April 13, :30 PM

Transcription

1 TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING Planning & Development Center Main Conference Room, 1 st Floor 4700 Elmore Road Anchorage, Alaska 2:30 PM Members Present: Name Representing Todd Vanhove Alaska Dept. of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF), Central Region Planning Manager Wolfgang Junge DOT&PF, Central Region Stephanie Mormilo MOA/Traffic Department Abul Hassan MOA/Public Transportation Department (PTD) Brian Lindamood Alaska Railroad Corporation DeeAnn Fetko MOA/Dept. of Health & Human Services (DHHS) Carol Wong MOA/Planning Department Cindy Heil* (Acting) Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) Also in attendance: Name Craig Lyon Teresa Brewer Vivian Underwood Aaron Jongenelen Joni Wilm Jamie Acton Bart Rudolph Teri Buck Laurie Cummings Katherine Wood Steve Johnson Sean Baski Julie Jessen Cathy Gleason Matt Stone Aves Thompson Gloria Manni Chris Salerno Jim Amundsen Brad Coy Virgil St. Aime Representing MOA/Planning MOA/Planning MOA/Planning DOT&PF MOA/Planning MOA/Planning MOA/PTD ADEC HDR, Inc. HDR, Inc. Bike Anchorage DOT&PF HDR, Inc. Turnagain Community Council HDR, Inc. Alaska Trucking Association MOA/DHHS/Air Quality DOT&PF DOWL *Policy Committee Member

2 Page 2 of CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL CHAIR MORMILO called the meeting to order at 2:31 p.m. Carol Wong represented the MOA Planning Department in Hal Hart s absence. Sharen Walsh and Jerry Hansen were excused. Dr. Jim Brown was absent. A quorum was established prior to DeeAnn Fetko arriving at 2:35 p.m. 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ANNOUNCEMENT CRAIG LYON encouraged public involvement in this meeting of the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee. He explained staff would first make their presentation, followed by any comments from Committee members, and the floor would then be open to public comment. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA MS. HEIL moved to approve the agenda. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. Hearing no objections, the agenda was approved. 4. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES February 9, 2017 MS. HEIL moved to approve the minutes. MR. HASSAN seconded. MS. WONG disclosed that she will abstain from voting on the minutes as she did not participate in the February 9, 2017 meeting. Hearing no objections, the minutes were approved. 5. BUSINESS ITEMS a. Freight Mobility Study (FMS) BACKGROUND: In coordination with the AMATS Freight Advisory Committee, the local freight community and partner agencies, such as the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Alaska Division of Federal Highway Administration, and the selected contractor, HDR Inc. developed the AMATS Freight Mobility Study (FMS). The project initiated in September 2015 and has resulted in a final draft for introduction and review by the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee (TAC). During several stages of the project, major milestones that included the creation of goals, objectives, freight index/commodity flows, selection criteria, a short-term, intermediate, and long-term project list was crafted with input and review from freight stakeholders and the committee. The FMS will help to identify not only appropriate freight projects, but also strategies to improve freight safety, goods movement, mobility, performance, and congestion on area roads. The resulting vision statement from the plan states,

