. That, and one smaller over in the Muldoon area, which could potentially go away, maybe, if those cuts were enacted.

So yeah, I think there is, there is absolutely the potential that we might lose transit lines. I think one of the ways that we ensure that transit lines remain viable is by ensuring that there is ridership available. And so I think the fact that we already have ridership in these areas is not necessarily an indicator, or it might actually be a saving grace if we were to start thinking about what to cut in our our transit budget. If we had additional ridership in these areas, I think there's a case to be made that routes could and should be retained.

Okay, Mr. Martinez. And just additionally to respond, interestingly, the transit— generally speaking, the transit-supported development corridors, which were part of the basis of the, of the map, were identified as development patterns versus the specificity of an annual budget with respect to a line being able to be run or not, right? And so the development pattern speaks to the level of density with ridership and where the infrastructure was, which we hope that overlaps, and we hope that sustains transit operations.

But yeah, they are different. Thank you, Mr. Perez-Verdia. OK, OK, any other questions on the map amendment too? I don't see any, so I'm going to suggest, as I said, that we will go— I know there's 4 amendments by Member Silvers and Member Handeland, so if we flip to our packet starting with Amendment 5, and I guess I'll turn to those sponsors to speak to them.

And then if you would like to go in a different order, we're looking at 5, 6, 7, and 8, so feel free to let us know which you'd like to do in what order. Go ahead, Miss Silver, or Mr. Handeland. Thanks. Yeah, I guess everybody's had an opportunity to look at those amendments. I'd like to see if anybody has any questions about them first.

Okay, yeah, then I'll turn to questions and then I'll just ask folks to remind us which amendment you're speaking to by number and then we can make sure we're all on the same page. So starting with Miss Baldwin Day, then Mr. Perez-Verdia.

Yeah, thank you. I'm curious about Amendment Number 5.

To the sponsors, what is the problem that's being solved or the clarity that's being sought with this amendment?

Can you please give me a brief of which one Amendment 5 is? I don't have the sheet in front of me. Oh, so sorry. This is the edit to minimum setback requirements.

Specifically under, let's see, it's hard to tell. I think this might be—. Is that the front setback or the side setback? Looks like the—. It's actually hard to tell.

It doesn't— oh, side setback. This is— so the interpolated language is where structures are attached by a common wall.

Yes, and so I think if you don't have that in there, if it's just a simple common lot line, basically a person could build a shed or a garage right on a shared lot line. So I can just kind of imagine the neighbor feuds that would be started over that.

Yeah, so I think that, you know, If it has a shared wall, then it's allowing for your attached structures, which I think is probably the purpose of allowing them to be right on the lot line. But I don't know that there's a lot of utility in allowing people to put garages or sheds or things like that right on a lot line. Agreed. And yes, you're correct about the intent of this. Of the common lot line language.

I'm wondering if Planning can speak to the necessity of this amendment. I believe that this is the language that's used elsewhere, and it's interpreted to mean a shared structure, a shared wall in contiguous structures, but I would love technical clarification on that point.

Through the chair to Member Baldwin Day, that is correct. The interpretation of this in general is that it requires a shared wall in order for this to apply. If it did not, then it would be similar to our downtown code. The dimensional requirements in that say 0 or 5. The common lot line, again, that language is interpreted to mean that there is a building on the other side of that line.

So, so is this, is this language, is this clarification language helpful in your opinion, or would it potentially be duplicative?

Through the chair, with respect to the sponsors of the amendment, I think it is a little bit duplicative. It wouldn't break anything in code, but we already interpret it in the this manner.

Thank you. I don't have any further questions on this particular amendment, so I'll defer to others. Mr. Presverdia, is this on amendment? You had a question on this. Can I actually follow up with the, with the planning on that one?

Yeah, sure. Go ahead, Ms. Silvers, and I'll go to Mr. Presverdia. Okay. Yeah, I guess my question is, do interpretations change?

Through the chair, over time or with different administrations, or people can contest an interpretation, I believe, as well. There's a path for that in policy.

Through the chair to Member Silvers, the short answer, yes, they do. However, in our— in the department, we try to maintain consistency as much as possible. Possible. So if a precedent was set 10 years ago, say, with an interpretation, we try to stick to that as much as we can and notify the public if we are going to change our interpretation on a point like this.

Okay. And people can also contest interpretations, right? There's a pathway for that in code.

Through the chair, yes, there are pathways for people to apply for variances and then protest decisions made by either by the department or by the boards and commissions.

Okay, thank you. If I could jump in, we have a live stream from our Development Services colleagues who said building code wouldn't allow a door on the lot line, no openings in walls within 3 feet. Of a property line. So you wouldn't have a garage door opening onto the neighbor's lot. Thank you.

Thanks. Next, Mr. Perez-Verdia, go ahead. Thank you. I just, I wanted, I don't know if we're all really clear on this. I understand that we were going to introduce the S version, but we're going through amendments and I asked it about a previous amendment, but I wanted to be clear whether these amendments relate to the original version or to the S version.

Can we just have clarification, please?

Mine relate to the original version. Okay, so all of the amendments in the packet relate to the original version, none of them relate to the S version. Is that, is that correct? No, all mine do.

Okay, thanks. Yeah, I believe when we get to the other amendments we can clarify, but at least for 5 through 8, it sounds like for sure the original version, and I believe at the top it would say S version. If it was, yeah.

Okay, other questions on Amendment 5? Okay, then I'll note there is 6, 7, and 8, so I'll see if there are questions from members on those items.

Okay, Ms. Baldwin Day. Yeah, on Amendment 6, I have a couple of questions for, I think, For, well, actually, I'd like to understand the sponsor's intent of 5-foot increments for height transitions. And then I have a couple of questions for Planning.

Okay. I can get to this one. Okay, yeah, go ahead, Mr. Haight. I can get it real quick and then you could follow up. Um, so this— what this amendment does is it creates a graduated height transition, which is based on existing residential zoning.

Um, and so R-2A and R-2D are already, um, meant for denser, um, housing than R-1 and R-1A. Uh, and so it kind of follows the existing, like, density increases. It allows for a 3-story structure, 35 feet. However, it wouldn't allow for a 3-story structure with like soaring ceilings, things like that. And I think Member Handeland can talk a little bit more about that.

But it gives the incremental height increase that follows kind of your existing residential zoning transitions. Thanks.

