2026-10-28 - Assembly Worksession Meeting - October 28, 2026 - Housing

03:50I'm going to call this work session to

03:52order. Um, thanks for your patience. We

03:53were making sure we had all of our

03:54documents on the table. So, today is

03:56Wednesday, October 28th. Uh, we are

03:58noticed in this room from 1:00 to 2:30

04:00p.m.

04:01Uh, this is a work session on AO

04:032026-85. Uh

04:06the uh

04:07MHOP or Missing Middle Housing

04:08Opportunity Overlay. Um I'm going to

04:10just briefly Well, I guess we'll go

04:11through introductions and I'm going to

04:13make sure I orient folks to what

04:14documents we have before us and then

04:16we'll get started. Uh so first please uh

04:18in the room.

04:19>> George Martinez.

04:22>> Cameron Perez for DM.

04:23>> Aaron Baldwin Day.

04:24>> Anna Brawley.

04:25>> And then on the phone I see uh Mr.

04:27Volland.

04:30>> I'm here. Thank you.

04:31>> Mr. Handeland.

04:34>> Happy to be here.

04:35>> Ms. Scout.

04:38>> Present.

04:39>> Mr. Johnson.

04:41>> Also here.

04:43>> And Ms. Silvers.

04:46>> Here. Thank you.

04:47>> And am I missing any other members on

04:48the phone?

04:51Okay, not right now. I will keep an eye

04:52and uh announce folks as they come in.

04:54I'll also note we were joined by uh

04:57around the table we have uh Assembly

04:58Council, Clerk's office, uh members of

05:00the administration including uh planning

05:02and our community economic development

05:03director, several members of the public

05:05in the back, um

05:07and uh

05:08so we will get started. Uh so as I said,

05:10I just want to orient folks so today the

05:12work session's purpose is to talk about

05:14proposed amendments and uh the

05:17substitute version of the MHOP ordinance

05:19AO 2026-85. I'll note that all of these

05:22documents that we have in the room are

05:24also online and I'll share there is the

05:26original version of the ordinance, the S

05:27version, uh and these are the same as

05:29what's been on our agenda since uh

05:31October 6th. Uh and then we also have a

05:34couple uh our amendment packet from the

05:36October 6th meeting, so that's the

05:38staple packet of amendments. Um that's

05:40what we'll mostly be referring to today.

05:42And then there's one additional

05:43unnumbered amendment that is uh posted

05:45online. It says draft amendment from the

05:46administration. Um and so we'll talk

05:48through that as well. And then lastly

05:50I'll note there is a table that we have

05:52in print and online. It's the MHOP

05:54Technical Comparison Residential

05:56Dimensional Standards in the Anchorage

05:57Bowl. So we'll talk through that as

05:58well. But uh just so folks are aware if

06:00you're in the room, uh those are all

06:02available on paper. So with that I'm

06:04going to turn to the uh sponsors, that's

06:06uh Ms. Baldwin Day and Mr. Martinez, to

06:08kick us off.

06:11>> Um thank you, Chair. Um appreciate the

06:13the level set there. Um I want to uh

06:16first ground us in the purpose of this

06:18ordinance, which as we have continued to

06:19say, is to increase housing supply,

06:22particularly

06:24along our transit supportive corridors,

06:25where we already have amenities,

06:27infrastructure, utilities, access to

06:30transportation of all sorts. Um and that

06:34this is part of implementation of our

06:36comprehensive plan, our uh in uh on the

06:39second page of our land use plan. In

06:40fact, it says that we should be looking

06:42for innovative ways to accommodate and

06:44encourage growth in housing.

06:47And I think we need to recognize that

06:49the context in which we are working now

06:50is significantly different than it was

06:53in 2017 when the 2040 land use plan was

06:56adopted. Uh

06:57I I actually think we have um

07:01Uh Chair, would you uh speak to the

07:02suitcase that's in front of us? I think

07:04that would be a great place to begin.

07:06>> Sure. Uh yeah, just very briefly. Um so,

07:08uh folks, if you I don't know if it'll

07:10show up very well on YouTube, um below

07:11me in the front of the room or in the

07:13middle of the room is a small suitcase.

07:15Um I own this suitcase, but in it is the

07:18uh what we consider the Anchorage

07:19Comprehensive Plan. So, the elements

07:21that are adopted under AMC 2101080. Uh I

07:25will note that I picked up the

07:26additional 1,600 pages that we did not

07:28have print copies of uh today uh from

07:31our printing office, so those are

07:32included uh stapled in there, as well as

07:34bound copies and and um official copies

07:37that I received from the Planning

07:38Department Library. I will note there's

07:39eight things that are not in there that

07:41we may or may not actually have copies

07:42of that are in our comprehensive plan.

07:45And I'll note that it's probably about

07:4630 lb, although I have not put it on the

07:47scale yet. Um so, those that combination

07:50of things is considered the

07:51municipality's comprehensive plan uh per

07:54our code.

07:55And I brought it for illustration, but

07:56happy to speak to it later.

07:58>> Um thank you. I appreciate that. And uh

08:01and I think what I'd like to point out

08:03from the outset, because there's been a

08:04lot of conversation recently about

08:06implementation of our comprehensive plan

08:08and also interpretation of our

08:10comprehensive plan is that there there

08:13is no way to

08:15to say that there is a singular

08:17interpretation of this document. I think

08:19that it's fair to say that we have many

08:21many guiding documents that we grapple

08:24to understand and implement to interpret

08:26if you will. That is why we have

08:28different schools of American

08:29jurisprudence which I'm sure that Mr.

08:31Hurt could speak to if at length if we

08:33wanted to give him the time to do that.

08:34I will not put him on the spot today.

08:36That is why we have upwards of a hundred

08:38different varieties of Christianity

08:40because people read the same document

08:42and they walk away with different ideas

08:43and different interpretations and I

08:45believe that that is somewhat at play

08:48with this particular item with this

08:50ordinance. But also with many of the

08:52conversations that we have had over the

08:54last decade with respect to zoning in

08:56Anchorage. There is a fundamental

08:57question about how we interpret what is

09:00in that suitcase or at least parts of

09:02what is in that suitcase and I would

09:03hazard a guess that no one in the

09:05municipality has actually read the

09:07entirety and digested the entirety of

09:10what is in that comprehensive plan.

09:12So

09:13that is the level set for today. I was

09:15hoping to give the sponsor of the S

09:17version an opportunity to speak to to

09:20her substitute version. It appears that

09:21she's not here today. So I think we

09:24should move to potentially amendments

09:26first if

09:27this appropriate.

09:29>> Yeah, I don't know what I did get

09:30communication from member Park. She is

09:31on the way. She was having trouble

09:33calling in but I know her intent is to

09:34be here. Um so yes, I think we should

09:36move to other amendments and then we

09:38will definitely make sure that we have

09:39plenty of time.

09:42Okay. And

09:44So yeah, I think we can start with Oh,

09:46here's Ms. Park walking in additionally

09:48but I know she just came in so maybe we

09:50can start with a couple of the other

09:52amendments and then we'll come back to

09:53this version.

09:54>> Yeah, that sounds great. Um so starting

09:56with Baldwin Day Park amendment number

09:57one. So this is the amendment that

10:01essentially is the anti-McMansion

10:02amendment. It does not permit or it

10:04seeks to reduce

10:06the lot size on which

10:07individuals can take advantage of 70%

10:10lot coverage. Again, the intent here is

10:12to ensure that you cannot in fact build

10:15to 70%lot coverage on a 6,000 square

10:18foot lot or more.

10:19Uh so, um if there are any questions on

10:21this, I think it's fairly

10:22straightforward, but happy to answer

10:24questions.

10:24>> Okay, question for Mr. Prescodia, and

10:26then all the members folks on the phone,

10:27uh please text me, I'll be monitoring uh

10:29if you want to be in the queue. Mr.

10:30Prescodia.

10:31>> Thank you. I'm assuming this, just

10:32wanted a clarification that um these

10:34amendments are intended for the original

10:36version or intended

10:38>> intended for the S version.

10:39>> Uh this amendment I I don't think I will

10:41will speak to other amendment sponsors'

10:43intent, but but anything that has my

10:45name on it is connected to the original

10:46version.

10:47>> Thank you.

10:51>> Uh Ms. Park.

10:52>> Yes, Mr. uh Prescodia. Uh it is actually

10:55included in the S version.

10:58>> Okay.

11:04>> Okay, um I don't see any other questions

11:06from members on that one. I guess I do

11:08have uh

11:09one brief question, just to be clear.

11:11So, um can you I know it says on the

11:13page, but is making sure that I'm

11:15understanding. So, if there is a

11:16single-family home without any other

11:19accessory dwelling units or dwelling um

11:22uh ADUs, that the this would apply. So,

11:25if somebody built uh an ADU, say, you

11:27know, the above their garage or a new

11:29building on their property, would they

11:31still be subject to this um

11:33this maximum lot coverage?

11:37>> So, this uh this ex-excludes ADUs. Um

11:40so, if someone had a large lot and they

11:42wanted to add ADUs to their lot, then

11:44they could do so under this amendment

11:45and have more flexible lot coverage than

11:4740%.

11:48>> Okay, thank you.

11:50>> Ms. Park.

11:51>> Thank you, Chair. I would also say

11:53although it's addressed somewhere else,

11:55this this would uh preclude the use of

11:58that property for a short-term rental.

12:03>> Okay, um I don't see any other questions

12:05on this one.

12:09All right, then let's move on to

12:10Balderrama de Martinez amendment number

12:11two. Um this one is also relatively

12:13straightforward. This says

12:14incorporation,

12:15um, it replacing exhibit A with exhibit

12:171A. Uh, I believe members have the um,

12:20explanatory notes as to some of the

12:22cleanup that was done and the policy

12:24choices that were made uh, between this

12:27map and the sixth version of TIZID which

12:29was the map that was originally

12:31introduced with this item. And again,

12:32happy to answer questions on that part.

12:36>> Okay, questions for members on the map

12:38revision.

12:41Um, I have I do have a couple and I'll

12:42again I'll keep monitoring the the chat.

12:44So, um, could you describe I think

12:47there's been some confusion about, um,

12:50when this map was produced you know,

12:52what are the significant changes and,

12:54um, kind of what is the rationale for us

12:56considering this map versus the, um, the

12:58one that was published with the

13:00ordinance in June?

13:02To the sponsors or to the yeah,

13:03sponsors.

13:04>> Sure, happy to take that question. So,

13:06um, the the genesis of this map was

13:08actually the multi-family tax abatement

13:10map. Uh, we received a memo from the

13:12planning department on February 11th,

13:142012 or excuse me, February 11th, 2022,

13:17excuse me, um, which outlined

13:20uh, the the rationale for that

13:21particular map. Uh,

13:23TIZID adopted that map since the goal

13:25was to increase housing supply along

13:28those transit supportive corridors which

13:30were incorporated into the, um,

13:32multi-family tax abatement.

13:34And so, uh, that was the starting point

13:36and then, um, there were some there were

13:38some cleanup that I requested, um, for

13:40the MHA map in particular, uh, which is

13:43the second version, the 1A the A1,

13:45excuse me, that you see before you. Uh,

13:47so,

13:48again, generally including residential

13:50properties within a quarter mile of

13:52Anchorage's most traveled roads and

13:53active public transit routes

13:55which comports with the,

13:57um, multi-family tax abatement. The

13:59further refinement was consideration of

14:01uh, some additional factors. So, one was

14:04includ-including contiguous parcels on a

14:06street. Uh, so, it there were many

14:09points in the multi-family tax abatement

14:12area where

14:14the map actually sliced uh a street in

14:17half or um there were properties on, you

14:20know, one portion of a street that were

14:21then excluded. Uh there were cul-de-sacs

14:24that were half included.

14:26There wasn't necessarily um some

14:29designation or uh there were some town

14:31center areas adjacent to high volume

14:33roads that were not included.

14:36And then um we also decided to include

14:38parcels within a quarter mile of a

14:40forthcoming public transit route, which

14:41would run along 36th Avenue. Again, uh a

14:44part of our transit network and

14:46definitely something that we wanted to

14:48to incorporate into the map. And we also

14:51excluded parcels. So there were some

14:52exclusion of parcels that were

14:53determined to be in the J Bear crash

14:55hazard area. So those were the

14:57adjustments that were made between uh

15:00exhibit A, uh the map that you that was

15:02originally introduced, and then exhibit

15:04A1.

15:09>> Okay. Uh thank you. And then I want to

15:11also turn to um administration planning

15:14if there's any additional comments on

15:16kind of where um

15:18where you might see any significant

15:20changes uh between the map that was

15:22published in June and the and the one

15:24now.