3 Page 3 of 18 Anchorage has a highly mobile, safe, and efficient freight delivery system that provides safe, cost effective, sustainable, secure, and reliable freight mobility; and supports job creation, economic growth, and promotes improved quality of life for the area s residents. TERESA BREWER presented the study and added that the FMS provides an inventory of existing freight infrastructure and needs found within the Anchorage area. On August 24, 2016 and September 21, 2016 further clarification and comments on the FMS Final Draft were sought from the AMATS Freight Advisory Committee (FAC). The FAC initially approved this study on October 26, 2016 yet the committee felt additional time was needed to address further comments and responses. As a result, comments were gathered from October 28th to March 31, The FAC held two work sessions to further discuss these issues and on March 31, 2017 approved the draft Freight Mobility Study for recommendation to the TAC. In specific, additional data to explain freight movements and maps to clarify future infrastructure needs were requested to be brought forward from the plan s appendices; and comments from the Turnagain Community Council regarding road improvement project along Northern Lights Boulevard and Postmark Drive were of concern. In addition, the Final Draft Freight Mobility Study was brought before the TAC on November 3, 2016 as an informational item and comments were requested from the TAC for the period October 28th to December 21, A total of 112 comments were received and a comment/response summary was provided in the packet. MR. HASSAN referred to page 76 of the Draft FAC and asked what concerns were heard from the various communities regarding pedestrian walkability access points and navigation as people traverse these routes, which are proposed regional truck routes. MS. BREWER replied that there are existing freight routes and road improvements necessary for walkability and livability, and they all have to co-exist together. The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) did review this and submitted their comments. LAURIE CUMMINGS with HDR, Inc. clarified that no major concerns were expressed on those corridors. CHAIR MORMILO opened the discussion to public comments. CATHY GLEASON, Acting President, Turnagain Community Council informed the committee that the council provided comments and these have been included in the packet. With regard to the truck route and current use on W. Northern Lights between Postmark Drive and Minnesota Drive, there are a few things the council definitely had problems with and presented them at the FAC meetings. One concern was in the Comment/Response document that said improvements to W. Northern Lights between Postmark Drive and Lake Hood Drive were to accommodate increased freight traffic. Taking into consideration that most of that distance goes through municipal dedicated parkland, Earthquake Park, and then immediately hits, almost exclusively, the residential Turnagain neighborhood between Nathaniel Court and Minnesota Drive, the council is very concerned about increased truck traffic through the neighborhood and the dedicated parkland; and they do not want anything that would initiate increased traffic as they are currently in a toleration mode. Several community councils have received complaints over the years mostly about FedEx and UPS truck traffic. Turnagain Elementary School is also on that road, which is another major concern for them. She added that Project 119 is a little confusing because she has two different versions of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan with one projecting a cost of $14.9

4 Page 4 of 18 million and the other is, she believes, $19.9 million. The council came up with an alternative idea with regard to eliminating any kind of construction project that would potentially increase speed and be more of an invitation for a truck route to increase through their neighborhood, which would be for truck traffic to travel from Postmark Drive to take Lake Hood Drive up to Northern Lights. Lake Hood Drive is on airport property and is a flat, wideshouldered, not heavily used road that is well-maintained by the airport year-round. It would be a much better route to get from their facilities on Postmark Drive to the beginning of the residential neighborhoods in Turnagain instead of spending up to $20 million on a road project through a municipal dedicated parkland. John Johansen represents the airport and attends their monthly council meeting had pointed out that there are two stop signs, instead of one. Currently there is a stop sign at Postmark and one entering the residential neighborhood. Lake Hood has a four-way stop at the snow dump intersection and one entering Northern Lights. Her husband recommended eliminating the four-way stop and just have the stop signs at the snow dump and on the road to the south. She is not aware of the cost to remove two stop signs, but she will bet it does not cost $20 million. The Turnagain Community Council highly recommends the TAC consider that alternative in the Freight Mobility Study. She added that the council identified it as not being an ideal scenario for truck traffic to go through Northern Lights, but have accepted it and know that it is happening. Once you turn on W. Northern Lights from Postmark there are seven traffic lights, including the one at Minnesota. They consist of one at Arrow; one at the school crossing; one at Wisconsin Street; one at Turnagain Street; one at Forest Park Drive; one at Lois; and the one at Minnesota. If that is efficient for truck traffic, she is amazed because the majority of the time she gets stopped at every light. She does not know how efficiency is determined and why this needs to go through the Turnagain neighborhood, especially when they do not consist of local delivery trucks because they go straight to Minnesota and out, but it would behoove this body to take all of this into consideration and recommend to the Policy Committee, at the very least, to put an alternative use until one gets to the Turnagain neighborhood; and even beyond that to point out all of the potential ways to be stopped before they get to Minnesota through a neighborhood that is exclusively residential, with the exception of Rustic Goat. Also, in front of Turnagain Elementary School where the morning freight delivery trucks travel through during morning school time. In response to Mr. Hassan s question regarding peak delivery hours, MS. BREWER stated that one of the case studies included in this was from a larger metropolitan area, such as New York. Anchorage is smaller geographically, so those techniques may or may not work as effectively, but it is certainly something they will look into and electronic entries to businesses and key cards may be part of the concern with truck associations. AVES THOMPSON, Chairman, Freight Advisory Committee, noted that this issue had been discussed. If one looks at the FedEx and UPS commodities that are being delivered; the packages that are delivered to businesses and small packages to residences, typically, are offices not open during the evening or other hours when traffic would be lessened. He is aware of the concern for increased freight traffic on W. Northern Lights, and it was never the Freight Advisory Committee s intention to promote this as a major truck route for truck tractors, semi-trailers, or long-combination vehicles. They had envisioned it to just make the necessary improvements to provide for a safe and efficient operation. There was no effort to develop any larger scale use of W. Northern Lights, but it is a useful road that has been used for 30 or 40 years with back access to the airport. These issues were discussed during our meeting.