Yeah, and I mean, from some of the previous work sessions that we've had and talking with builders, they were wanting to have kind of a little bit more flexibility and having a little bit more room in between floors for utilities, stuff like that. And so based on those kind of conversations, this gives them that additional flexibility without creating kind of these soaring buildings and stuff in some of those areas. And so, kind of splitting the difference there of giving a little bit more flexibility without the ability of adding a whole other floor.

Okay, then I have a couple of questions for Planning. First, I think I'm curious about sort of the, like, the effectiveness of height transitions that differ by 5 feet. And then if you could also speak to the impact of tying heights to a base zone if a property is rezoned in or out of the overlay. What is— how does that interact or work?

Daniel McKenna-Foster, Long Range Planning.

Yeah, I, I think with building heights, it, it's kind of if you want to get to a different floor, you need the full height of that floor. So 5 feet maybe doesn't make so much of a difference. And, and even sometimes I think we had a case in an R2D where somebody wanted to go to 35 feet, but even then they had to go up to 36 to get what they needed. I'm, I'm trying to look through for, through some of the recent Cook Inlet housing.

Projects where they've talked about just needing to go a little bit further, a little bit higher up. I think in Airport Heights, their senior housing was an example of that. And if you could repeat the second question, please. Yeah, I'm curious about a rezone within, within the overlay. So if someone rezones, let's say, out of— I'm trying to understand.

How this interacts with the underlying zone and whether tying to the underlying zone is actually going to give the functionality that the sponsors are looking for. Oh yeah, yeah, thank you. Through the Chair, I think one of our— in reviewing any of these materials, I think we'll just keep asking the same question, and just for clarity, it could probably be clarified. It's just thinking about the intent of any of this, which we don't know, but if there's a change, would you want the overlay to apply regardless of if there's a change to the base zone or not? Because there is some flexibility with the land use plan that people can use the abbreviated rezone process or another process to change the base zone.

And so our, just in terms of ease of implementation to clarify intent, and that's for you, Ali Hope, is just to say, if this happened and somebody went from, say, R-1A to R-2D, which they could under the land use designation of single and two-family, would you want this particular restriction to apply regardless of the base zone. So should it be that this rule would apply on the day that the overlay was passed to that property, or this rule applies only to, you know, to the zones that were zoned that way on the day that the overlay went into effect? So I think that, that would be our comment for many things that we just encourage as, as you all work through this, just whatever your intent is, if it's to say this will apply to the property forever based on this overlay, or this will apply based on the base zone. And that could go with something else. If you craft some of these and you say, you know, X will be allowed except if the base zone allows Y, then that would mean if the base zone, for example, say in R-1A, somebody changed the heights or something, that could also change that unless you specifically wanted a discrete number.

So it's like, do you want to tie the number to a specific— tie the regulation to a specific number now, or do you want to allow it to sort of float if things change with the zone? So Thank you.

Yes, so a follow-up question. Can I do a follow-up question for planning? Yeah, Ms. Baldwin Day first and then Yarrow Silvers. So, okay, so how— so I think what I heard is also interesting if we contemplate a height change in an underlying zone.

Writ large, so if we were at some point to say, actually, in R2A, we think heights should be at 40 feet. If this were— if this were in place, then would— I think what I'm hearing you say is we would need to specify whether the overlay applied or whether the underlying zoning applied. Is that correct? Through the chair, I think we would find it more helpful for implementation, or else we'd have to go through some sort of interpretation process and asking the Assembly to make clear what the intent was. And it could go either way, right?

Right? The base zone, it could go up or down. I mean, R-6 right now is 35 feet, so something could go to 35 or something else. So just clarifying whatever the intent is, whether you want it to be tied to the base zone or tied to that specific height number. Okay, thank you.

That's helpful.

Hey, Miss Silvers.

Yeah, when you're talking about needing a little bit more flexibility, are you talking about for a 3-story structure or a 4-story structure? Because what I've been learning from builders is that a 3-story structure can fit in 35 feet pretty easily. And as we know, the— and you can confirm this, but it goes to the— the 35 feet would go to the midpoint of the roofline. Is that correct? Not the top?

Yeah, through the chair, the height of a building is measured— if you put your hands together like a triangle, it's measured to the midpoint. Of the roof.

And I think it's, in general, I'm trying to pull up a case. I believe we did have an administrative site plan review for a 3-story entitlement or 3-story building. I think this was Case 2025-001, and they went to 36-point-something feet. And so in general, you know, some of the other research we've been doing about what 3-story or 4-story heights would be, I think we've looked at it and says, and we're looking at that 40 feet now accommodates a 3-story contemporary construction, apartment construction. So that's for structural beams, HVAC equipment, and sort of interstitial spaces, and also allows for like a daylight basement.

So yeah, I think I'd leave it at that unless you have anything else down. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, I have myself in the queue for a couple of questions. Also note, Member Gerker just joined us on the phone at 143. And also note, we're talking about legislative intent. I think that's a good point that we maybe have not made lately for members, which is part of the reason we do debate and have meetings like this is to verbally describe our intent.

And there's many times that we, or really Council, has had to go back into the archives as well as planning staff to kind of figure out how to interpret. So I think that's partly, partly what we're doing here and the intent of talking about these things. So I think that's why when you hear questions like that, it's really being able to describe what you're trying trying to do is super helpful. So that's a meta comment. My questions, I guess, I— these are really questions that I'm not seeking an answer right now, but I wanted to put on the record, and I do intend to follow up.

So I think that it's an interesting question. We have a foot height requirement. I guess one thing I'll ask Planning is, is there a standard definition of a story in our code? Because I know we talk a lot about stories. In buildings.

It can vary depending on the construction of the building, if there's HVAC between the floors, that kind of thing. But I'm just wondering, is there a standard definition for residential construction for a story in terms of height?

Again, Daniel McKenna-Foster, Long Range Planning. I'm just— I believe we do have a— I'm just looking at Chapter 15 of our zoning to see what the story definition is. In general, though, we have been trying to move away from stories. The comp plan says that, you know, something should be 2 to 4 stories, because it does get really complicated. Because even when the comp plan was written and said, you know, in compact mixed residential medium, we're looking at things should be 2 to 3 stories or 2 to 4 stories, that doesn't really translate, right?