15:28>> Through the chair, for technical

15:29questions, the uh two members to or two

15:32uh

15:33folks to my left will be addressing

15:35those

15:36and can speak if there's any technical

15:38things. I will only speak if uh if if

15:40asked on like an administrative

15:42administration business or something

15:43like that.

15:44>> Thanks for the clarification. So I guess

15:46what I do have is a a technical

15:48question,

15:49uh which I I think it's mostly just

15:51confirming what the sponsor said. So

15:52this map has multiple changes to it from

15:56the original, but one of the primary

15:57ones is making it consistent with the

16:00tax incentive map. Is that correct?

16:07>> Daniel Canapary, long-range planning. Um

16:09yeah, we did assist in creating this

16:11just to um

16:13s-try to align those better with the

16:16existing tax abatement. I believe that

16:17was 2025 AO 2025 35.

16:22>> Okay, thanks. And then there was a

16:24mention of pieces that are removed. Can

16:26you like the for example around the

16:28crash zone of I believe it was Merrill

16:30Field. Can you just kind of generally

16:32point us on the map? Obviously not

16:34parcel numbers, but just so

16:36I'm making sure that I can see exactly

16:38what we're talking about.

16:40>> Again, Daniel McKenna Foster long range

16:42planning. So the the

16:44I think it'd be most accurate to say

16:45that Jayber has an accident incident

16:47crash area

16:49and they sort of provide a layer and

16:51that's kind of directly south of their

16:53main airport. So there's some parts in

16:55Mountain View and a little bit south of

16:56the highway. About I think kind of

17:00around Taku Drive. So it was really just

17:03aligning those layers which existed.

17:05Those layers are also identified in the

17:072040 land use plan atlas,

17:09but just making sure that

17:11those were removed if there were any in

17:12the previous boundary.

17:15>> Okay, thanks. And then last question,

17:16approximately how many um

17:20what is the net gain or reduction of the

17:21number of properties on this map

17:24roughly?

17:25So between the June version and the

17:26September version.

17:29>> Again, Daniel McKenna Foster. I'm I'm

17:31looking I believe these numbers I think

17:33we had

17:34um

17:3531,947

17:38parcels in TIZ version six from last

17:41year and 32,102 parcels in the AMATS

17:45boundary.

17:48>> Okay, thank you.

17:51One sec.

17:58Okay, thanks. Just conferring about

18:00order of amendments. Is it First, is

18:01there any other questions on the map?

18:03Mr. Perez-Verdia. And then I'll note I

18:04know Ms. Silver's

18:06will not be able to stay the whole time.

18:07So the intent is to go to her amendments

18:09after we finish discussion with this one

18:11then we'll come back. So Mr.

18:12Perez-Verdia, go ahead.

18:13>> So this may be an obvious question for

18:15those of you who are

18:16heavily involved in this, but can can

18:17you just give me a

18:19a very layman's term rationale for

18:23the

18:24the

18:25the

18:27it is the is the primary decision here

18:31it's proximity to transportation. Is

18:33that is that is that the easiest way to

18:35describe the choices that were made in

18:37terms of this overlay is is the

18:39relationship and then in the distance

18:41between these parcels and

18:43transportation?

18:44Is that is that the the main sort of

18:46like criteria that was used?

18:53>> So I

18:54with respect to the to the tax abatement

18:56area which was used as sort of the

18:58foundation

19:00yes and no.

19:02So the the rationale given was parcels

19:04touching transit supportive corridor

19:06boundaries as outlined in the 2040 land

19:08use plan. And some areas that extend a

19:10half mile on either side of existing

19:12people mover routes parcels within the

19:14R-plan area and parcels within the

19:16ongoing downtown district plan process.

19:19And then there were some actions that

19:20were taken to further refine the

19:21boundary from there.

19:23And so building on that

19:25it was an attempt to sort of clean up

19:27margin and things of that nature and

19:28also sort of overlay with the tax

19:32abatement

19:33in place. Is that

19:34>> Yeah, I mean, it's just a it's yeah it's

19:36a, it's a I'm I'm trying to understand

19:38why, why my property was in there and

19:41his wasn't, and why, why,

19:43what what, what generally the rationale

19:45for this is. Is it to capture as much as

19:47we possibly can is? it is it

19:49relationship to access to

19:52transportation? Is it,

19:55you know, I understand that the whole

19:56cleanup piece but, I'm I'm trying to

19:57really, really understand that that that

19:59the the overall rationale for why these

20:01were selected and others weren't.

20:03>> Yeah, fair question. Um so yes um access

20:06access to transit and access to

20:08transportation options um and also sort

20:11of by definition where we already have

20:15built infrastructure.

20:16>> Okay. Okay. That makes sense. Thank you.

20:20>> Okay and Mr. Handlin.

20:23>> Yeah, so just a question on the removal

20:26of those crash zones.

20:29So with that it's

20:32we're not I guess saying that nothing

20:34can be built in those areas. It's just

20:37the MHOP overlay. Is that correct?

20:41>> I will actually defer to to planning on

20:44that. I think there's some other

20:45analysis that's going on.

20:51>> For the record Meleesa Bab, planning

20:53director.

20:55That is correct. This removal is just

20:57the removal of the MHOP boundary. It

20:59does not prevent any other construction

21:02or residential that is already allowed

21:04in those areas.

21:08>> Okay, so essentially with this we are

21:09saying that

21:11we just don't want increased density in

21:13these areas of increased hazard.

21:16Correct?

21:18>> Through the chair, yes, that is correct.

21:21>> Okay, thank you.

21:24>> Okay, Mr. Breslin you there? Or actually

21:26Ms. Park and then Mr. Breslin.

21:29>> Thank you chair. Um

21:32It doesn't, I I think maybe it's not a

21:34thing to worry about right now, but I

21:36seem to recall from Friday in the budget

21:39discussion that if we were pressed, we

21:41would be moved to main

21:44bus lines from, uh,

21:47from the Muni bus service. And I'm

21:50wondering whether that would impact any

21:52of these areas, and if we then encourage

21:56building in an area

21:59that is removed from the bus line,

22:01uh, if we're not inadvertently

22:03encouraging

22:05more people to use cars in, in those

22:08areas because the transit is not

22:10available.

22:14>> I mean I think you know that I think

22:15that's certainly an an eventuality. Um

22:18so this overlay would remain intact

22:19regardless of what might happen with bus

22:21lines in the future. Um, I believe the

22:23document that member Park is referring

22:24to is, um, a slide of proposed cuts

22:27proposed by Department

22:29if a 5%cut in the budget were required

22:32for next year, and there were a couple

22:33of bus lines, one particular that that

22:35goes out to Sand Lake area

22:38that and one smaller over in the

22:40Meridian area, which, um,

22:43could potentially go away

22:45maybe if those cuts were enacted. So

22:48yeah, I think there is, there is

22:49absolutely the potential that we might

22:51lose transit lines.

22:52I think one of the ways that we ensure

22:54is that lines remain

22:56viable is by ensuring that there is

22:58ridership available, and so I think the

23:01fact that we already have ridership in

23:02these areas is not necessarily an

23:04indicator, or it might actually be a

23:07saving grace if we were to start

23:08thinking about what to cut in our

23:10transit budget. If we had additional

23:11ridership in these areas, I, I think

23:13there's a case to be made that routes

23:14could and should be retained.

23:18Okay, Mr. Martinez.

23:20And just additionally, to respond

23:22interestingly:

23:24the transit, generally speaking the,

23:26transit supported development corridors,

23:28which were

23:29part of the basis of the of the map,

23:32were identified

23:34as development patterns

23:37versus

23:40the specificity of an annual budget with

23:42respect to a line being able to be run

23:46or not, right? And so the, the

23:47development pattern speaks to the level

23:49of density with ridership and where the

23:52infrastructure was, which we hope that

23:55overlaps and we hope that sustains

23:58transit uh

24:00operations, but yeah, they are

24:02different.

24:03Thank you.

24:05Mr. President okay.

24:07Okay, any other questions on the map?

24:10Amendment two, I don't see any. So, I'm

24:12going to suggest, as I said, that we

24:13will go I know there's a four amendments

24:15by Member Silver's and Member Handeland

24:18so if we flip to our packet starting

24:20with amendment five, and I guess I'll

24:22turn to, um,

24:23those sponsors to speak to them. And

24:25then, if you would like to go in a

24:25different order, we're looking at five,

24:27six, seven, and eight, so feel free to

24:29let us know which you'd like to do in

24:30what order.

24:32Go ahead, Ms. Oliver.

24:34Or Mr. Handlin.

24:35>> Thanks. Um

24:37yeah, uh

24:39I guess everybody's had an opportunity

24:41to uh look at those amendments. Um I'd

24:44like to see if anybody has any questions

24:46about them first.

24:51>> Okay, yeah. Then I'll I'll turn to

24:52questions, and then I'll just ask folks

24:54to remind us um which amendment you're

24:56speaking to by number, and then we can

24:57make sure we're all on the same page.

24:59So, uh starting with Ms. Baldwin Day,

25:00then Mr. Presley Day.

25:02>> Um yeah, thank you. Um

25:04I I'm curious about um amendment number

25:06five

25:08uh

25:09to the sponsors, um what

25:12what is the what is the problem that's

25:15being solved or or the clarity that's

25:16being sought with this amendment?

25:22>> Um can you please give me a brief of

25:23which one amendment five is? I don't

25:25have the sheet in front of me.

25:27>> so sorry. Um this is the uh this is the

25:30edit to um minimum setback requirements,

25:34um

25:34specifically under Let's see.

25:38Um it looks

25:41It's hard to tell. I think this might be

25:43>> the front setback or the side setback?

25:45>> Looks like the

25:47It's actually hard to tell.

25:50It doesn't Oh, um side setback. This is

25:53um So, the interpolated language is

25:55where structures are attached by a

25:57common wall.

26:01>> Yes. Um and so, I think uh

26:03if you don't have that in there, if it's

26:05just a simple common lot line, um

26:08basically a a person could build a shed

26:11or a garage um right on a shared lot

26:15line.

26:16Uh so, I can just kind of imagine the

26:18neighbor feuds that would be started

26:20over that.

26:21Um

26:22Yeah, so I think I think that, you know,

26:24I um

26:26if it has a shared wall, then it's

26:28allowing for your attached structures,

26:30which I think is probably the the

26:32purpose of um allowing them to be right

26:36on the lot line. Uh but I I I I don't

26:39know that there's a lot of utility in

26:41allowing people to put garages or sheds

26:43or or things like that right on a lot

26:45line.

26:46>> No, agreed. And and yes, you're you're

26:48correct about the intent uh of of this

26:51um of the common lot line language. Um

26:53I'm wondering if if planning can speak

26:56to

26:58the the necessity of this amendment. I I

27:00believe that this is the language that's

27:01used elsewhere and it's interpreted to

27:03mean

27:05a a shared structure, a shared wall in a

27:09in contiguous structures, but I I would

27:12love technical clarification on that

27:13point.

27:19>> Through the chair to member Balducci,

27:21um that is correct. The interpretation

27:23of this in general is that um it

27:26requires a shared wall um in order for

27:29this to apply. If it did not, then it

27:31would be similar to our downtown code,

27:34the dimensional requirements in that say

27:37zero or five.

27:39Um the common lot line, again, um that

27:42language uh is interpreted to mean that

27:44there is a a building on the other side

27:46of that line.

27:48>> So so is this is this language is this

27:52clarification language um helpful in

27:55your opinion, or would it potentially be

27:57duplicative?

28:01>> Through the chair, um with respect to

28:03the sponsors of the amendment, I think

28:05it is a little bit duplicative. It

28:07wouldn't break anything in code, um but

28:10it um we already interpret it in this

28:13manner.

28:16>> Thank you.

28:17Um I I don't have any further questions

28:19on this particular amendment, so I'll

28:20defer to others.

28:22>> Uh Mr. Prescod, yeah, is this on

28:23amendment? You had a question on this

28:25one.

28:25>> Can I actually follow up with the with

28:27the planning on that one?

28:29>> Yeah, sure. Uh go ahead, Ms. Balducci,

28:30and I'll go to Mr. Prescod.

28:31>> question.

28:32Okay, yeah. Um I guess my question is do

28:35do interpretations change

28:41>> Through the chair to

28:42>> over time or with different

28:43administrations or uh people can um

28:47contest an interpretation, I believe, as

28:49well. There's a um

28:51path for that in policy.

