SB 50-MUNICIPAL COMPREHENSIVE PLANS: HOUSING  [Contains discussion of SB 14.] 3:16:50 PM CO-CHAIR HALL announced the first order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 50(L&C), "An Act relating to the comprehensive plans of first and second class boroughs."] 3:17:03 PM SENATOR FORREST DUNBAR, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, presented CSSB 50(L&C). He gave prepared introductory remarks [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: SB 50 is a common-sense measure to bring more focus to Alaska's housing crisis. Every member of this body is familiar with the scarcity of adequate housing the state, and the negative effect that it has on our families, community, and economy. The State of Alaska already recognizes the importance of community planning. Title 29 includes a long-standing requirement for first and second-class boroughs to adopt and periodically update comprehensive plans. The state suggests, but does not prescribe, four components of these plans. In practice, many boroughs follow these suggestions. However, housing does not fit neatly into any of the suggested categories, so it is sometimes overlooked, or taken for granted. SB 50 will add a housing development plan as a new suggested component for local comprehensive plans. I'll note that this bill does not create a mandate or unfunded burden for borough governments. It does not require them to redo or immediately update their current plans. The bill simply encourages them to emphasize housing in their next scheduled comprehensive plan updates, which often happen about a ten-year cycle. In the process, boroughs will assess how regulations impact housing supply, engage and inform the public, and recommend reforms. 3:18:36 PM HAHLEN BEHNKEN, Staff, Senator Forrest Dunbar, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Senator Dunbar, prime sponsor of SB 50, gave the sectional analysis [included in the committee file], which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1: AS 29.40.030(a): Adds a new subsection 5 to AS 29.40.030(a) stating that a housing development plan will now be one of the components that may be included in a comprehensive plan. Redesignates the former subsection 5 as subsection 6. 3:19:20 PM JAMES DEVENS, Valdez City Councilmember, Valdez City Council, began invited testimony on CSSB 50(L&C). He stated that he has served as a member of the Valdez City Council for a number of years. He reported that an overhaul of Valdez' local comprehensive plan, one of his first major municipal projects, included a "specific and ongoing" focus on housing. He opined that this has resulted in enormous benefit to the community, reporting the construction of many housing units during his time on the council. He remarked that Valdez has not yet reached its "difficult and lofty" housing goals and spoke about the high costs associated with modern housing. He offered his belief that setting housing as a specific goal of its comprehensive plan allowed the City of Valdez to achieve that goal more successfully. He offered his support for CSSB 50(L&C). 3:21:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked if there was anything that prevents boroughs from making a housing plan. SENATOR DUNBAR replied no. He explained that the proposed legislation originated from a discussion with a housing planner in Anchorage on the ways that the State of Alaska could help encourage housing. He explained that Alaska does not mandate what is or isn't in the comprehensive plans, to his surprise, though he offered his belief that local governments create their comprehensive plans with the state laws in mind. He stated that CSSB 50(L&C) would apply only to first- and second-class boroughs, and would not apply to home rule municipalities, such as Anchorage, Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked how many first- and second-class boroughs have comprehensive plans. 3:23:26 PM MR. BEHNKEN replied that every first- and second-class borough has a comprehensive plan, as required by law; however, he reiterated, there is no requirement from the State of Alaska on the content of the comprehensive plans. 3:23:45 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked what other cities and states are doing for the development of vacant spaces, such as empty parking lots or empty office spaces. He asked if there was anything that could be added to CSSB 50(L&C) to incentivize redevelopment. 3:24:29 PM SENATOR DUNBAR responded that other states have begun to take zoning authority away from local governments, who have been resistant to housing development. He cautioned that Alaska was not yet ready for that kind of heavy-handedness. He noted that Anchorage, Alaska, recently repealed its parking minimum, which he called a "positive reform." He referred to his bill from the prior year, Senate Bill 77, regarding redevelopment and "the blighted property tax," which he noted, did not make it to the House floor. He referred to another bill of his, SB 14, regarding Alaska Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) loans. He suggested that SB 50 was able to pass the senate body unanimously due in part to its zero fiscal note. He offered his concern that, were the state to provide for its own incentive programs, it would increase the fiscal note. He further noted that the state could change what kind of property tax rebates were allowed at the local level. 3:26:26 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested amending the proposed legislation by adding local property tax breaks. SENATOR DUNBAR noted that local property tax breaks did pass the legislature the prior year. He clarified that the provision regarding blighted properties tax did not pass the prior year. He noted that there are approximately 300 vacant units in Mountainview and opined that a blighted properties tax would be very useful. CO-CHAIR FIELDS offered his agreement and appreciation for CSSB 50(L&C). He additionally welcomed ideas for amendments to the proposed legislation from the bill sponsor. 3:27:33 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the difference between a "housing plan" and a "housing development plan." SENATOR DUNBAR offered his belief that there were no legal definitions in state law for "housing plan" or "housing development plan." He noted that the name change [from "housing plan" to "housing development plan"] was a friendly amendment from Senator Yundt and explained that he did not want the proposed legislation to be interpreted in such a way where one could apply more "restrictive zoning and reduce the amount of housing development through a housing plan." He further stated the intent of CSSB 50(L&C) was that a "housing development plan would ... explain in the comprehensive process how you're going to ... build and renovate, redevelop the housing needed to have affordable, attainable housing for your population." He provided a personal anecdote illustrating how difficult it currently was to find housing in Anchorage, Alaska. REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER queried if the proposed legislation carried the implication that government is responsible for housing people. SENATOR DUNBAR responded that the government is not responsible for building housing. He argued that the government may be responsible for transportation in the sense that it is responsible for the roads and trails, which is implied by transportation planning. He suggested that it is the government's job "to not create regulations so restrictive that housing becomes impossible to build." He noted that the roots of modern zoning were to prevent certain kinds of construction in certain areas, and he desired to "move past that." REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER commented that there are good reasons for a community not to build on a landslide zone or a flood zone. 3:31:25 PM REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether the proposed legislation would require immediate modification. SENATOR DUNBAR replied that CSSB 50(L&C) would not require immediate revision of comprehensive plans, rather upon renewal of comprehensive plans on their regular schedules. 3:31:59 PM CO-CHAIR HALL announced that CSSB 50(L&C) was held over.