You could have these big massive stories. And then we had a case a few years ago which will allowed 2.5 stories are up to 30 feet, and that caused a lot of problems as well. So in general, we are trying to get 2 feet, like a hard feet number. And let me just see, I think, let's see, we have the definition of story in our zoning code is the portion of a building included between the upper surface of floor and upper surface of the next floor or roof above. I think we might have something somewhere that says what a story is, but In general, I think we're trying to move towards a more transparent number-based height.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think there isn't a standard foot— number of feet per story is what I'm hearing. So I guess the question I just want to put on the record is really, you know, the implication of saying, for example, you know, we could have a 3-story building with lower ceilings. I guess the question is really, does that end up basically putting economic restrictions on the types or the price points of housing that can be built. And so, and I, and it's not a question I don't think that I certainly can't answer as an assembly member.

I'm not a real estate professional. But I think it's a, it's an open question. I could imagine luxury condos, for example, that, that have 9-foot ceilings or even 10-foot ceilings, right? And that would certainly have a different price point than a building from the 1980s that was built as affordable housing and has 8-foot ceilings. And so those are just two examples.

So that's something I intend to research to understand, but it is something that I'm wondering is how much this would make a specific kind of price point of housing feasible and preclude other price points of housing in this particular area, which as I understand it is not usually the intent of zoning. But can happen. Mr. Handeland.

Yeah, question. So I mean, under the current system that we have, so if we don't have a pump, the R1, R1A is currently set at 30 feet, correct?

I believe that's for planning. Through the chair, yes, that is correct. Okay, and so I guess the, the other homes that are currently constructed in this, we go and we put, uh, implement MPoP in, in these areas. Essentially, they would have more flexibility to build a little bit more, but it would be very difficult for them to try to put another story on a home next to one that was originally constructed under that 30-foot requirement, correct?

Through the chair to Member Handeland. Are you speaking of a building in the R-1 zone under MHOP? So the, the R-1 and then R-1A, they would have additional flexibility of 35 feet if this amendment were accepted, but would— I guess it would be difficult for them to try to add another floor.

Through the chair to Member Handeland. Yes, as, as it stands now with the 30-foot height in R-1 neighborhoods, that generally translates to, translates to 2 stories. An additional 5 feet, I don't think, would really give them— and I'm not a builder, but I don't think it would give them as much flexibility as they might need to add a 3rd story. Unless there were a very, very short 3-story building.

If I could add, this is Daniel McKenna-Foster. I think you could— currently in R-6, the height limit is 35 feet, so you could look at R-6 and see how many 3-story buildings have been built, and that's been the case for a long time, and I don't have that number, but that might be a worthwhile data point. Thank you. Okay, thank you.

OK, so note we're at 1:49. We're noticed till 2:30, so I know we've got a number of things to still get through. So all— and I know Ms. Silvers is still listening but not able to speak at this moment, so it'll be Mr. Handeland to speak to numbers 7 or 8. So I'll see if there's questions on those amendments. Ms. Baldwin Day.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate this amendment. And I have a question for, for Mr. Handeland. Was—. Sorry, can you specify which one you're talking about?

Oh, I'm sorry, I'm talking about Amendment Number 7, which addresses drainage. And I'm curious about the consideration. Did the sponsors consider regulation based on permeable versus impermeable surfaces rather than total building coverage?

No, we were just looking at building coverage for this. I mean, when you go and take a building in, I mean, I guess bump a lot up to 70% there, that's a lot of very impervial, impure, whatever, surface there that's going to be draining off. And so just having that where, I mean, kind of increasing that standard, but then having threshold of above 50% that they got to submit a plan under. That was kind of the intent, but we didn't really look at other lot coverage on there.

Yeah, I definitely appreciate the interest in protecting neighboring properties. I think—. I mean, I would love for Planning to correct me on this, but I believe that based on our current code, there's actually nothing that prevents anyone anywhere in Anchorage from creating an impermeable surface, i.e., paving over the entirety of their lot, and that includes residential zones. Am I, am I correct on that? Through the chair to Member Baldwin Day, that is correct.

However, there is a protection in code that prevents people from impacting negatively impacting their neighbors' drainage patterns as well. And that exists in Title 23? That is in Title 21 as well. It is in 21. Okay, excellent.

So with the— I guess I'm curious on your thoughts. Again, I get the intent here, and I think it's it's a valid question. I'm wondering how this interacts with other properties outside of the overlay, and whether this is a question that you have other thoughts on, on a wider scale than just MHOP.

Through the Chair, Member Baldwin Day, thank you very much for the question. This is something that the Department Department alongside the Building Department has been in deep discussion about lately. We are looking at potential upcoming code changes to address impermeable surfaces on, on the lot in general, muni-wide. And I would be glad to invite Daniel King up here to speak wherever he ended up. If you would like to say anything about that as well.

Daniel King, Development Services. Through the chair, drainage is always a concern for all properties in town. Residential lots typically don't have much review when it comes to pervious or impervious surfaces, so residential projects for 1, 2, or 3-family homes get looked at to make sure that drainage arrows that they draw don't direct towards neighboring properties, but there's not additional follow-up that gets done for those. It usually is on commercial properties that will have private development civil review to look more at where they're directing the water and how they're going to deal with it, either on property or going into the storm drain. So, so it's typically going to be larger developments that we try to look at more.

It's been a problem before on residential projects where they'll complete the building and then later pave the whole property, and there's no follow-up on the building department side other than to tell them, yeah, you really shouldn't be draining on your neighbor. This is going to be a civil matter, but it's easier on commercial projects because they'll usually have the paving plan and they can't add additional parking without going through a traffic review. And so that usually will get captured on their permit side when they have to want to pave more.

Yeah, so a follow-up question. You, you said that residential construction, you know, from 1 to 3 units are reviewed but don't get much follow-up. What happens on the residential side with 4 or more units? Is that treated differently? 4 Or more units gets treated as a commercial project.

It's at 5 units that will require the private development review, and then 4 4 is in this middle category of depending on what they provide us, we're going to require additional or not. Thank you. I appreciate that. Can you—. Are you at liberty to share what sorts of code adjustments you're working on, or is that still something that needs to be kept under the hat?

And I'm totally fine if the answer is yes, you don't get to know yet.

Through the chair, Bob Dole, Director for Community Economic Development. This is an impact throughout. It isn't unique to the MHOP zone. It is a global issue, both in terms of avoiding adverse impact to neighboring properties as well as, frankly, the impact on the stormwater system. As we look at it, we're exploring what is an appropriate way to address that globally, recognizing that asphalt and a building have the same impact on a parcel of it not being able to absorb.

It is a work in progress. Thank you. I will take that. Okay, next, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair.