28:55>> Through the chair to member Silver, um

28:57the short answer, yes, they do. Um,

29:00however, in our in the department, we

29:02try to maintain consistency as much as

29:04possible. Um, so if a precedent was set

29:0810 years ago, say, with an

29:10interpretation, we try to stick to that

29:12as much as we can. Um, and notify the

29:16public if we are going to change our

29:18interpretation on a point like this.

29:22>> Okay, and people can also contest

29:24interpretations, right? There's a

29:25pathway for that in code.

29:30>> Uh, through the chair Yes, there there

29:33are pathways for people to um apply for

29:36variances and then protest um decisions

29:40made by either by the department or um

29:43by the boards and commissions.

29:47>> Okay, thank you.

29:48>> If I could jump in, I we have a live

29:50stream from our development services

29:52colleagues who said uh building code

29:53wouldn't wouldn't allow a door on a lot

29:55line, no openings in walls with three

29:57within three feet of a property line.

29:59So, you wouldn't have a garage door

30:01opening onto the neighbor's lot. Thank

30:03you.

30:05>> Okay, thanks.

30:06Um, next, Mr. Presbydio, go ahead.

30:08>> Thank you. I just I wanted I I don't

30:09know if we're all really clear on this.

30:10I I understand that we were going to

30:12introduce the S version, but we're going

30:16through amendments, and I asked it about

30:18a previous amendment, but I wanted to be

30:19clear whether these amendments relate to

30:22the original version or to the S

30:24version. Can we just have a

30:25clarification, please?

30:28>> Uh, mine uh relate to the original

30:30version.

30:31>> Okay. So, all of the amendments in the

30:33packet relate to the original version.

30:35None of them relate to the S version. Is

30:36that Is that correct?

30:37>> No, all mine do.

30:41>> Okay, thanks.

30:42>> Yeah, I believe when we get to the other

30:43amendments we can clarify, but at least

30:45for 5 through 8 it sounds like for sure

30:47the original version. And I believe at

30:48the top it would say

30:50S version um if it was yeah.

30:55Okay, other questions on amendment 5?

30:58Okay, then I'll note there is a 6, 7,

31:01and 8. So I'll see if there are

31:03questions for members on those items.

31:08Okay, Ms. Baldwin Day.

31:11>> Yeah, I

31:12on amendment 6 I have I have a couple of

31:15questions for

31:16I think

31:18for for

31:19Well, actually I'd like to understand

31:22the sponsor's intent of 5-ft increments

31:25for

31:27height transitions

31:29and then I have a couple of questions

31:30for planning.

31:36>> Okay,

31:37um

31:38>> I I can answer this one.

31:39>> Okay, yeah go ahead Mr. Handlin.

31:40>> Um I can get it real quick and then you

31:42can follow up.

31:43Um

31:45So this what this amendment does is it

31:47creates a graduated height transition

31:49which is based on existing residential

31:51zoning.

31:53Um and so

31:56R2A and R2D are already um

32:00meant for

32:01denser

32:03housing than R1 and R1A.

32:06And so it kind of follows the existing

32:08like density increases.

32:11It allows for a three-story structure,

32:1435 ft. However, it uh

32:18wouldn't allow for

32:21a three-story structure with like

32:24soaring ceilings,

32:26things like that. And I think member

32:27Handlin can talk a little bit more about

32:29that.

32:30But it it gives the incremental height

32:33increase

32:35that follows kind of your existing

32:37residential

32:39zoning transition.

32:42Thanks.

32:44>> Yeah, and I mean, from some of the

32:46previous work sessions that we we've had

32:48and talking with builders, they were

32:50wanting to have kind of a little bit

32:52more flexibility and having a little bit

32:54more room in between floors for

32:56utilities, stuff like that. And so, um,

33:00based on those kind of conversations,

33:01this gives them that additional

33:03flexibility without, uh, creating, uh,

33:08kind of these these these soaring

33:10buildings of, um,

33:12uh, in in some of those those areas. And

33:14so, kind of split it splitting the

33:16difference there of giving a little bit

33:18more flexibility with not without the

33:20ability of adding a whole another floor.

33:26>> Um, okay, then I I have a couple of

33:27questions for planning. Um, first, I

33:29think I'm I'm curious about, um,

33:33sort of the like the effectiveness of

33:35height transitions that that differ by 5

33:37ft.

33:38Uh, and then, um,

33:41if you could also speak to the impact of

33:43tying heights to a base zone

33:46if a property is rezoned in or out of

33:48the overlay. What is

33:50how does that

33:52how does that interact or work?

33:58>> Dan McInnis Foster, long-range planning.

34:00Um,

34:01yeah, I I I

34:03I think with building heights, it

34:05it's kind of if you want to get good

34:06different floor, you need the full

34:09height of that floor. So, 5 ft maybe

34:11doesn't make so much of a difference.

34:13Um,

34:14and and even sometimes, I think we had a

34:16case in an R2D where somebody wanted to

34:18go to 35 ft, but even then they had to

34:19go up to 36 to get what they needed. I'm

34:22I'm trying to look through for through

34:23some of the recent Cook Inlet Housing,

34:25um,

34:26projects where they've talked about just

34:28needing to go a little bit further, a

34:29little bit higher up. I think in Airport

34:31Heights, their senior housing was an

34:33example of that.

34:34Um, and if you could repeat the second

34:36question, please.

34:39>> Yeah, I'm I'm curious about a a rezone

34:41within

34:42within the overlay. Um so if someone

34:44rezones, let's say

34:47out of um

34:50I'm I'm I'm trying to understand how

34:52this interacts with the underlying zone

34:54and whether tying to the underlying zone

34:56is actually going to give the

34:58functionality that the sponsors are

34:59looking for.

35:01>> Oh, yeah. Yeah, thank you. Through the

35:03chair. I think, um,

35:04one of our in reviewing any of these

35:06materials I think we'll just keep asking

35:08the same question. And just for clarity,

35:09it could probably be clarified: is just

35:11thinking about, um, the intent of any of

35:14this, which we don't know? But if

35:15there's a change, would you want the

35:17overlay overlay to apply regardless of

35:19if there's a change to the base zone or

35:21not? Because there is some flexibility

35:23with the land use plan that people can

35:25um use the abbreviated rezone process or

35:26another process to change the base zone.

35:29Um, and so our, just in terms of ease of

35:32implementation to clarify intent, and

35:34that's for you all, I hope is just to

35:36say, "If this happened and somebody went

35:38from, say, um, R1A to R2D, which they

35:43could under the land use designation of

35:44single and two family, would you want

35:46this particular restriction to apply

35:49regardless of the base zone?" So, should

35:51it be that this rule would apply on the

35:53day that the overlay was passed to that

35:54property or this rule applies only to,

35:58you know, to the zones that were zoned

35:59that way on the day um that the overlay

36:02went into effect?"So, I think that um

36:05that would be our comment for many

36:06things that we just encourage as as you

36:07all work through this. Um whatever your

36:10intent is, if it's to say,"This will

36:12apply to the property forever based on

36:14this overlay."or"This will apply based

36:16on the base zone."And that could go with

36:18something else. If, if you craft some of

36:20these and you say, um, you know,"X will

36:22be allowed, except if the base zone

36:24allows Y.,"then that would mean if the

36:27base zone for example, say in an R1A

36:28somebody changed the heights or

36:30something, that could also change that,

36:31unless you specifically wanted a

36:33discrete number. So, it's like, do you

36:34want to tie the number to a specific tie

36:36the regulation to a specific number now

36:39or do you want to allow it to sort of

36:40float if change things change with the

36:41zone? So, thank you.

36:45>> Yeah, that's what I

36:46So, I thought

36:46>> question.

36:47>> Can I do a follow-up question for

36:48planning?

36:49>> Uh yeah, Miss Baldwin Day first and then

36:51uh you, Miss Silvers.

36:52>> So,

36:53>> Okay, thank you.

36:54>> So, how

36:56So, I think what I heard is also

36:59interesting if we contemplate

37:02a height change in an underlying zone

37:07writ large.

37:09So, if we were at some point to say,

37:11"Actually, in R2A, we think heights

37:13should be at 40 ft."

37:15If

37:16this were if if this were in place,

37:19then

37:20would I I I think what I'm hearing you

37:22say is we would need to specify whether

37:24the overlay applied or whether the

37:26underlying zoning applied.

37:28Is that correct?

37:30>> Through the chair, I think we would find

37:31it more helpful for implementation, or

37:33else we'd have to go through some sort

37:34of interpretation process and asking the

37:36assembly to make clear what the intent

37:38was. And it could go either way, right?

37:39The the base zone could go up or down. I

37:41mean, R6 right now is 35 ft. So,

37:44something could go to 35 or something

37:45else. So, just clarifying whatever the

37:47intent is, whether you want it to be

37:49tied to the base zone or tied to that

37:51specific height number.

37:53>> Okay, thank you. That's helpful.

37:56>> Okay, Miss Silvers.

38:00>> Yeah, um when when you're talking about

38:02uh needing a little bit more um

38:04flexibility, are you talking about for a

38:06three-story structure or a four-story

38:08structure? Because what I've um been

38:10learning from builders is that a

38:11three-story structure can fit in 35 um

38:14ft pretty easily. And as we know, the

38:16the

38:19And you can confirm this, but it goes to

38:21the the 35 ft would go to the midpoint

38:23of the roofline. Is that correct? Not

38:25the top.

38:31>> Yeah, through the chair, the height of a

38:32building is measured if you put your

38:34hands together like a triangle, it's

38:36measured to the midpoint of the roof.

38:39Um and

38:41I I think it's In general, I'm I'm

38:42trying to pull up a case. I believe we

38:44did have a administrative site plan

38:45review for a three-story entitlement or

38:47three-story building. I think this is

38:48case 2025-001

38:51and they went to 36. something feet. Um,

38:55and so

38:56in, in general, you know, some of the

38:57other research we've been doing about

38:59what three-story or four-story heights

39:01would be I think we we've looked at it

39:03and says

39:04we're looking at that 40 feet now

39:06accommodates a three-story contemporary

39:09construction apartment construction. So,

39:10that's for structural beams, HVAC

39:13equipment, and sort of interstitial

39:15spaces. Um, and also allows for like a

39:17daylight basement. So, um

39:20yeah,

39:21I I think I'll leave it at that unless

39:23you have anything else to add. Thank

39:24you.

39:27>> Okay, thank you.

39:29Okay, I have myself in the queue for a

39:30couple of questions. I also note um,

39:32member Krueger just joined us on the

39:33phone at 1:43. Um, and I'll also note

39:36uh, we're talking about legislative

39:38intent. I think that's a good point that

39:39we maybe have not made, um, lately, uh,

39:41for members, which is, uh, part of the

39:44reason we do debate and have meetings

39:46like this is to verbally describe our

39:47intent. And there's many times that we,

39:50or really council, has had to go back,

39:52uh, into the the archives, uh, as well

39:54as planning staff, to kind of figure out

39:55how to interpret. So, I think that's

39:56partly partly what we're doing here and

39:59and the intent of of talking about these

40:01things. So, I think that's why uh, when

40:02you hear questions like that, it's

40:04really being able to describe what

40:05you're trying to do is super helpful.

40:06So, that's a meta comment. Uh, my

40:09questions um,

40:10I guess I these are really questions

40:13that I'm not seeking an answer right

40:14now, but I wanted to put on the record

40:16um, and I do intend to follow up. So, I

40:18think that it's an interesting question

40:20um, of we have a a foot height

40:23requirement. Um, I guess one thing I'll

40:26ask planning is is there a standard

40:28definition of a story in our code? Cuz I

40:30know we talk a lot about stories in

40:32buildings. Um, it can vary depending on

40:33the construction of the building if

40:34there's HVAC between the floors, that

40:36kind of thing. But I'm just wondering is

40:38there a standard definition for

40:39residential construction for a story

40:42in terms of height?

40:47>> Again, Daniel McKenna Foster uh,

40:49long-range planning. I'm just I believe

40:51we do have a I'm just looking at um

40:55chapter 15 of our um

40:58zoning to see what the story definition

41:00is. In general though, we have been

41:02trying to move away from stories. The

41:04comp plan says that you know, something

41:06should be two to four stories because it

41:08does get really complicated. Because

41:09even when the comp plan was written, it

41:10said, you know, in compact mixed

41:12residential medium, we're looking at

41:14things should be two to three stories or

41:15two to four stories. That doesn't really

41:17translate, right? You could have these

41:18big massive stories. And then we had a

41:20case a few years ago which well allowed,

41:23you know, two and a half stories or up

41:25to 30 ft and that caused a lot of

41:27problems as well. So, in general, we are

41:29trying to get 2 ft like a a hard feet

41:31number. Um and let me just see I I think

41:35Let's see, we have the definition of

41:37story in our zoning code is the portion

41:40of a building included between the upper

41:41surface of floor and the upper surface

41:42of the next floor or roof above. I think

41:45we might have

41:47something somewhere that says what a

41:49story is, but in general, um I think

41:51we're trying to move towards a more

41:54transparent number-based height.