5 Page 5 of 18 MR. HASSAN asked if the passing of the resolution has a binding effect, during its term before renewal, for the ability of a community to have the conversation of trying to put forth or implement a concept such as off-peak use for freight. Secondly, does that sort of bind the conversation moving forward with other open plans, through AMATS, about the conflict between freight mobility and truck routes, and pedestrian walkability? He just needs to know if it is a binding effect or does that still leave room for conversation down the line. MS. BREWER thinks that AMATS is federally mandated to provide multimodal access and opportunity and mobility, which also includes freight. Freight is only six percent of the overall traffic in the area, but if goods are going to be delivered, everyone is going to have to work together and that has been happening with the bike plan, the Freight Mobility Plan, the trails, and the overall MTP. In the overall MTP, you are looking at how the entire network operates together and freight is just an element of that. All of these can work together by developing policies that can be implemented. A plan is just a plan with certain projects that can be implemented depending on funding. CHAIR MORMILO further explained that as her role in this, being in project development, she likes seeing an updated freight plan that identifies primary corridors and what needs to happen for doubles with an agreed upon route between DOT and MOA. As part of the National Highway System they need to make sure that goods could get into and out of Anchorage because the Port is not just serving Anchorage, but the entire state. It is more so when making decisions regarding project development and specifically looking at an intersection because they try to recognize what the design table needs to be in those cases. It is not saying that they ignore the pedestrians and bicyclists that also need to use that intersection, but when looking at an intersection, such as Tudor and C Street, she needs to make sure that it can accommodate the large trucks turning and, unfortunately, there are always compromises. In being able to recognize where freight needs to be a priority on these primary areas, and vice-versa, she has had to make decisions on several municipal projects that do not provide for large truck turning events, so in her opinion, having documentation that at least guides at a planning level provides those considerations when she is looking at designs. She added that with any plan, she never feels that it dictates design to her and it will always be on a case-by-case basis. MR. THOMPSON agreed, but everyone has to remember that the Freight Advisory Committee is composed of non-engineers and non-technical people. These are people from the industry who deal with logistics and movement of freight. What they tried to do with this plan is to identify areas of priority and concern. If they have a concern with a particular intersection or an area that might be improved, the committee does not trying to dictate any specific project specifications or plans because that will all be worked out in the process as a project moves through the planning stages to completion. CHAIR MORMILO clarified with Ms. Gleason that Project 119 is for the upgrade of W. Northern Lights Boulevard between Postmark and Lake Hood Drive, and that this is the project that was mentioned in the MTP. MS. WONG referred to the policy map in the document that states it will be replaced by a new adopted policy map. She stated that it will not have a new adopted policy map, but a new Land Use Plan Map, which will provide greater specificity in terms of land use types and land use designations. She pointed to page 72 that has an extensive section regarding workforce and community education and added that once the routes have been designated

6 Page 6 of 18 that there should also be an emphasis with the actual trucking industry to let their drivers know alternative routes, so that they can utilize those routes rather than picking the shortest line between A and B, and making up their own routes. She requested to have that narrative placed in this section. CHAIR MORMILO informed the committee that every building permit submitted that has any sort of hauling activity is reviewed by the Traffic Department and every project is asked to provide a haul route. The department specifically may require them to follow a hierarchy of roads and what is required by Title 9. It always ends up that if they can use the highway, to use the highway. If there is no highway access, then use a major arterial; if not a major arterial then go down a step and use a minor arterial. If it ends up being on a collector road it is generally because the destination is specifically on that road. MS. WONG added that that is the catch because building permits are applied for when a building is being altered, so if that warehouse does not get altered for 10 or 15 years down the line, then how is that reviewed? CHAIR MORMILO replied that it is related to the construction and not related to the direct operation of their facilities. MR. HASSAN moved to recommend approval of the Freight Mobility Study. MS. HEIL seconded. MS. WONG moved to amend page 72, under Education, for staff to include language that the freight operators be encouraged to review with their employees the established truck routes as provided in this plan on a regular basis. MS. HEIL seconded. CHAIR MORMILO restated the motion. MS. WONG spoke to her motion and explained that, as Chair Mormilo pointed out, unless that business comes in for a building permit, the MOA does not look at that issue. If a business does not come in for 10 or 15 years, that is quite a window of not having that conversation. CHAIR MORMILO restated the amendment. Hearing no objections, the amendment passed. MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED Hearing no objections, the main motion as amended passed. MR. THOMPSON thanked the TAC and AMATS staff for the hard work and efforts put into this study.