Just for clarification, what one of the professionals in the room that knows the code, what is a drain? 21 In this amendment that describes the section, the subsection 21.07.040.

D.3 and a drainage plan. I just— what is that and what is that related to today?

If, if, if current— if currently there is no requirement for a drainage plan except on paper, what is that in fact being, um, identified as a a mechanism to use. What is the mechanism being identified, and when is it triggered today?

Through the chair to member Martinez, um, that particular code section looks to be part of our special review for things like administrative site plan review or major site plan review. It's something that we will ask for if we have questions during those reviews, or during— if we're looking at a steep slope development as well. And I'm sorry, hold on just one moment. No problem.

For the viewers at home, this is real time. So thank you.

So it looks like we require drainage plans anytime there's a permit from Development Services for projects that include land disturbance, for subdivision plots, for site plan reviews, as I mentioned earlier, and conditional uses. So currently this is not identified in code as a tool for residential development in the first place?

Through the chair, it would be required for some residential development, and I do believe they are required for any residential development that is considered a commercial development. That goes to that multifamily and commercial upward, but not for the—. The—. We're talking about the R's and the R-1's, and really not at that level of what you could develop on those properties in the first place. In— yes, that would be correct for anything developed in the R1s and R2s.

We would be less likely to require that, although I'm sure there are always exceptions. So to be clear, there are already in code the mechanism to trigger if, if in MHOP there is a development that is in one of the zones that allow for the size of the residential development to trigger the commercial review, essentially, for Middle Zone 5 or better, that we already have the drainage in code in place as a part of the mechanisms of review. Okay, I just wanted to make sure we're clear about that. And then additionally, just to flag, as you all are doing the other parts of the review, This is a conversation that we've raised through the permaculture conversation, specifically around urban growing and urban farming and how to use more of the lot coverage, the lot usage, to do more productive things. And those productive things have a mitigating factor on drainage, right?

And so I think that's something that's a worthwhile part of the project. But it seems at least on the face of it today, you can pave your entire green space on your R-1 property outside of your, your home and don't have to put additional housing on it.

Through the chair, if that was a question for the planning department, then yes, I would say that is something that is permitted as long as you don't negatively impact your neighbor's drainage. Thank you, that helps a lot. Appreciate it. Okay, Ms. Baldwin Day.

Yeah, one, one follow-up question for the sponsors. Is the intent to include the square footage of accessory dwelling units in this 50% calculation, or is this a main structure, a primary structure only?

I believe it was to apply to all structures.

Because it— yeah, it's total building coverage exceeding 50%, so it would apply to, I guess, the sum total of all.

So if someone were adding an ADU on their property, they would be required, if and they were to go to 51% of the lot coverage, they would be required to submit a drainage plan?

Yes, under this, um, correct. Okay.

Okay, I think that takes care of Amendment 7. Um, so briefly, uh, we'll touch on Amendment 8, and then what I'm going to propose in terms of order before we do that is, um, I know there's a couple, uh, additional amendments. Um, I would like the opportunity to speak to my amendment primarily because I'm not going to be moving it, so I don't think we can spend a lot of time on that one. There's an amendment from the mayor that I want to make sure we get to speak to because we haven't dealt with that, and then I would like to turn to the S version so we can make sure we have time to unpack that. I know that we are going to be running short on time, so we'll try to keep it, keep it moving.

So in the meantime, I do have one question on Amendment 8, and then I'll see if there's other questions on that one. And this is for the sponsors. So I'm reading— this is the one— Amendment 8 is related to administrative site plan review and major site plan review. The major site plan review caught my eye because in a separate action, we have paused residents— certain residential design standards. One of them was major site plan review required for multifamily housing.

So for the sponsors, I would have to go back and look at how these interact in the overlay, but is your intent to restore that major site plan review even while those are paused, or would this be after the pause? And I know that might be a question for just Mr. Handeland since Ms. Silvers is not able to speak.

Yeah, and I apologize on this one. This one I think was more with Ms. Silver's kind of alley here on it. I was kind of more focused on Amendment 6 and 7 with this, and so I don't want to, I guess, speak for her out of turn on that. OK, understood. So I'll just raise that question then.

That would be helpful to understand, or I can ask it on the dais. Again, just if the intent would be to undo that piece of the current pause that we have on those design standards, or would it be to still pause it and then this would apply after that? So that's something to follow up. Any other questions on Amendment 8?

Yes, I just wanted us to be really clear about what the administrative site plan review process entails and how that is, what that looks like in terms of work on the planning side of the house and also cost, and just ask for planning to reflect on what this, what the impact of this would be on their workflow. Thank you.

Through the Chair to Member Baldwin Day, the administrative site plan review process includes a few weeks of agency review. Staff writes a case that, that covers the criteria for administrative site plan review, and then they present the case to me and I make a decision on whether or not the, the development has met the criteria. It's generally a process that takes a few months And then there is also an application involved, so whoever is developing the project usually spends time and effort in compiling the application. I can't speak to the cost of the application or the time entailed in that on the developer side. But did you want me to just speak to administrative site plan review, or do you want me to speak to the major site plan review as well?

Yes, thank you. That would be helpful. So the major site plan review process includes all of those things, but also includes— I am not the person making the decision in that case. Major site plan review goes to PCC. So there's a hearing, opportunities for public testimony, there's public meetings and mailers and That also is a matter of a few months.

All right, thank you, that's helpful. Okay, thanks. And, uh, Ms. Silver, I can answer those questions. Yeah, go ahead, please. Now, okay, um, and so this in the, um, R2A and the R2B, um, because as you know, at this current time you cannot build 9-plex in these zones.

And so I think, you know, we're talking about primarily single-family and duplex neighborhoods, and we're talking about putting 9-plexes in them. And so I think it is entirely reasonable to, if, if we're going to allow that, to kind of mitigate against some of maybe some of the unintended consequences of that by requiring that site plan review. And so that's the intention with that amendment. Thanks. Okay, thanks.

Any other questions on Amendment 8? Okay, not seeing any. And I know there's a couple of follow-ups, it sounds like. So we'll briefly turn— as I said, I'm going to very briefly speak to my amendment just because, as I said, my intent is not to move it. That is Proposed Amendment 4.

So I'll just say the intent behind this was, as I was looking at our use table, which is what this amends under the exhibit, that I was wondering, you know, there's various other kinds of really small multi-unit housing, which is really our assisted living facilities, group living, adult care, things like that. And then additionally, childcare centers and adult day centers on either end of the age spectrum are, you know, activities that people find very helpful to have close to home, similar to things like school. So, so originally I was thinking, wouldn't it be great if we could allow medium-sized of these facilities in the neighborhoods in the overlay? But then as I thought about it, I realized really the discussion about this should be with the underlying zoning code and not just this. There's not a good connection to just transit corridors.