41:57>> Okay, thank you. Yeah, I think there

41:58isn't a um

42:00a standard foot number of feet for a

42:02story is what I'm hearing. Um so, I

42:04guess the question I just want to put on

42:05the record um is

42:08really you know, the implication of

42:11saying for example um

42:14you know, we could have a three-story

42:16building with lower ceilings. I guess

42:17the question is really does that end up

42:20basically putting economic restrictions

42:23on the types or the price points of

42:25housing that can be built. And so, and I

42:27and I it's not a question I don't think

42:28that I certainly can't answer as an as

42:30an assembly member. I'm not a real

42:31estate professional. Um but I think it's

42:33a it's an open question. I could imagine

42:36um luxury condos for example that um

42:39that have 9-ft ceilings or even 10-ft

42:41ceilings, right? And and then that would

42:43certainly have a different price point

42:44than um you know, a building from the

42:471980s built as affordable housing has

42:498-ft ceilings. And so, uh, those are

42:51just two examples, but I...So, that's

42:52something I intend to, um, research to

42:55understand, uh, but it is something that

42:57I'm...I'm wondering is how much this

43:00would make a specific kind of price

43:01point of housing feasible and...and

43:04preclude other price points of housing

43:06in this particular area, which, as I

43:07understand it, is not usually the...the

43:10intent of zoning, um,

43:12but can happen. Uh Mr. Handlin.

43:16>> Yeah, question. So, I mean, under the uh

43:19current system that we have, so it's we

43:21don't have a The R1 R1A is currently set

43:26at 30 ft, correct?

43:31>> I believe that's for planning.

43:34>> Through the chair, yes, that is correct.

43:37>> Okay. And so, I guess the the other

43:40homes that are are currently constructed

43:42in this we we go and we put uh implement

43:45M-pop in in these areas, essentially

43:47they would have more flexibility to

43:50build a little bit more, but it would be

43:52very difficult for them to try to put

43:54another story on a home next to one that

43:57was originally constructed under that

43:5930-ft requirement, correct?

44:06>> Through the chair to member Handlin, are

44:08you speaking of um a building in the R1

44:12zone under M-pop?

44:15>> So, the the R1 and then R1A, they would

44:18have additional flexibility of 35 ft if

44:21if this amendment were were accepted,

44:23but would I guess it would be difficult

44:25for them to try to add another floor.

44:31>> Through the chair to member Handlin, um

44:33yes, as as it stands now with the 30-ft

44:36height in R1 neighborhoods, that

44:38generally translate to translates to two

44:40stories. Um an additional 5 ft I don't

44:44think would really give them

44:46um

44:47and I'm not a builder, um but I don't

44:50think it would give them

44:52as much flexibility as they might need

44:54to add a third story

44:56unless it were a very very short

44:59three-story building.

45:02>> If I could add, this is Daniel McKenna

45:03Foster. I I think you could currently in

45:05R6, the height limit is 35 ft. So, you

45:08could look at R6 and see how many

45:09three-story buildings have been built

45:11and that's been the case for a long

45:12time. And I I don't have that number,

45:14but that might be a

45:15a worthwhile data point. Thank you.

45:20>> Okay, thank you.

45:26>> Um okay, so now we're at 1:49. Um we're

45:28noticed till 2:30, so I know we've got a

45:30number of things to still get through.

45:31Um so, I'll and I know Ms. Silver's uh

45:34is still listening, but not able to

45:35speak at this moment. So, uh it'll be

45:37Mr. Handlin to speak to numbers uh seven

45:40or eight. So, I'll see if there's

45:40questions on on those amendments.

45:43Uh Ms. Baldwin Day.

45:45>> Yeah, thank you. I I um I appreciate

45:47this amendment. Um and I I have a

45:49question for for Mr. Handlin.

45:52>> Sorry, can you specify which one you're

45:53talking

45:53>> Oh, I'm sorry. I'm talking about

45:55amendment number seven which um

45:57addresses drainage. And I'm I'm curious

46:00about the the consideration um did the

46:02sponsors consider regulation based on

46:05permeable versus impermeable surfaces

46:08rather than total building coverage?

46:15>> No, we were just looking at building

46:17coverage for this. I mean, when when you

46:19go and take a building in, I mean,

46:21I guess bumble lot up to 70%there,

46:24that's a lot of very impermeable

46:26impermeable

46:28whatever.

46:30Um uh surface there that that that's

46:32going to be draining off. And so, just

46:34having that where, I mean, uh, kind of a

46:36um

46:37increasing that standard, but then

46:39having uh, uh, a threshold of above 50%

46:42that they got to submit a plan under

46:45that, uh, was kind of the intent, but,

46:47uh, we didn't really look at um other,

46:49uh, lot coverage on there.

46:52>> Yeah, I I definitely appreciate the the

46:55interest in protecting neighbor

46:56neighboring properties. Um I think

46:59um

47:01I mean

47:03I would love for planning to correct me

47:04on this, um but I I believe that based

47:07on our current code, there's actually

47:09nothing that prevents anyone anywhere

47:12in Anchorage from creating an

47:16impermeable surface, i.e. paving over

47:19the entirety of their lot, um and that

47:21includes residential zones. Am I Am I

47:23correct on that?

47:26>> Through the chair to member Baldwin Day,

47:27that is correct. Um however, there is a

47:30protection in code that prevents um

47:33people from impacting negatively

47:36impacting uh their neighbor's drainage

47:38patterns as well.

47:39>> And that exists in

47:41title 23?

47:44>> That is in title 21 as well.

47:47>> It is in 21. Okay, excellent. Um

47:50So

47:52with the with the um

47:55I I guess I'm curious on your thoughts.

47:57Uh again, I I I get the intent here and

48:00and I think it's it's a valid question.

48:02I'm wondering how this interacts with um

48:05other properties outside of the overlay

48:07and whether this is a a

48:10question that you have other thoughts on

48:12on a a a wider scale than just MHO.

48:21>> Through the chair, member Baldwin Day,

48:22thank you very much for the question.

48:24This is um something that the

48:26department, alongside the building

48:28department, has been in deep discussion

48:30about lately. Um we are looking at um

48:34potential um

48:36uh upcoming code changes to address

48:39impermeable surfaces on on the lot um in

48:43general, um muni-wide. And I would be

48:47glad to invite Daniel King up here to

48:50speak.

48:51Wherever he ended up, if he would like

48:53to say anything about that as well.

49:06>> How do you

49:19[clears throat]

49:20>> Uh Daniel King, development services. Uh

49:22through the chair, um drainage is always

49:25a concern for for all properties in

49:27town. Uh residential lots typically

49:29don't have much review when it comes to

49:32pervious or impervious surfaces. Uh so

49:34residential projects for one, two, or

49:36three family homes um get looked at to

49:38make sure that drainage arrows that they

49:40draw don't direct towards neighboring

49:42properties, but there's not additional

49:43follow-up that gets done for those. It

49:45usually is on commercial properties that

49:47will have uh private development civil

49:49review um to look more at where they're

49:52directing the water and how they're

49:54going to deal with it either on property

49:55or going into the storm drain.

49:58Uh so so it's typically going to be

49:59larger developments that we try to look

50:01at more. Um it's been a problem before

50:04on residential projects where they'll

50:05complete the building and then later

50:08pave the whole property. Um and there's

50:10no follow-up on the building department

50:12side other than to tell them,"Yeah, you

50:14really shouldn't be draining on your

50:15neighbor. This is going to be a civil

50:17matter."But it's easier on commercial

50:19projects because they'll usually have

50:21the the paving plan and they can't add

50:23additional parking uh without going

50:25through a traffic review and um so that

50:28usually will get captured on on their

50:30permit side when they have to want want

50:32to pave more.

50:37>> Yeah.

50:38Yeah.

50:39Yeah, so a follow-up question. You you

50:41said that um residential construction,

50:44you know, from one to three units are

50:46reviewed, but don't get much follow-up.

50:48Uh what happens

50:50on the residential side with four or

50:52more units? Is that treated differently?

50:56>> Four or more units gets treated as a a

50:58commercial project. It's at uh five

51:00units that will require the private

51:02development review and then four four is

51:05in this middle category of depending on

51:07what they provide us we're going to

51:08require additional or not.

51:11>> Thank you.

51:12I I appreciate that. Can you um are you

51:15at liberty to to share what sorts of

51:17code adjustments you're working on or is

51:19that still something that needs to be

51:20kept under the hat? And I'm totally fine

51:22if the answer is yes, you don't get to

51:24know yet.

51:27>> Through the chair, Bob Dole, director

51:28for community economic development. This

51:31is an impact throughout uh it isn't

51:34unique to the M-Hop zone. It is a global

51:37issue

51:38uh both in terms of avoiding um adverse

51:41impact neighboring properties as well as

51:44frankly the impact on the storm water

51:46system as we look at it. We're exploring

51:48what is an appropriate way to address

51:50that globally recognizing that asphalt

51:53and a building have the same impact on a

51:55parcel of it not being able to absorb.

51:58Uh it is a work in progress.

52:01>> Thank you. I I will take that.

52:04Okay, uh next Mr. Martinez.

52:07>> Thank you, chair.

52:08Um just for clarification what what one

52:12of the professionals in the room that

52:14knows the code um what is a drain

52:1821 in this amendment that describes the

52:20section the subsection 21.07.040.d.3 and

52:26a drainage plan. I just What is that and

52:28what is that related to today?

52:34If it If If current If currently there

52:37is no

52:38requirement for a drainage plan except

52:41on paper

52:44what is that in fact being

52:47um identified as a

52:51a mechanism to use. What is the

52:53mechanism being identified?

53:04And what is the trigger today?

53:08>> Through the chair to member Martinez,

53:10that particular code section looks to be

53:13part of our um

53:15uh special review for things like um

53:19administrative site plan review or major

53:21site plan review.

53:23Um it's something that we will ask for

53:25if we have questions um during those

53:27reviews or

53:29during um

53:31if we're looking at a steep slope

53:32development as well. And I'm sorry, hold

53:34on just one moment.

53:35>> Okay, no problem.

53:39For the viewers at home, this is real

53:41time.

53:42So, thank you.

53:46>> So, it looks like uh we require drainage

53:49plans anytime there's a um

53:52a permit um from development services

53:55for projects that include land

53:56disturbance um for subdivision flats,

53:59for site plan reviews um as I mentioned

54:01earlier, and conditional uses.

54:03>> So, currently this is not

54:06identified in code as a tool for

54:09residential development in the first

54:11place.

54:13>> Through the chair, it would be required

54:15for some residential development. And I

54:18do believe they are required for um any

54:20residential development that is

54:22considered a commercial development.

54:24>> that goes to that multi-family and

54:26commercial upward, but not for the

54:30the

54:31the R we're talking about the Rs and the

54:33R1s and and really not at that level of

54:36what you could develop on those

54:37properties in the first place.

54:38>> And yes, that would be correct for

54:40anything developed in the R1s and R2s,

54:44um we would be less likely to require

54:47that. Although, I'm sure there are

54:49always exceptions.

54:51>> So, to be clear, there are already in

54:53code

54:55the mechanism to trigger if, if in M

54:58hop, there is a development that is

55:01in one of the zones that

55:04allow for the size of the, the

55:07residential development to trigger the

55:10commercial review essentially for middle

55:12zone five or better, that we already

55:15have the drainage

55:17in code

55:18in place as a, as a part of the

55:20mechanisms of, of review. Um okay, but

55:23just wanted to make sure we're clear

55:25about that. And then additionally, just

55:26to flag, as you all are doing the the

55:29other parts of the review,

55:31um, this is a conversation that we've

55:34raised

55:35through the permaculture

55:37conversation, specifically around urban

55:39growing and urban farming and how to use

55:43more of the the the the lot coverage,

55:46the lot usage, to do more productive

55:50things.

55:51And those productive things have a

55:53mitigating factor on drainage, right?

55:55And so I think that's something that's a

55:58worthwhile part of the project, but it

56:00seems at least on the face of it today,

56:04you can

56:05pave your entire

56:08green space on your R1 property outside

56:11of your your home

56:12and don't have to put additional

56:13[clears throat] housing on it.

56:18>> Through the chair, if that was a

56:19question for the planning department,

56:21then yes, I would say that is something

56:23that is permitted as long as you don't

56:25negatively impact your neighbor's

56:26drainage.

56:27>> Thank you, that helps a lot. Appreciate

56:29that.

56:30>> Okay, Ms. Baldwin Day.

56:32Yeah, one one follow-up question for the

56:34sponsors. Um

56:36is the intent to include

56:38the the square footage of accessory

56:42dwelling units in this 50%calculation or

56:44is this a main structure or primary

56:46structure only?

56:51>> I believe it was to apply to all

56:53structures.

56:58>> And then yeah, it's total building

56:59coverage exceeding 50%. So it would

57:02apply to I guess the the sum total of

57:04all.

57:08>> So if someone were adding an ADU on

57:09their property, they would be required

57:11if and they were to go to 51%of the lot

57:14coverage, they would be required to

57:16submit a drainage plan.

57:20>> Yes, under this

57:22um

57:24It's correct.

57:24>> Okay.

57:29Okay. Uh I think that takes care of

57:31amendment seven. Um so, briefly uh we'll

57:33touch on amendment eight and then what

57:35I'm going to propose in terms of order

57:36before we do that is um I know there's a

57:39couple uh

57:40additional amendments. Um I would like

57:42the opportunity to speak to my amendment

57:44primarily cuz I'm not going to be moving

57:45it, so I don't think we can spend a lot

57:46of time on that one. Um there's an

57:48amendment from the mayor that I want to

57:49make sure we get to speak to cuz we

57:51haven't dealt with that and then I would

57:52like to turn to the S version so we can

57:54make sure we have time to unpack that. I

57:56know that we uh are going to be running

57:57short on time, so we'll try to keep it

57:59keep it moving. So, uh in the meantime,

58:01I do have one question on uh amendment

58:03eight and then I'll see if there's other

58:04um

58:05questions on that one and this is for

58:06the sponsors. So, I'm I'm reading this

58:08is the one amendment eight is related to

58:10administrative site plan review and

58:12major site plan review. Um the major

58:14site plan review caught my eye because

58:16in a separate action, we have paused

58:18resident certain residential design

58:19standards. One of them was major site

58:21plan review required for multi-family

58:24housing. So, for the sponsors um

58:26uh I I would have to go back and look

58:28how these interact um

58:30in the overlay, but is your intent to

58:32restore that major site plan review um

58:35even while those are paused or would it

58:36this be after the pause? And I know that

58:38might be a question for just Mr.

58:40Handeland since Ms. Overs is uh not able

58:41to speak.

58:44>> Yeah, and I apologize on this one. This

58:46one I think was more uh with Ms. Overs

58:49kind of the alley here on it. I was kind

58:51of more focused on amendment uh

58:54uh

58:55six and seven uh with with this and so I

58:57don't want to I guess speak for her out

58:59of turn on that.

59:01>> Okay, understood. So, I'll just raise

59:02that question then. Um that would be

59:03helpful to understand uh or I can ask it

59:06um on the dais. Uh again, just if the

59:08intent would be to um undo that piece of

59:11the current pause that we have on those

59:12design standards, or would it be to uh

59:14still pause it and then this would apply

59:16after that. So, that's something to

59:18follow up. Any [snorts] other questions

59:19on Amendment 8?

59:26>> Yes, I I just wanted us to be really

59:28clear about what the administrative site

59:30plan review process entails and, um,

59:33[clears throat] how that is what that

59:35looks like in terms of work on the

59:38planning side of the house and also

59:40cost,

59:41and just

59:43ask for planning to to

59:46reflect on what this

59:48what the impact of this would be on

59:49their workflow. Thank you.

59:54>> Through the chair to member Baldwin Day,

59:56the administrative site plan review

59:58process includes

1:00:00a few weeks of agency review. Staff

1:00:04writes a case that in that

1:00:08covers the criteria for administrative

1:00:11site plan review and then they present

1:00:14the case to me and I make a decision on

1:00:17whether or not the um

1:00:19the

1:00:21development has met the criteria. It's

1:00:23generally a

1:00:25process that takes a few months. And

1:00:28then there is also an application

1:00:30involved so that whoever is developing

1:00:32the project usually spends time and

1:00:35effort in compiling the application.

1:00:39I can't speak to the cost or of the

1:00:42application or the time entailed in that

1:00:45on the developer side,

1:00:47but did you want me to just speak to

1:00:50administrative site plan review or do

1:00:52you want me to speak to the major site

1:00:54plan review as well?

1:00:56>> Yes, thank you. That would be helpful.

1:00:58>> So, the major site plan review process

1:01:00includes all of those things, but also

1:01:02includes

1:01:04I am not the person making the decision

1:01:07in that case. Major site plan review

1:01:10goes to PCC.

1:01:12So, there's a hearing opportunities for

1:01:15public testimony, there's public

1:01:17meetings,

1:01:19um and mailers, and um

1:01:22that also um is a matter of a few

1:01:25months.

1:01:29>> All right, thank you. That's helpful.

1:01:31Okay, thanks. And Ms. Oberstar,

1:01:33>> I I can answer those questions.

1:01:34>> Yeah, go ahead, please.

1:01:35>> Now,

1:01:37Okay, um and so I think the intent is to

1:01:40require this in the um R2A and the R2B.

1:01:45Um because as you know, at at this

1:01:47current time, you cannot build a

1:01:49nineplex

1:01:50um

1:01:51in these zones. Uh and so I think, you

1:01:54know, we're talking about primarily

1:01:56single-family and duplex neighborhoods,

1:01:59and we're talking about putting

1:02:01nineplexes in them.

1:02:03Um and so I think it is entirely

1:02:06reasonable to

1:02:08if if we're going to

1:02:10allow that to kind of mitigate

1:02:14um against some of maybe some of the

1:02:16unintended consequences of that um by

1:02:18requiring that site plan review. Uh and

1:02:20so that's the intention with that

1:02:22amendment. Thanks.

1:02:23>> Okay, thanks. Any other questions on

1:02:25Amendment 8?

1:02:28Okay, not seeing any. Um and I know

1:02:30there's a couple of follow-ups, it

1:02:31sounds like. So, uh we'll briefly turn,

1:02:33as I said, I'm going to very briefly

1:02:34speak to my amendment just because uh as

1:02:36I said, my intent is not to move it.

1:02:38That is a proposed Amendment 4. Um, so,

1:02:41uh, I'll just say the intent behind this

1:02:43was, as I was looking at our use table

1:02:45which is what this amends, um, under

1:02:47this, under the exhibit, um that I was

1:02:50wondering, you know, there's uh various

1:02:52other kinds of really small, uh,

1:02:54multi-unit housing, which is really our

1:02:56assisted living facilities, group

1:02:57living, adult care, things like that.

1:03:00And then additionally, uh child care

1:03:01centers and adult day centers on either

1:03:03end of the age spectrum are um you know,

1:03:05activities that that people find very

1:03:07helpful to have close to home, similar

1:03:09to things like schools. So, so

1:03:10originally, I was thinking, wouldn't it

1:03:11be great if we could allow uh

1:03:13medium-sized of these facilities uh in

1:03:16the neighborhoods in the overlay? But

1:03:17then, as I thought about it, I realized

1:03:19uh really the discussion about this

1:03:21should be with the underlying zoning

1:03:22code and not just this. I There's not a

1:03:24good connection to just transit

1:03:26corridors. I think this could be a good

1:03:27idea regardless. And so I I just wanted

1:03:29to bring up this idea and then say that

1:03:32my intent is to bring a future ordinance

1:03:34that would allow for this discussion um

1:03:36not just as tied to the overlay. So, I'm

1:03:38not intending to move this amendment um

1:03:40and uh so we can save that discussion

1:03:42for another time. Uh so, I won't take

1:03:44questions on that because I think that's

1:03:45we're taking it off the table. Uh so,

1:03:47then I'm going to turn next to I see

1:03:49Mayor LaFrance join us at the table. Um

1:03:51so, I'll note this is an amendment. It

1:03:53is unnumbered um and it says submitted

1:03:54by Assembly member. I know it's being

1:03:56drafted right now, so this is a working

1:03:57draft or at least the the formatting is

1:03:59a draft. Um but this is the mayor's

1:04:01amendment, so I will turn um to Mayor

1:04:03LaFrance and her team to discuss.

1:04:05>> Thank you much so much, Chair Brawley

1:04:08and members. Um you know, like all of

1:04:10you, we listened to the public testimony

1:04:13on this item and heard the feedback.

1:04:16We love our neighborhoods. They're very

1:04:18important to Anchorage. And um we've

1:04:21done a lot in this area of housing, tax

1:04:23incentives, pausing design standards,

1:04:26land swaps, open up new opportunities,

1:04:28and I thank the Assembly for your

1:04:29partnership in this area.

1:04:32This um

1:04:33amendment, you know, well, I at first I

1:04:35want to recognize that the original

1:04:37version of MHOP contains compromises.

1:04:41I do want to say that this amendment

1:04:44before you offers a balanced way forward

1:04:48uh to move forward with something that

1:04:50the community can get behind. And so,

1:04:53what it does is builds on the sponsors'

1:04:5730-ft limit in R1 to extend that to R1A,

1:05:02R2, R2A, R2D.

1:05:06And it also adds the 10-ft minimum

1:05:09setback for these underlying underlying

1:05:12zones as well. And you can see that on

1:05:15the table on the second page of the

1:05:18amendment. But essentially reduces the

1:05:20scale of change to the R1 and R2 zoning

1:05:24districts.

1:05:27And I will stop there. Are there any

1:05:29questions?

1:05:30>> Okay. Uh, questions for Mayor LaFrance.

1:05:32Uh, Ms. Baldwin Day.

1:05:35>> Yeah, I um, I have a I have some

1:05:36questions about the the inclusion of

1:05:38some of these zones. Um, so as I look at

1:05:40the 2040 Land Use Plan, I'm I'm noticing

1:05:43that some of what's been included uh,

1:05:46here in this amendment um,

1:05:51is is maybe not exactly what

1:05:55is reflected for compact mixed

1:05:57residential low. Um, so I'm wondering if

1:06:01um,

1:06:02I

1:06:03this particular section which includes

1:06:04R2D uh, indicates primarily two and and

1:06:08three-story buildings. Uh, which I think

1:06:11what we've heard is that um,

1:06:13construction of 30 of three-story

1:06:14buildings is really difficult with this

1:06:1530-ft height. Uh, so I'm curious as to

1:06:18the inclusion of R2D in this amendment.

1:06:21Um, and then also uh, I'm I'm interested

1:06:24to understand more about the rationale

1:06:25for uh, required 10-ft front setback.

1:06:28Um, the

1:06:29the

1:06:30what is the what is the technical intent

1:06:32here?

1:06:35>> Sure, thank you for that uh, member

1:06:37Baldwin Day. And I will turn to um, Mr.

1:06:41Dole and his team for the technical

1:06:43piece of it. I will say that this um,

1:06:45amendment seeks to address the top

1:06:47community concerns without limiting

1:06:50housing and that after the Home

1:06:51Initiative R1 through R2D are in many

1:06:55ways essentially the same. But, I will

1:06:58turn to the team for the technical

1:07:00response.

1:07:02>> Through the chair, Bob Dole, director

1:07:04director for community economic

1:07:05development. The 10-ft we believe does

1:07:08two things. It provides for some space

1:07:11for kind of preserving the current

1:07:13neighborhood feel based on feedback

1:07:16extensive that we have all listened to

1:07:17with public testimony. Also, frankly, it

1:07:20is snow storage. We want to make sure

1:07:22that we can provide adequate snow

1:07:24storage somewhere even on that front

1:07:27part of the parcel that we're not going

1:07:28to

1:07:29impact where we need to have people able

1:07:31to walk in front of the place.

1:07:34Looking at larger cities, um

1:07:37it seems

1:07:38outside downtown districts in your

1:07:40residential districts, I'm thinking of

1:07:42like Chicago or Minneapolis, it's pretty

1:07:44common to have at least some space

1:07:46there. It also, like I said, preserves

1:07:49an opportunity to preserve more of a

1:07:50neighborhood and properties further

1:07:53closer up.

1:07:56>> Yeah, so I think I'm

1:07:58I think my my question is is less about

1:08:01the

1:08:02the neighborhood feel and it's more

1:08:04about how this works together in the

1:08:07confluence of this with the idea that we

1:08:10would be

1:08:11hopefully

1:08:13making it possible for folks to build on

1:08:16lots that are smaller than 6,000 square

1:08:18feet, where perhaps having a determined

1:08:21setback would be problematic.