I think this could be a good idea regardless. And so I just wanted to bring up this idea and then say that my intent is to bring a future ordinance that would allow for this discussion, not just as tied to the overlay. So I'm not intending to move this amendment. And so we can save that discussion for another time. So I won't take questions on that because I think that's— we're taking it off the table.

So then I'm going to turn next to— I see Mayor LaFrance has joined us at the table. So I'll note this is an amendment. It is unnumbered and it says submitted by Assemblymember. I know it's being drafted right now. So this is a working draft, or at least the formatting is a draft.

But this is the mayor's amendment, so I will turn to Mayor LaFrance and her team to discuss. Thank you so much, Chair Brawley and members. You know, like all of you, we listened to the public testimony on this item and heard the feedback. We love our neighborhoods. They're very important to Anchorage, and we've done a lot in this area of housing, tax incentives, pausing design standards.

Land swaps open up new opportunities, and I thank the Assembly for your partnership in this area. This amendment— no, well, at first I want to recognize that the original version of MHOP contains compromises. I do want to say that this amendment before you offers a balanced way forward to move forward with something that the community can get behind. And so what it does is builds on the sponsor's 30-foot limit in R-1 to extend that to R-1A, R-2, R-2A, R-2D. And it also adds the 10-foot minimum setback for these underlying, underlying zones as well.

And you can see that on the table on the second page. Of the amendment, but essentially reduces the scale of change to the R-1 and R-2 zoning districts.

And I will stop there. If there are any questions—. Okay, questions for Suzanne LaFrance. Miss Baldwin Day.

Yeah, I have some questions about the inclusion of some of these zones. So as I look at the 2040 Land Use Plan, I'm noticing that some of what's been included here in this amendment is, is maybe not exactly what is reflected for compact mixed residential low. So I'm wondering if this particular section, which includes R-2D, indicates primarily 2 and 3-story buildings, which I think what we've heard is that construction of 30— of 3-story buildings is really difficult with this 30-foot height. So I'm curious as to the inclusion of R-2D in this amendment. And then also I'm interested to understand more about the rationale for required 10-foot front setback.

The—. What is the— what is the technical intent here?

Sure, thank you for that, Member Baldwin Day, and I will turn to Mr. Doehl and his team for the technical piece of it. I will say that this amendment seeks to address the top community concerns without limiting housing, and that after the HOME Initiative, R-1 through R-2D are in many ways essentially the same. But I will turn to the team for the technical response. Through the Chair, Bob Doehl, Director for Community Economic Development. The 10-foot, we believe, does two things.

It provides for some space for kind of preserving the current neighborhood feel based on feedback extensive that we have all listened to with public testimony. Also, frankly, it is snow storage. We want to make sure that we can provide adequate snow storage somewhere, even on that front part of the parcel, that we're not going to impact where we need to have people able to walk in front of the place. Looking at larger cities, um, it seemed, uh, outside downtown districts, in your residential districts, I'm thinking of like Chicago or Minneapolis, it's pretty common to have at least some space there. It also, like I said, preserves an opportunity to preserve more of a neighborhood feel than properties further closer up.

Yeah, so I think I'm— I think my question is less about the neighborhood feel, and it's more about how this works together, the confluence of this with the idea that we would be hopefully making it possible for folks to build on lots that are smaller than 6,000 square feet, where perhaps having a determined setback would be problematic. I'm thinking particularly about short lots or differently shaped lots where a firm setback, taken in context with all other factors that might exist on a lot, would actually keep something from being built on a lot that's, say, 2,700 square feet or something of that nature. So I'm taking this sort of in context with other dimensional questions since this all works together in the end. Through the Chair, Bob Doehl again. But to be clear, this is only a front setback.

The sides and rear are not impacted, so you still have that space to develop. And we believe, though, in terms of overall, in terms of how this building has to tie into the street in the neighborhood, that 10 feet is necessary just for snow storage and to avoid immediately draining everything out. So I guess I was under the impression that snow storage is something that happens in the public right-of-way and not necessarily on private property? Is—. Are you suggesting that, that somehow public right-of-way no longer exists in this scenario?

Um, through the chair, snow should not move from private property onto the public right-of-way. So snow storage from my private— if I shovel my front sidewalk, I should not be pushing it into the right-of-way. So no, we're not saying move right-of-way into snow into the private property, but rather to provide sufficient space for whatever snow movement needs to happen on that parcel, it has— it should happen on that parcel and not be pushed into the right-of-way, which is frankly a recurring problem we see in the winter up here. Sure, but, um, if you had less of a front setback, you'd also have less snow to move. Through the Chair, we believe this is a reasonable balance just based on looking across what works and what doesn't and where we get our complaints and where we don't.

Okay. Thank you. Nothing further from me. Mr. Martinez.

Interesting point about the snow removal in the front, and I would just note that we're talking about the residential, primarily the residential portions of neighborhoods, um, the R-1s in these areas, not necessarily the commercial corridors within, uh, the, the MHOP target zone. And I think of my neighborhood, it's an R1 neighborhood, and we don't have sidewalks today, but we have pretty big setbacks in the front. And whether I like it or not, every year as the snowplow comes by and pushes the snow off the street with the shooter, my entire front of my lawn is packed, and I have a pretty big frontage. So at least the first 10 feet is a wall of the snow from the street often. And so that's very common.

I would just put it anecdotally into the environment. I don't know if that's what the— if it should be that way based on what you described, but it is that way in fact that we walk in the streets In my neighborhood, we don't have sidewalks, and we require the streets to be clear, and oftentimes that means clearing them onto property which is in the frontage of homes. So I don't know where that lands, but that is what is in fact what's happening. Through the chair, many residential districts beyond the right-of-way, there is a snowstorm easement. I can't speak to your particular neighborhood, but I know I, I have a 10-foot one in front of my house, which is a beyond-the-right-of-way snow storage easement from that.

It's there. And if I could just follow up on that, I, in the long term, I would love to have a conversation of what sidewalking looks like. Like, what does it mean to develop neighborhoods that have that were developed without sidewalks, when we want them to be walkable as a year-round community. I think that's— that is an important conversation, but it also over— also highlights where MHOP happens in terms of the targeting where infrastructure already is and could potentially be expanded on. And I think that relationship between the future of walkability and developing patterns out forward is something to make sure we don't lose sight of.

Thank you.

Okay, any other questions?

There's a question about not this particular amendment, but a different one, just for clarity. Yeah, I just wanted to confirm that the floor amendment that was submitted at the October 6th meeting is this is the— this is a replacement to that amendment, is that correct? That is correct. Okay, lovely. And then I think a related question to Member Silvers then.

I believe her Amendment 12 was connected to the floor amendment from the administration. I'm assuming, Member Silvers, do you intend to not move this amendment forward since the associated item will not be before us?

No, I've actually rewritten that amendment so that it will fit in with the regular version.

Okay, thanks. And I say the version, actually. Thank you. Yeah, and just for clarity, so the amendments that were being referred to, we don't have them printed out today, but one of them was the mayor's amendment that was introduced at our last— or when this was discussed to extend the effective date to January 1st, 2028. So that's the one that the mayor stated she's withdrawing.

And then the other one was Ms. Silver's. I think it was Amendment 12, the numbering at the time. So it sounds like we'll see a new version of that one. So we don't have print copies of that today, but just so we're clear and tracking, I know we've got a lot of paper. OK, so next.

So I don't see any other folks in the queue for this one. So, and I know we are running short on time. We can extend this meeting briefly, but really only to 2:45 if we need to. So I'll ask next if we can turn to the substitute version or S version for Member Park. And I'll say we will not have time to go line by line through this, so if we can just get some highlights, I think would be helpful.

And then I think also clarifying, I know, I'll note there is an Amendment 3 to the original version, also by Member Park. So maybe just clarifying if those relate to each other or if they're separate, I think would be helpful. So go ahead, Ms. Park. Thank you, Chair. So basically, a number of these amendments submitted by others seem to have come out of the S version, and one thing I'm hearing from from constituents is that they all appreciate the attempt to find some agreement on changes to MHOP, and most people are really very willing to support housing.

In particular, Baldwin Day Park Amendment 1 is is directly from the S version.

I think part of Member Silver's concern about the infrastructure and the drainage is spoken to in the S version. One of the things I haven't heard discussed yet is the Amendment number 3 regarding the seismic zones, and I think that one is pretty important. Um, according to the Geologic Advisory Committee, they are recommending against increased density in those zones, and despite the fact that there are already large buildings that have been built in seismic zone, and some people will refer to Inlet View School.

That still doesn't mean that it's advisable to do so where you might have multiple family dwellings with a lot of occupants who would have to get out really fast. So I know that Member Erin Baldwin Day has requested to have a working committee on that issue. And I know that there are recommendations to have some changes made to Title 23 in regards to building in those areas. One of, one of the, one of the rationales that I have for not having those be part of the MHOP is that because of the increased cost of building in the seismic zone and the kinds of engineering and supportive construction that would be needed, that it increases the price. And so, if— to be clear, nobody is prohibited from building in those zones, but is that something that we want to, to support with a tax abatement if it is going to benefit more costly building?

And so that's the rationale behind that. And I am very interested in the Baldwin Day Amendment Number 9, which addresses the 10-year lookback. Chair, point of order, just—. What's your point of order? Something like that.

I'm—. Can I just ask a question? I thought you were going to review the S first. Version. So I thought that's what we were doing right now, and you're going through the amendments.

So I'm just trying to understand if you're introducing the S version and discussing that. Yes, absolutely. Okay, because I just want to make sure I'm clear. These amendments are actually— the majority of them are included in the S version, and they have been sort of drawn out. Super.

I just thought in the time we have, my understanding was you were going to discuss this version, but you see you're doing that through discussing the amendments. Yes. Okay. Yeah. And I'll just clarify.

So I think we did— Ms. Park did speak to Amendment 3, which is in the original version, but takes a piece of the, of the S version. So, yeah, I think so. Rather than talking about the remaining amendments at this moment, let's go through again, not line by line, but just kind of highlight what's in the S version. Okay. If we can.

So what's, what's in the S version are the one thing that hasn't been introduced in another amendment is the tiered overlay zones and the, the sunset sunset clause. I think the sunset clause included in the S version is important. I would consider the Baldwin Day amendment reflecting 5 years instead of 10. I would consider that like a friendly amendment to that because I do think some oversight or some review showing whether there has in fact been a benefit from the MHOP plan.

I think, again, the lot dimensions regarding 70% use of the footprint is being addressed in another amendment that is part of the S version, and And I think just for folks, because I hear pages flipping, I think so the, the 5 different kind of categories of the overlay are in Section 1. That's on page 5 of the ordinance. And then Miss Park referred to the Section 9 on page 12, the 10-year sunset and kind of review of outcomes. And then I'll also note the land use designations maps that relate to those 5 sections. Terms, it looks like are in Appendix A and B of the memo.

And I think there's a question from Mr. Perez-Verdia. Go ahead. Can I ask a question? Yes. Can I just ask a really simple question?

Do you intend to bring forward the ask for a reversion?

I don't know the rules as far as whether we will address the S version first or the amendments to the original ordinance. And I think if we take those amendments piece by piece and we come to a very close approximation of what's in the S version, I think that would be satisfactory to a lot of folks.

Thanks. Thank you. Next, maybe I could get some direction from the chair on that. Sure. Well, I'll just briefly state, I think we can only debate one version at a time.

Members can substitute a version or substitute a version via amendment. So I think there's— it sounds like the sponsor of the S version does intend to bring this for debate, is what I'm hearing. So next in the queue, I have Ms. Skarbek.

No longer needed. Sorry, I was going to ask the same question as Member Perez-Verdia. I was confused about what was being shared. Okay, thank you. Other questions from members?

Ms. Baldwin Day. Yeah, I have a series of questions. I think I have about 7 or so pertaining to the substance. So I think my first question is just Functionally, this substitute version appears to be pretty significantly different than what was initially reviewed by PCC. So I just want to confirm, is it the position of the sponsor that this substitute version does not require PCC review?

No. Okay. And I also want to point out that there are a couple of whereas clauses which are potentially not applicable to the substitute version. And those are the clauses, the last two clauses. I'm looking at page 4, starting at line 41.

Does the sponsor intend to amend the S version to remove these clauses that are inaccurate?

Which one are you referring to? The Planning Department's provision of information with relationship to this ordinance and also the PCC hearing on this item. And sorry, can you use page and line number? Yeah, line number. Yeah, I'm looking at page 4, lines 41 and following.