1:08:24I'm thinking particularly about short

1:08:26lots or differently shaped lots where

1:08:28a

1:08:30firm setback

1:08:32taken in context with all other factors

1:08:34that might exist on a lot would actually

1:08:36keep something from being built on a lot

1:08:38that say 2,700 square feet or something

1:08:41of that nature.

1:08:42So

1:08:43I'm taking this sort of in context with

1:08:45other dimensional questions since this

1:08:47all works together in the end.

1:08:50>> Through the chair, Bob Dole again. To be

1:08:52clear, this is only a front setback. The

1:08:54sides and rear are not impacted. So you

1:08:56still have that space to develop and we

1:08:58believe though in terms of overall, in

1:09:01terms of how this building has to tie

1:09:02into the street and the neighborhood,

1:09:04that 10 feet is necessary just for snow

1:09:06storage and to avoid immediately

1:09:09draining everything out.

1:09:11>> So I guess I was under the impression

1:09:13that snow storage is something that

1:09:14happens in the public right of way and

1:09:15not necessarily on private property. Is

1:09:18I you suggesting that that somehow

1:09:20public right of way no longer exists in

1:09:22this scenario?

1:09:24>> Um

1:09:25through the chair, snow should not move

1:09:28from private property onto the public

1:09:30right-of-way. So, snow storage from my

1:09:33private If I shovel my front sidewalk, I

1:09:36should not be pushing it into the

1:09:37right-of-way. So, no, we're not saying

1:09:39move right-of-way into snow into the

1:09:42private property, but rather to provide

1:09:44sufficient space for whatever snow

1:09:46movement needs to happen on that parcel,

1:09:48it has to It should happen on that

1:09:49parcel and not be pushed into the

1:09:51right-of-way.

1:09:52Which is frankly a recurring problem we

1:09:54see in the winter up here.

1:09:56>> Sure, but um, if you had less of a front

1:09:59setback, you'd also have less snow to

1:10:00move.

1:10:02>> Through the chair, we believe this is a

1:10:04reasonable balance just based on looking

1:10:06across what works and what doesn't and

1:10:08where we get our complaints and where we

1:10:10don't.

1:10:10>> Okay. Thank you. Nothing further for me.

1:10:13Okay, uh, Mr. Martinez.

1:10:18>> Interesting point about the snow removal

1:10:20in the front.

1:10:21And I would just note that we're talking

1:10:24about the residential primarily the

1:10:26residential portions of neighborhoods.

1:10:28Um,

1:10:29the R1s in these areas, not necessarily

1:10:32the commercial corridors within

1:10:34uh, the the MHOP target zone.

1:10:38And I think of my

1:10:40neighborhood. It's an R1 neighborhood

1:10:42and we don't have sidewalks today, but

1:10:44we have pretty big setbacks in the

1:10:46front.

1:10:47And

1:10:50whether I like it or not, every year

1:10:52as the snow plow comes by and pushes the

1:10:55snow off the street with the shooter, my

1:10:58entire front of my lawn is packed.

1:11:02And I have a pretty big frontage.

1:11:04So, at least the first 10 ft

1:11:07is a wall of the snow from the street

1:11:10often.

1:11:11Um, and so that's very common. I I I

1:11:13would just just put it anecdotally into

1:11:15the environment. I don't know if that's

1:11:18what the the the the

1:11:21if it should be that way based on what

1:11:23you describe, but it is that way. In

1:11:25fact, that um,

1:11:28we walk in the streets

1:11:30in my neighborhood, we don't have

1:11:31sidewalks and um

1:11:34we require the streets to be clear.

1:11:37And often times that means clearing them

1:11:39onto property which is in the frontage

1:11:43of homes.

1:11:44So,

1:11:45I don't know where that lands, but that

1:11:47is what is in fact what's happening.

1:11:51>> Through the chair, many residential

1:11:52districts beyond the right of way, there

1:11:54is a snow storage easement. I can't

1:11:56speak to your particular neighborhood,

1:11:57but I know I

1:11:59I have a 10-ft one in front of my house.

1:12:02Which is a a snow beyond the right of

1:12:04way

1:12:05snow storage easement from

1:12:07the

1:12:08there.

1:12:10>> And and if I could just follow up on

1:12:11that, I

1:12:12in the long term, I would love to have a

1:12:16conversation of what sidewalking looks

1:12:18like. Like what does it mean to develop

1:12:21neighborhoods that were developed

1:12:22without sidewalks when we want them to

1:12:24be walkable as a year-round community.

1:12:28Um I think that's that is an important

1:12:30conversation, but it also over also

1:12:33highlights

1:12:34where MHub

1:12:36happens in terms of the targeting where

1:12:39infrastructure already is and could

1:12:41potentially be expanded on. And I think

1:12:43that relationship between the future

1:12:45walkability and developing patterns

1:12:47outward um

1:12:49is something to make sure we don't lose

1:12:50sight of.

1:12:51Thank you.

1:12:56>> Okay, any other questions?

1:13:06Um there's a question about uh not this

1:13:09particular amendment, but a different

1:13:10one just for clarity.

1:13:12Um yeah, I just wanted to confirm that

1:13:13the the floor amendment that was

1:13:15submitted at the October 6th meeting is

1:13:17is this is the this is a a replacement

1:13:20to that amendment. Is that correct?

1:13:22Um it is um

1:13:23>> That is correct.

1:13:24>> Okay. Um lovely. And then I think uh

1:13:26related question to member Silver's then

1:13:28um I I her

1:13:30amendment 12 was connected to the floor

1:13:34amendment from the administration.

1:13:37Um I'm I I'm assuming member Silver's,

1:13:39do you intend

1:13:41to not move this amendment forward since

1:13:42the associated item will not be before

1:13:45us?

1:13:47>> Uh no, I've actually rewritten that

1:13:49amendment so that it um will fit in with

1:13:53the

1:13:54um

1:13:55regular version.

1:13:58>> Okay, thanks. And I see you

1:13:59>> actually.

1:14:01>> Thank you. Yeah, and just for clarity,

1:14:02um, so the amendments that were being

1:14:04referred to, we don't have them printed

1:14:06out today; but one of them was, uh, the

1:14:08mayor's amendment that was, uh,

1:14:09introduced, uh, at our last, or when

1:14:11this was discussed, uh, to, uh, extend

1:14:14the effective date to January 1st, 2028.

1:14:17So that's the one that the mayor stated

1:14:18she is withdrawing. And then um the

1:14:20other one was Ms. Silver's, I think he's

1:14:22it was amendment 12, the numbering at

1:14:23the time. Um so it sounds like we'll see

1:14:25a new version of that one. So we don't

1:14:27have print copies of that today. But

1:14:28just so we're clear and tracking. I know

1:14:30we've got a lot of paper.

1:14:32Um okay. So uh next So I don't see any

1:14:35other folks in the queue for this one.

1:14:36So and I know we are uh

1:14:38running short on time. We can extend

1:14:40this meeting uh briefly, but really only

1:14:42to 2:45 if we need to. Um so I'll ask

1:14:45next if we can turn to the substitute

1:14:47version or S version um for member Park.

1:14:50And um and then I'll say we will not

1:14:52have time to go line-by-line through

1:14:53this. So if we can just get some

1:14:54highlights, I think would be helpful. Um

1:14:56and then I think also clarifying um I

1:14:58know I'll note there is an amendment

1:15:00three to the original version also by

1:15:02member Park. So uh maybe uh just

1:15:04clarifying uh if those relate to each

1:15:07other or if they're separate, I think

1:15:08would be helpful. So go ahead, Ms. Park.

1:15:11>> Thank you, Chair. So basically, um a

1:15:15number of these amendments uh submitted

1:15:18by others seem to have come out of the S

1:15:20version. And um

1:15:24one thing I'm hearing from uh

1:15:26from constituents is that

1:15:29they all appreciate the attempt to find

1:15:32some

1:15:33uh

1:15:35agreement uh on changes to IM Park and

1:15:39most people are really

1:15:41very willing to support housing.

1:15:45Um

1:15:47in particular um

1:15:49uh

1:15:50Baldwin Day Park Amendment 1 is is

1:15:54directly from the S version.

1:15:56Um

1:15:58I think uh

1:16:01part of Member Silver's

1:16:04um

1:16:05concern about the infrastructure and the

1:16:07drainage is uh

1:16:10uh spoken to in the S version.

1:16:12Um one of the things I haven't heard

1:16:14discussed yet is the um

1:16:17uh

1:16:19Amendment number three regarding the the

1:16:21seismic zones and I think that one is

1:16:23pretty important. Um

1:16:25a according to the geologic um

1:16:29uh advisory committee uh they are

1:16:32recommending against

1:16:34uh increased uh density in those zones

1:16:37and despite the fact that there are

1:16:41already

1:16:42uh large buildings that have been built

1:16:44in seismic zone and some people will

1:16:46refer to in the Inlet View School. Um

1:16:50that

1:16:51still doesn't mean that it's advisable

1:16:53to do so where you might have multiple

1:16:57family dwellings uh with a lot of

1:16:59occupants who would have to get out

1:17:02really fast. So um

1:17:04I know that um

1:17:07Member Baldwin Day has

1:17:10um

1:17:11requested to have a working committee on

1:17:14that issue and I know that there are

1:17:16recommendations um

1:17:21to

1:17:22uh

1:17:24have some changes made to Title 23

1:17:28uh in regards to building in those

1:17:29areas.

1:17:30Um

1:17:31one of one of the

1:17:33one of the rationales that I have for

1:17:36uh

1:17:37not having those be part of the M-HOP is

1:17:41that um

1:17:43because of the increased cost of

1:17:45building in the seismic zone and the

1:17:48kinds of um

1:17:50engineering and uh

1:17:52uh

1:17:53supportive

1:17:56construction that would be needed that

1:17:58it increases the price.

1:18:00And so

1:18:01um if

1:18:04to be clear, nobody is prohibited from

1:18:07building in those zones, but is that

1:18:10something that we want to

1:18:12to support with a tax abatement

1:18:16uh if it is going to

1:18:18benefit more

1:18:20costly

1:18:21building.

1:18:22And so um

1:18:24that's the rationale behind that. And uh

1:18:35I'm very interested in uh

1:18:38the Baldwin Day

1:18:40um

1:18:41amendment number nine

1:18:43uh which addresses the 10-year lookback.

1:18:46>> Chair, point point of order. Just

1:18:48>> What's your point of order?

1:18:49>> something like that. Um I

1:18:53I'm I'm Can I just ask a question? Are

1:18:54you

1:18:55I thought you were we were going to

1:18:56review the S version. So I thought

1:18:58that's what we were doing right now.

1:18:59You're going through the the amendments.

1:19:01So I'm just trying to understand if if

1:19:03you're in introducing the S version and

1:19:05and discussing that.

1:19:06>> Yes, absolutely because

1:19:08these amendments are actually

1:19:10the majority of them are included in the

1:19:13S version and they have been sort of

1:19:15drawn out.

1:19:16>> Super. I I just thought in the time we

1:19:18have my my understanding was you were

1:19:20going to discuss this version, but but

1:19:22you see you're doing that through

1:19:23discussing the amendments.

1:19:24>> Yes.

1:19:25>> Okay.

1:19:26>> Yeah, and I'll just clarify. So I think

1:19:27we did Ms. Park did speak to amendment

1:19:29three which is in the original version

1:19:32but takes a piece in of the of the S

1:19:33version. So yeah, I think So rather than

1:19:35talking about the remaining amendments

1:19:37at this moment, let's go through again

1:19:39not line by line but just kind of

1:19:40highlight what what's in the S version.

1:19:42>> Okay, if you can.

1:19:44Um

1:19:51So what's in what's in the S version are

1:19:54the one thing that hasn't been

1:19:56introduced in another amendment is the

1:19:59um

1:20:00uh

1:20:02uh

1:20:03tiered overlay zones.

1:20:05Uh and

1:20:12the um

1:20:15the sunset

1:20:17clause. I think the sunset clause

1:20:18included in the S version is important.

1:20:21I would consider

1:20:22um

1:20:23the Baldwin Day amendment uh reflecting

1:20:265 years instead of 10. I would consider

1:20:28that like a friendly amendment to that

1:20:31because I do think some uh oversight or

1:20:34some review showing whether uh

1:20:37there has in fact been

1:20:39a a a a benefit from uh the Imhoff plan.

1:20:45Um

1:20:47I think uh

1:20:49again the the the lot dimensions uh

1:20:52regarding uh 70%use of the uh the

1:20:57footprint uh is being addressed in

1:20:59another amendment. That is part of uh

1:21:02the S version.