We can leave that question for now. I'll leave that at the sponsor's discussion. So, a follow-on question to that.

There is a— I guess my first substantive question will be whether the sponsor intends or planning to implement this as one overlay with 5 subcategories, or is the intent of the sponsor to functionally create 5 new overlay zones? And what does the sponsor anticipate that will look like in terms of our GIS mapping? No, I wouldn't intend 5 different overlay zones. I would not. Okay.

Have you had conversations with planning about how that implementation will occur? I have not. Okay. But the intent is for this to be one singular overlay. Yes.

So I think my follow-up question would be to planning. Do we have any overlay zones that have sub— categories or that treat the zoning code in this way?

Through the chair to Member Baldwin Day, to my knowledge, no, we do not have any overlay zones that behave in this manner. And do you have any idea what this would look like from a practical implementation standpoint if this version were to pass?

Daniel McKenna-Foster, Long Beach Planning, through the chair. I think one potential comparison is in our dimensional standards tables. For example, in the past there have been special footnotes or special conditions that refer to another section, like the B-3 zone. For years said B-3 allows X, Y, and Z except in these certain areas bounded by this road. Requires a lot of ensuring that the references are absolutely clear and they get updated appropriately.

And, and so, and they're all in the right place because sometimes somebody will be looking at Chapter 6 and they'll say, okay, B3 says I can do this. And then in Chapter 4, which is where, you know, the zoning description is or the uses. So it just to do that, it will take ensuring that there's a lot of specificity in every place. Where those standards might be referenced or might be linked to, I guess. So what I'm hearing is we would be talking about a whole lot of flipping back and forth in this binder, correct?

Through the chair to Member Baldwin Day, we would be doing a bit of flipping back and forth. We would also be asking the sponsor of the S version for clarification on intent on some of these items. Got it.

So in terms of clarity for members of the public who might be interested in utilizing more flexible standards, is it safe to say that this would actually make things more challenging, more complicated, more difficult to interpret for members of the public, including members of the Planning Department?

Yes, that is correct. Okay, thank you.

Moving on, still on page 5, beginning at line 25, it appears that there's no table number associated. So a suggestion that perhaps a table number ought to be added to indicate where this table would live in Title 21. I'm also curious, for the sponsor, how do properties zoned R-3A and R-5 interact with with this overlay? I don't see them listed in the table.

I think I would expect that they would remain unchanged from the original version. So there would be no changes to R-3A or R-5? Yes. Okay. What about base zones that have special limitations?

I can't answer that. OK. Um, so still sort of parked on this table, um, per the 2040 Land Use Plan, which I referenced earlier, R-2D is considered an implementing zone for both single-family and two-family and compact mixed residential low. So I'm wondering, is it the intent— is it your intent to only allow existing R-2M zones to access the single and two-family category, or Do you have a different intent?

I think the answer to that is yes, and I understand that this is the intent of having the tiered categories.

So can you describe how that comports with the 2040 Land Use Plan? The land use plan leverages this zoning designation in more than one place, in more than one, um, in more than one designation? Um, I'm not right now. I can't direct. OK, and I'll just note in general too, I think it's, um, if there's an opportunity to ask the questions, if there's not an answer, I think it at least gives the sponsors an idea of how to prepare.

So that's OK if the answer is no.

Okay, I think I will move to— I'd love to understand more about the mandatory reversion and whether the sponsor has spoken with anyone in the construction industry to understand what sort of chilling effect a mandatory reversion might have on new construction in the out years.

I have not.

I'm also curious about the threshold for production. So 30% of 10,000 homes is 3,000. And so if I'm reading this correctly, it's the intent of the sponsor that if we did not build 3,000 homes anywhere in the next 10 years because of any reason— interest rates, materials costs, labor, anything of that nature— these changes would still sunset, even if the fact that we didn't produce 3,000 homes was unrelated to the zoning reform. Is that the intent, that it's 3,000 homes or nothing, or this goes away? I think that's a good— that's a good reason to have a look-back period, and I appreciate your amendment to have a 5-year look-back period to assess whether that's been effective.

But I would also point out that nothing here prohibits building by anyone else other than those seeking to have the tax abatement.

So it does not exclude other builders.

Can you point to where in the ordinance that is reflected?

There is nothing in, in, in the S version or in MHOP that says someone who wants to build somewhere can't go ahead and build.

I think that the point is they are trying to, to improve their financial outlook by being able to have the tax abatement. So if someone wants to build and doesn't care about the tax abatement, There is nothing here that says they can't.

I'm unclear how that is germane since the tax abatement only applies to 8 or more units. But I'll move on. Okay. Yeah, I'm going to jump in and also remind folks we want to be careful not to get into debate. I have a whole host of questions on the dimensional standards.

But I think what I'm gathering is that perhaps the— well, yeah, I think I'm a little perplexed at how this interacts with the land use plan and the land use designation restrictions, not just the zoning. And so I think in comparing, for example, CMR medium and those dimensional standards with the zoning, the zoning types that are included in, say, our mixed residential, compact mixed residential low, I'm trying to understand how these restrictions interact with one another because I don't see incongruence between what's written here and what's in our land use plan designations. And so I think my encouragement to the sponsor would be that regularizing some of this with the land use plan would be really helpful for all parties to understand exactly what's going on here in a technical fashion.

And I'm actually curious if Planning has any comments. I don't know how much time Planning has had to review the S version and the dimensional standards that are contained therein, but I would be very interested to hear Planning's input thoughts on the congruence here. Thank you.

I would just say that, that the information memorandum does cite back directly to the land use plan in several places.

Okay, and I'll ask if Planning would also like to respond to the question.

Sorry, through the chair, could you repeat that? I think We might be able to provide some general ideas, but just so we have the question absolutely clear. Yeah, so I'm looking at the fact that the way that that overlay is written would actually reduce some zoning flexibility in certain areas, that, that there's some, some interplay between CMR Medium restricting heights to 30 feet, quote, if the underlying zone is R1, even though So this particular category of the land use plan could absolutely be understood to allow higher buildings than 30 feet. I'm seeing that the dimensional standards in some cases are more restrictive than the base zoning, which I think creates again a point of conflict. The rear setback is larger in CMR Medium than in the lower density CMR Low.

I'm wondering about that similar situation with Urban High and TSD Corridor and Town Center. There's, there are a lot of places where it seems like this, this proposal gives us both sometimes more restrictive and sometimes less restrictive parameters, and I would just, I would appreciate your technical feedback on that. To the Chair, I'm not sure if I have the most recent version of the dimensional standards table, but I do recall looking at one, and it did seem in a couple of instances, if there were still special rules for B-3 or B-1A or B-1B, it might have made things a little bit more restrictive in some cases. R-4A is another one. R-4A currently does not have a minimum lot size, it's just whatever in subdivision, and I believe that that may have been.

So I think, again, I, I don't have the most current version in front of me, but I, we would want to look at in which cases the dimensional standards might be becoming more restrictive, and then whether that would create a situation where within the MHP overlay you might have an R-4a zone that's more restricted than an R-4a zone outside of it, or something like that. I, I don't know if the plan would even allow that, but it's just something that I think we would be interested in looking at. And again, as we mentioned before, as long as the intent was clear, we could go through trying to figure out how to do that. But yeah, there were some pieces. And again, I'm not sure that lots like R-3A or R-5 were included.

And so we would just, again, request just clarity on that whichever way it goes. But we'll have to look a little bit more closely. But I have an older version, but I do recall that those were some of the things we highlighted. Thank you. Were you given an opportunity to review this substitute version before it was introduced?

Through the Chair, I think we received it with anybody else— everyone else received. I don't think we reviewed— we received a copy of this before it was presented. I don't recall, but that's We're all racking our brains, but I'm ready to be wrong on that. But I don't think we saw it. We weren't involved in creating it, I could say that.

Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Okay, Mr. Perez-Verdia in the cube. Yeah, so I just wanted to circle back briefly because I believe earlier when Ms. Park spoke and then the chair summarized her statements, I don't think that it was actually correct. I think what I heard Ms. Park say is that she's interested in working through the original amendment to see if we can come to something that looks to her like a compromise, which would mean that she's not planning on bringing forward the S version initially, but to work through the original version.

I just want to make sure that that's correct, because if that's correct, then a lot of what we're we're doing today may not be necessary. If that's your intention to start with the original version, see if we can actually make that something that's reasonable for us all to pass. If that doesn't happen, then of course you have the right to bring forward, you know, any version you want. I just want to make sure I understand the intention so that when we leave here today, we have a sense of what's going to happen at our next meeting. Can you speak to that?

I think that's correct. Okay. I think that's correct. And I think if out of 14 amendments, if we could reach some consensus on 5 or 6, I think that would be great. Right, and as the Chair said, we can only talk about one at a time.

So I think if understanding the intent is helpful so we have a sense of how to go into the next stage. So I appreciate the clarification there. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Martinez. Thank you, Chair.

Just one question and one observation.

Page 6, Section 2, under D— oh, under actually C is the seismic additions, right? The areas classified as such. And I just wanted to clarify, you don't intend to stop development in those areas?

For what's available for people to do today, is it your position that this amendment would just limit the overlay's applicability in those particular areas? Correct. How does that make those areas safer, um, will be the question that I would raise. Uh, and so I think that that would be the why, may be important to communicate that, because if like someone— I had a conversation today, for example, and someone said, we don't really— we don't build in marshlands because they're marshlands. And I don't know that that's true or not, but they thought it was true.

And then I think maps change. And so it'd be just interesting to kind of— because I don't know that this would not be an amendment coming off to the side. And I think that people have talked about that as well.

The clarification of why I think is important, especially meets the science behind things. And then the observation to the public more than to the sponsors, I believe, just as a reminder, and I'll say it again, and I have repeated this, and I will say it on the days, but I think essentially for a reminder of the public process, the original sponsor's intent was to always work through amendments in real time because we started this process as a carryover to the Tisdale project, which predates the election of new members. And so We had an intentionality of specifically honoring what other people's complaints were in the past by saying— people would say, you brought an S version and dropped it on our laps, and then you're changing again. So we intended to not do that on purpose and kind of let the sausage be more obvious and transparent in that way. So I just wanted to put that on the record for folks that have a little foundation.

I appreciate the sponsor of the S version's willingness to kind of work through that process as well. But for anyone who's wondering, you know, where our intent was with respect to the overall process and why we didn't introduce other versions and what our intent is, I think that historical context is important. Thank you. Okay, thank you. I know we are just at our time.

I'm going to very briefly turn to Ms. Erin Baldwin Day to ask her to describe amendments 9, 10, and 11. Those are the ones we have not gotten to. We will not have time for questions, unfortunately, so write your questions down or save them for the next bit, and then I'll— at the very end, I'm going to cover kind of next steps and make one correction on the record. So, Ms. Baldwin Day. Thank you.

So Amendment 9 is really the tracking and look back that I think is really important anytime we pass new policy. Policy. It's important for us to understand what happens. Are we successful? Can we measure our progress?

And so I think it'd be really useful for planning, as they have done with other, other such ordinances, to actually evaluate how we're doing over a period of 5 years. So annual reporting over a period of 5 years, and then after 5 years to evaluate the overall impacts on right-of-way. And I think that that will give us long enough to have seen what does this actually look like in real life, and also to be able to compare, say, what happens in R2a within mHOP versus R2a not within mHOP. I think those are useful comparisons to do side by side. I'm happy to answer questions about this one.

We're not going to have time for questions. Right. If you can just cover them. I believe everyone can read. So I think the other two are fairly straightforward.

Amendment 10 just clarifies comprehensive plan and comprehensive plan interpretation and where the authority for interpretation of the comprehensive plan resides. And then 11 is a very small technical adjustment to add MHOP to the list of overlay zoning districts so that we can use the abbreviation elsewhere in code. And that is it. Okay, thank you. So that covers the amendments that we have before us today.

I think we heard a little discussion about potential additional things coming forward. One correction I'll make that I asked to be circulated to members was Long Range Planning Manager McKenna-Foster said that the request for a recent case was to go to 36 feet. It was actually a height increase to 31 feet, so members have that available just to make sure the record is clear. So lastly, I'll say that this is on our schedule to be on our agenda for Wednesday, November 7th— sorry, November 4th. Remember, we have moved our meeting to Wednesday to accommodate the election.

Please make sure you vote by Tuesday. And also to say that we have a number of public hearing items and other substantive items on our agenda, so Assembly leadership is looking hard at how to prioritize those things. So as of right now, this is on our agenda, but just to note, there are multiple other things competing for time, so we will be working out exactly when and how we take this up. In the meantime, we will be adjourned for today. This is our last work session.

Thank you, everyone.