1:21:04And

1:21:09>> And I think just for folks cuz I hear uh

1:21:11pages flipping, I think so the

1:21:14the five different kind of categories of

1:21:16the overlay are in section one that's on

1:21:18page five of the ordinance. And then um

1:21:20as Parker referred to the

1:21:22um section nine on page 12 uh the

1:21:2510-year sunset and kind of review of of

1:21:27outcomes. Um and then I'll also note uh

1:21:30the land use designations maps that

1:21:32relate to those five sections that looks

1:21:34like are in appendix A and B of the

1:21:36memo.

1:21:38Thank you, uh Chair. And I think there's

1:21:40a question for for Mr. Prescodillo. Go

1:21:42ahead.

1:21:42>> Can I ask you a question?

1:21:43>> Yes.

1:21:44>> Can I just ask a really basic question?

1:21:45Do you intend to bring forward the S

1:21:47version?

1:21:53>> I don't know the the rules as far as um

1:21:59whether we will address the S version

1:22:02first or the amendments to the original

1:22:06ordinance.

1:22:08And I think if we take those amendments

1:22:12piece by piece

1:22:16and we come to a very close

1:22:18approximation of what's in the S

1:22:20version, I think that would be

1:22:22satisfactory to a lot of folks.

1:22:25>> Thanks.

1:22:27>> Thank you. Next

1:22:27>> So maybe I could get some direction from

1:22:29the chair on that.

1:22:30>> Sure. Um well, I'll just briefly state I

1:22:32think um uh we can only debate one

1:22:34version at a time. Members can

1:22:36substitute version or substitute a

1:22:39version via amendment. So I think

1:22:40there's It sounds like the sponsor of

1:22:42the S version does intend to bring this

1:22:45for debate is what I'm hearing.

1:22:47So next in the queue I have Ms. Scott.

1:22:55>> Um

1:22:56no longer needed. Sorry, I was going to

1:22:58ask the same question as member

1:23:00Prescodillo. I was just confused about

1:23:02what was being shared. [snorts]

1:23:04>> Okay, thank you. Other questions from

1:23:06members, Ms. Baldwin Day.

1:23:08>> Yeah, I I have a series of of questions.

1:23:10I think I have about seven or so

1:23:12pertaining to the substance.

1:23:14So I I think my first question is is

1:23:16just um

1:23:18functionally, the this this substitute

1:23:20version appears to be

1:23:22pretty significantly different than what

1:23:23was initially reviewed by PCC. So I just

1:23:26want to confirm is it the position of

1:23:27the sponsor that this this substitute

1:23:30version does not require PCC review?

1:23:32>> No.

1:23:33>> Okay. Um

1:23:36and I I also want to point out that

1:23:39there are a couple of whereas clauses

1:23:40what which

1:23:42are potentially [clears throat]

1:23:43not applicable to the the substitute

1:23:46version. Um, those are the clauses at

1:23:48the last two clauses. I'm looking at

1:23:49page

1:23:50um, page four starting at line 41. Um,

1:23:53does the sponsor intend to amend the S

1:23:55version to remove these clauses that are

1:23:56inaccurate?

1:24:00>> Which one are you referring to?

1:24:01>> Um, the planning department's provision

1:24:03of information with relationship to this

1:24:05ordinance and also the PZC hearing on

1:24:07this item.

1:24:08>> And sorry, can you use page and line

1:24:10numbers, please?

1:24:10>> line number now. Yeah, I'm looking at

1:24:12page four, lines 41 and following.

1:24:31Um, we we can leave that question for

1:24:33now. I'll I'll leave that at the

1:24:34sponsor's discussion.

1:24:36Um, so um, a follow-on question uh, to

1:24:39to that. Um,

1:24:42there is a um,

1:24:44I guess my my first substantive question

1:24:46will be um,

1:24:47whether the sponsor intends or planning

1:24:49to implement this as one overlay with

1:24:51five subcategories or are is the intent

1:24:53of the sponsor to functionally create

1:24:55five new overlay zones? And what does

1:24:59the sponsor anticipate that will look

1:25:01like in terms of our GIS mapping?

1:25:03>> No, I wouldn't intend five different

1:25:06overlay zones. It would not.

1:25:08>> Okay. Um,

1:25:09have you had conversations with planning

1:25:11about how that implementation will

1:25:12occur?

1:25:13>> I have not.

1:25:14>> Okay.

1:25:15Um,

1:25:16but the intent is for this to be one

1:25:18singular overlay.

1:25:19>> Yes.

1:25:21>> So, I think my follow-up question would

1:25:22be to planning, do we have any overlay

1:25:24zones that have sub categories or that

1:25:28that

1:25:29treat the zoning code in this way?

1:25:33>> Through the chair to member Baldwin Day,

1:25:35um, to my knowledge, no, we do not have

1:25:37any overlay zones that um, behave in

1:25:40this manner.

1:25:41[clears throat]

1:25:42>> Do you have

1:25:43Do you have any idea what this would

1:25:45look like on a from a a practical

1:25:48implementation standpoint if this

1:25:50version were to pass?

1:25:56>> Uh Daniel McKinnon Flaster Longish

1:25:57Planning through the chair. I think one

1:25:59potential comparison is in our

1:26:01dimensional standards tables for

1:26:02example. In the past there have been

1:26:04special footnotes or special conditions

1:26:07that refer to another section. Like the

1:26:09B3 zone for years said

1:26:11B3 allows X, Y, and Z except in these

1:26:14certain areas bounded by this road. Um

1:26:17and so it requires a lot of ensuring

1:26:20that the references are absolutely clear

1:26:22and they get updated appropriately and

1:26:24and so and they're all in the right

1:26:25place cuz sometimes somebody will be

1:26:27looking at chapter six and they'll say,

1:26:28"Okay, B3 says I can do this."And then

1:26:30in chapter four, which is where, you

1:26:31know, the zoning um description is or

1:26:34the uses. So it it just to do that it

1:26:37will take ensuring um that there's a lot

1:26:40of specificity in every place

1:26:42um

1:26:43where those standards might be

1:26:44referenced or might be linked to, I

1:26:46guess.

1:26:47>> So what I'm hearing is we would be

1:26:49talking about a whole lot of flipping

1:26:50back and forth

1:26:52in this binder.

1:26:54Correct?

1:26:58>> Through the chair to member Baldwin Day,

1:27:00we would be doing a bit of flipping back

1:27:03and forth. We would also be um

1:27:05asking the sponsor of the S version for

1:27:08clarification on intent on some of these

1:27:11items.

1:27:11>> Got it. Um

1:27:13[clears throat]

1:27:14So in terms of clarity for members of

1:27:17the public who might be interested in

1:27:19utilizing more flexible standards, um

1:27:23is it safe to say that this would

1:27:24actually make things more challenging,

1:27:26more complicated, more difficult to

1:27:28interpret for members of the public

1:27:29including members of the planning

1:27:30department?

1:27:34>> Yes, that is correct.

1:27:36>> Okay, thank you.

1:27:37Um

1:27:39Moving on um

1:27:41still on page five uh beginning at line

1:27:4325, um it appears that

1:27:47um there's no table number associated.

1:27:50Uh, so

1:27:51a suggestion that perhaps a table number

1:27:53ought to be added to indicate where this

1:27:55table would live in title 21.

1:27:57Um, I'm also curious um,

1:27:59for the sponsor, how do properties zoned

1:28:01R3A and R5 interact with this overlay?

1:28:05I don't see them listed in the table.

1:28:11>> I think I would expect that they would

1:28:13remain unchanged from the

1:28:16uh, original version.

1:28:19>> So, there would be no changes to R3A or

1:28:21R5.

1:28:23>> Yes.

1:28:23>> Okay. Um, what about base zones that

1:28:26have special limitations?

1:28:29>> I can't answer that.

1:28:31>> Okay.

1:28:32Um,

1:28:34so still sort of parked on this table,

1:28:36um, per the 2040 land use plan which I

1:28:39referenced earlier, R2D is considered an

1:28:41implementing zone for both single family

1:28:44and two family and compact mixed

1:28:46residential low. So, I'm wondering is it

1:28:47the intent is it your intent to only

1:28:49allow existing R2M zones to access the

1:28:52single and two family category or do you

1:28:54have a different intent?

1:28:56>> Um,

1:29:05I think the answer to that is yes.

1:29:08And uh,

1:29:10I under that this is the the intent of

1:29:12having the tiered

1:29:14um,

1:29:15categories.

1:29:18>> So,

1:29:19So, can you describe how that comports

1:29:21with the 2040 land use plan because the

1:29:22land use plan

1:29:24leverages the zoning designation in more

1:29:25than one place in more than one

1:29:29um,

1:29:31in more than one designation.

1:29:33>> Um, I not right now.

1:29:35I I can't directly

1:29:36>> Okay.

1:29:37And I'll just note in general too, I

1:29:38think it's um,

1:29:40uh, if it's there's an opportunity to

1:29:41ask the questions, um, if there's not an

1:29:43answer, I think it at least gives the

1:29:44sponsors an idea of how to prepare. So,

1:29:46that's okay if the answer is no. Okay.

1:29:49>> Okay. Um, I think I

1:29:52will move to um, I'd love to understand

1:29:54more about the mandatory reversion

1:29:57uh, and whether the sponsor has spoken

1:29:59with anyone in the construction

1:30:01industry to understand what sort of

1:30:03chilling effect a mandatory reversion

1:30:05might have on new construction in the

1:30:07out years.

1:30:10>> I have done.

1:30:14>> Um, I'm also curious about um,

1:30:17the threshold for production. So, 30%of

1:30:2010,000 homes is 3,000. And so,

1:30:23if I'm reading this correctly, it's the

1:30:25intent of the sponsor that if we did not

1:30:27build 3,000 homes anywhere in the next

1:30:2910 years because of any reason, interest

1:30:32rates, materials costs, labor, anything

1:30:34of that nature, these changes would

1:30:36still sunset. Even if the fact that we

1:30:40didn't produce 3,000 homes was unrelated

1:30:43to the zoning reform. Um, is is that the

1:30:45intent that it 3,000 homes or or

1:30:48or nothing, or this goes away?

1:30:52>> I think that's a good um,

1:30:55that's a good reason to have a look back

1:30:56period and I appreciate uh,

1:30:59uh, your uh,

1:31:01amendment to uh, have a 5-year look back

1:31:04period to assess whether that's been

1:31:05effective. But, I would also point out

1:31:07that nothing here prohibits building by

1:31:10anyone else other than those seeking to

1:31:12have the tax abatement.

1:31:16So, it does not exclude

1:31:18other builders.

1:31:23>> Can you point to where in the ordinance

1:31:25that is reflected?

1:31:28>> There is nothing in in in the S version

1:31:31or in M Hawk that says someone who wants

1:31:35to build somewhere can't go ahead and

1:31:37build.

1:31:39I think that the the point is they're

1:31:41trying to

1:31:43uh,

1:31:44to uh,

1:31:45im-improve their financial um,

1:31:48outlook by being able to have

1:31:52the tax abatement.

1:31:54So, if someone wants to build and

1:31:56doesn't care about the tax abatement,

1:31:59there's nothing here that says they

1:32:00can't.

1:32:02>> Uh

1:32:03I'm

1:32:06I'm unclear how that is germane since

1:32:08the tax abatement only applies to eight

1:32:09or more units.

1:32:12Um but I'll I'll I'll move on.

1:32:14>> Okay.

1:32:15>> Yeah, I'm going to jump in and also

1:32:16remind folks we want to be careful not

1:32:17to get into debate.

1:32:20Um I I have a a whole host of questions

1:32:23on the um dimensional standards. Um

1:32:27but I I think

1:32:29what I'm

1:32:31what I'm gathering is that perhaps the

1:32:37Well,

1:32:43Yeah, I I think I think I'm I'm a little

1:32:46perplexed at how this interacts with the

1:32:48land use plan and the land use

1:32:49designations, not just the zoning. And

1:32:51so, um I think uh in comparing, for

1:32:54example, um CMR medium and those uh

1:32:56dimensional standards um with the zoning

1:33:02the zoning types that are included in,

1:33:04say,

1:33:06um

1:33:07our mixed residential compact mixed

1:33:10residential low.

1:33:12I'm I'm trying to understand how these

1:33:14restrictions interact with one another

1:33:15because I I I don't see congruence

1:33:17between what's written here and what's

1:33:19in our land use plan designations. And

1:33:21so, I think my encouragement to the

1:33:22sponsor would be um

1:33:25regularizing some of this with the the

1:33:27land use plan would be really helpful

1:33:29for all parties to understand exactly

1:33:31what's going on here in a technical

1:33:32fashion. Um

1:33:35And I I'm actually curious if planning

1:33:37has any comments. I I don't know how

1:33:38much time planning has had to review the

1:33:40S version and the dimension dimensional

1:33:42standards that are contained therein

1:33:43[clears throat]. But um I would be very

1:33:45interested to hear planning's input or

1:33:47thoughts on the congruence here. Thank

1:33:49you.

1:33:53>> I would just say that that the uh uh

1:33:55information memorandum does cite back

1:33:58directly to the land use plan in several

1:34:00places.

1:34:05>> Okay, and Oscar planning would also like

1:34:07to respond to the question.

1:34:11>> Sorry through the chair, could you

1:34:12repeat that? I think we might be able to

1:34:14provide some general ideas, but just so

1:34:15we have a the question absolutely clear.

1:34:18>> Yeah, so I'm I'm looking at um

1:34:21the fact that the way that that's

1:34:22overlay is written would actually reduce

1:34:25some zoning flexibility in certain

1:34:26areas, but um

1:34:29that there's some some interplay between

1:34:34CMR medium restricting heights to 30 ft.

1:34:38"Quote"if the underlying zone is R1,

1:34:39even though this particular category of

1:34:41the land use plan could absolutely be

1:34:43understood to allow higher buildings

1:34:44than 30 ft. Uh

1:34:47I'm seeing that the dimensional

1:34:49standards in some cases are more

1:34:50restrictive than the base zoning

1:34:52which I think creates again a point of

1:34:55conflict. The rear setback is larger in

1:34:57CMR medium than in the lower density CMR

1:34:59low. I'm wondering about that. Um

1:35:01similar situation with urban high and

1:35:04TSD corridor and town center. Um

1:35:07I there's there are a lot of places

1:35:09where it seems like this

1:35:10uh

1:35:12this proposal gives us both sometimes

1:35:14more restrictive and sometimes

1:35:17le-less restrictive

1:35:19parameters and I would just I would

1:35:21appreciate your technical feedback on

1:35:23that.

1:35:24>> Through the chair, um I'm not sure if I

1:35:26have the most recent version of the

1:35:28dimensional standards table. Um but I do

1:35:31recall looking at one and it did seem in

1:35:33a couple of instances if there were

1:35:35still special rules for B3

1:35:38or B1A or B1B it might have made um

1:35:41things a little bit more restrictive in

1:35:42some cases. Um R4A is another one. R4A

1:35:45currently does not have a minimum lot

1:35:47size. It's just whatever in subdivision

1:35:48and I believe that that may have been.

1:35:50So I think, um, again I, I don't have

1:35:53the the most current version in front of

1:35:54me, but I we would want to look at, um

1:35:58w-, in which cases the dimensional

1:35:59standards might be becoming more

1:36:01restrictive,

1:36:02um, and then, and whether that would

1:36:03create a situation where, within side

1:36:06the M hop overlay, you might have an R4A

1:36:08zone that's

1:36:10more restricted than an R4A zone outside

1:36:12of it, or or something like that. I I

1:36:13don't know if the plan would even allow

1:36:15that, but um, it's just something that I

1:36:16I think we would be interested in

1:36:18looking at. And again, as we mentioned

1:36:19before, as long as the intent was clear,

1:36:22we could go through trying to figure out

1:36:24how to do that. Um, but but yeah, there

1:36:27were there were some pieces. And again,

1:36:29I I'm not sure that you know, lots like

1:36:31R3A or R5 were included. And so, we

1:36:33would just again, um,

1:36:35request just clarity on that with

1:36:36whichever way it goes. So, um, but I

1:36:39will have to look a little bit more

1:36:40closely, but I I I have an older

1:36:42version, but I I do recall that those

1:36:44were some of the things we highlighted.

1:36:45Thank you.

1:36:47>> Um, were you were you given an

1:36:49opportunity to review this substitute

1:36:51version before it was introduced?

1:37:06>> Through the chair, I think we received

1:37:08it with anybody else everyone else

1:37:09received. I don't think uh, we reviewed

1:37:11we received a copy of this before it was

1:37:13presented. Um, I I don't recall, but

1:37:15that's

1:37:16we're all racking our brains, but I'm

1:37:18I'm ready to be wrong in that, but I I

1:37:19don't think we saw it. We we we weren't

1:37:21involved in creating it. I can say that.

1:37:24>> Okay. Thank you. That's helpful.

1:37:26>> Okay, um, Mr. Presby in the queue.

1:37:29[laughter]

1:37:30>> Yeah. Um, so I just wanted to circle

1:37:32back briefly because I believe earlier

1:37:35when um, Ms. Park spoke and then the

1:37:38chair uh, summarized um, her her

1:37:40statements, I don't think that it was

1:37:41actually correct. I, I, I, I think what

1:37:43I heard Ms. Park say is that, uh, she's

1:37:46interested in,

1:37:48um, working through the original

1:37:49amendment to see if we can come to

1:37:51something that looks to her like, uh, a

1:37:54compromise, which would mean that she's

1:37:57not planning on

1:37:58bringing forward the S version

1:38:01initially,

1:38:02but to work through the original

1:38:04version. I just want to make sure that

1:38:05that's correct cuz if that's correct

1:38:07then a lot of what we're doing today may

1:38:08not be

1:38:09necessary if if that's your intention to

1:38:12start with the original version, see if

1:38:14we can actually make that something

1:38:16that's reasonable for us all to pass. If

1:38:19that doesn't happen, then of course you

1:38:20have the right to bring forward, you

1:38:22know, any version you want. I just want

1:38:24to make sure that I understand the

1:38:25intention so when we leave here today,

1:38:27we have a sense of what's going to

1:38:28happen at our next meeting. Can you

1:38:29speak to that?

1:38:30>> I think that's correct.

1:38:31>> Okay.

1:38:32>> I think that's correct and

1:38:34I think if

1:38:35out of 14 amendments, if we could reach

1:38:38some consensus on five or six, I think

1:38:41that would that would be great.

1:38:43>> Right. And as the as the chair said, we

1:38:44can only talk about one at a time. So I

1:38:46think if if understanding the intent is

1:38:48helpful so we have a sense of how how

1:38:50how to go into the next next stage. So I

1:38:52I appreciate the clarification there.

1:38:53Thank you.

1:38:55>> Okay, Mr. Martinez.

1:38:57>> Thank you, chair. Just one question and

1:38:58one observation.

1:38:59Uh

1:39:02page six

1:39:06two

1:39:08under D

1:39:10Uh oh, under actually C, it is the

1:39:12seismic additions, right? The areas

1:39:15classified as a

1:39:17And I just wanted to clarify.

1:39:22You don't intend to stop development in

1:39:24those

1:39:25in those areas

1:39:27for what's available for people to do

1:39:29today. Is it

1:39:31your position that this amendment would

1:39:33just

1:39:34limit the overlays applicability in

1:39:36those particular areas?

1:39:37>> Correct.

1:39:38>> How does that make those areas safer?

1:39:41Um will be the question that I would

1:39:42raise.

1:39:43Uh and so I think that that would be the

1:39:46why may be important to communicate that

1:39:48because if like

1:39:51someone I had a conversation today for

1:39:53example and someone said we don't really

1:39:55we don't build in marshlands because

1:39:57they're marshlands.

1:39:58And I don't know that that's true or

1:39:59not, but they thought it was true and um

1:40:02and then I think

1:40:05maps change. And so it'd be just an

1:40:08interesting to to kind of

1:40:11cuz I don't know that this would not be

1:40:12an amendment coming off to the side. And

1:40:14I think that people have talked about

1:40:16that as well. And so I expect that we

1:40:17will debate that as well, even if it's

1:40:20not in the S version. But just for the

1:40:22sake of anyone who looks at that

1:40:23particular aspect, um the clarification

1:40:26of why I think is important. Uh

1:40:29especially meets like the science behind

1:40:31things.

1:40:32>> In the observation, um, to the to the to

1:40:35the public more than to the to the

1:40:36sponsors,

1:40:37um,

1:40:39I believe,

1:40:41and, uh, just as a reminder, and I'll

1:40:42say it again, and I have repeated this,

1:40:44and I will say it on the dais, but I

1:40:45think essentially

1:40:47for a reminder of the public process,

1:40:51the original sponsor's intent was to

1:40:55always work through amendments in real

1:40:58time

1:40:59because we started this process as a

1:41:02carryover to the Tisdale project, which

1:41:05was predates the election

1:41:08of new members.

1:41:10Um and so we had an intentionality of

1:41:13specifically honoring what other

1:41:15people's complaints were in the past

1:41:18by saying people would say,"You brought

1:41:20an S version and dropped it on our laps

1:41:22and then you're changing it again."So we

1:41:24intended to not

1:41:26do that on purpose and kind of let the

1:41:27sausage be more

1:41:29obvious and transparent um in that way.

1:41:32So I just wanted to put that on the

1:41:33record for folks that have a little a

1:41:35little foundation. I appreciate the the

1:41:37sponsor of the S version's willingness

1:41:39to kind of work through that process as

1:41:41well. But for anyone who's wondering,

1:41:44you know, where our intent was with

1:41:46respect to the overall process and why

1:41:48we didn't introduce other versions and

1:41:50what our intent is, I think that

1:41:52historical uh context is important.

1:41:56Thank you.

1:41:56>> Okay, thank you. Um I know we are um

1:41:59just at our time. I'm going to very

1:42:01briefly turn to Ms. Baldwin Day to ask

1:42:03her to describe amendments 9, 10, and

1:42:0511. Those are the ones we have not

1:42:06gotten to. We will not have time for

1:42:08questions, unfortunately. So, write your

1:42:10questions down and save them for

1:42:13the next bit and then I'll at the very

1:42:15end I'm going to cover kind of next

1:42:16steps and make one correction on the

1:42:18record. So, Ms. Waldenday.

1:42:20>> Thank you. So, amendment nine is really

1:42:23the tracking and look back that I think

1:42:25is really important anytime we pass new

1:42:27policy. It's important for us to

1:42:29understand what happens. Are we

1:42:31successful? Can we measure our progress?

1:42:33And so, I think it'd be really useful

1:42:36for planning as they have done with

1:42:37other

1:42:38other such

1:42:40ordinances to actually evaluate how

1:42:42we're doing

1:42:43over a period of five years. So, annual

1:42:46reporting over a period of five years

1:42:48and then after five years to evaluate

1:42:52the overall impacts on right-of-way. And

1:42:54I think that that will give us long

1:42:56enough to have seen what does this

1:42:58actually look like in real life and also

1:43:00to be able to compare say what happens

1:43:03in R2A within Mhop R2A not within Mhop.

1:43:07I think those are useful comparisons to

1:43:08do side-by-side. Happy to answer

1:43:10questions about this one.

1:43:12>> We're not going to have time for

1:43:12questions. If you can just cover them.

1:43:14>> I believe everyone can read.

1:43:17So [laughter], I think the other two are

1:43:19fairly straightforward. Amendment 10

1:43:21just clarifies comprehensive plan and

1:43:24comprehensive plan interpretation and

1:43:25where the authority for interpretation

1:43:28of the comprehensive plan resides and

1:43:31then 11 is a very small technical

1:43:35adjustment to add Mhop to the list of

1:43:38overlay zoning districts so that we can

1:43:40use the abbreviation elsewhere in code.

1:43:43And that is it.

1:43:44>> Okay, thank you. So, that

1:43:45[clears throat] covers the amendments

1:43:46that we have before us today. I think we

1:43:48heard a little discussion about

1:43:49potential additional things coming

1:43:51forward. One correction I'll make that I

1:43:53asked to be circulated to members was

1:43:56long-range planning manager McKenna

1:43:58Foster said that the request for a

1:44:00recent case was to go to 36 feet. It was

1:44:03actually a height increase to 31 feet.

1:44:05So, members have that available.

1:44:07Just a a

1:44:09to make sure the record's clear. So,

1:44:10lastly I'll say um, that this is on our

1:44:12schedule to be on our agenda for

1:44:15uh, Wednesday, November

1:44:16sorry, November 4th. Uh, remember we

1:44:19have moved our meeting to Wednesday to

1:44:20accommodate the election. Please make

1:44:22sure you vote by Tuesday. And um, uh,

1:44:24also to say that we have a number of

1:44:26public hearing items and other

1:44:27substantive items on our agenda. So,

1:44:30assembly leadership is looking hard at

1:44:32uh, how to prioritize those things. Um,

1:44:34so as of right now this is on our

1:44:35agenda, but just to note there are

1:44:36multiple other things competing for

1:44:38time. So, we will be working out exactly

1:44:40when and how uh, we take this up. In the

1:44:42meantime, uh, we will be adjourned for

1:44:44today. This is our last work session.

1:44:46Thank you everyone.

```*