7 Page 7 of 18 b Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update Public Involvement Plan BACKGROUND: The TAC/CAC Review Draft Public Involvement Plan (PIP) for the 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) project was provided on March 24, 2017 to the AMATS Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for review and comment. The committees were notified that staff would seek approval of the Draft PIP on April 13th. The Draft PIP was also provided to the AMATS Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) and Freight Advisory Committee (FAC) for information and feedback with all comments being requested by April 4th. Comments received from the CAC and BPAC were compiled in the attached Comment/Response Summary, with staff s responses and recommended actions noted individually for each comment. VIVIAN UNDERWOOD presented the update and expressed that due to the Citizens Advisory Committee being used for the first time for the MTP, a lot of questions and comments arose regarding their internal process, and these will be addressed by staff. She spoke to a few of staff s recommendations in the Comment/Response Table and these are noted as follows: Page 7, Number 40: The recommended change is to replace the first person narrative with a proper noun. For example, use AMATS instead of we. Page 11, Number 62: Stricken text in the Table of Contents and 5.3. Page 25 in the PIP: To delete specific context with the names and phone numbers of those on the project team. Instead, staff will use an icon, which also appears throughout the Public Participation Plan, to make it simpler for the public, a one-stop shopping place to provide comments. She added that they had intended to have a Call for Nominations, but for this process, they need the Selection Criteria and that will be presented to the TAC in the future for approval to release that criteria for a two week public review period rather than rely on the CAC process. MS HEIL recommended addressing the comments individually. MR. LINDAMOOD clarified that this does not need approval by the Policy Committee and if it is not critical to have this approved today, it can be completed in May. He explained that he had ed to Mr. Lyon some substantial concerns on other issues that the Alaska Railroad has and suggested postponing this and scheduling a work session prior to approving the PIP. KATHERINE WOOD with HDR, Inc. commented that in terms of dependencies, yes, approving this document is really important. Essentially, they want to get this resolved prior to going forward with any public announcements, advertisements, and s. Discussion is taking place about holding a public meeting in the next two months, so this really does require approval before they can move forward with any of the other processes.

8 Page 8 of 18 MR. LINDAMOOD understands that, but if it is April 13th or May 11 th, will it affect any schedules by moving this to another time and taking into consideration the volume of other items that have to be worked through. MS. UNDERWOOD noted that their goal is to have the first public meeting in June and she feels the information should be provided to the public earlier than right before the public meeting, and inform the public that the website is available and the project is gearing up. She reiterated that the MTP PIP is consistent with the Public Participation Plan that the TAC already adopted and had already been released for a 45-day public review period. MS. HEIL believes the committee could handle the majority of these during the meeting because the whole point of this is for the TAC to discuss and make decisions. CHAIR MORMILO reminded the committee that two other business items remain to be heard and suggested tabling this and hear them first. MR. LINDAMOOD moved to table the MTP update to follow the action items. MS. HEIL seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. c. Winter Maintenance Forum BACKGROUND: Anchorage is a winter city that has long been celebrated for its diversity, promotion of active lifestyles and easy access to trails. These characteristics attract many people to relocate to and live in Anchorage, strengthening our economy and creating a community that cares about health and livability. This winter however, heavy snow accumulation combined with city and state budget shortfalls for maintenance have resulted in conditions that are very challenging for pedestrians, bicyclists, and people with disabilities on many Anchorage streets. Though narrow footpaths through the snow may be established over time in the absence of clearing, these are typically not usable by wheelchairs and are difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians to negotiate, particularly given the snow berms that commonly obstruct them. Under current municipal and state policy, Anchorage may use some bike lanes for snow storage until later cleared, sometimes requiring bicyclists as well as pedestrians and individuals in wheelchairs to use the travel lanes. Lack of usable paths, sidewalks, and bike lanes present a significant safety risk for Anchorage residents. The Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) recognizes that there is an opportunity to work with transportation agencies in Anchorage to provide a more efficient and cost effective system of winter maintenance, providing for Anchorage s non motorized public as well as the city s most vulnerable populations. JONI WILM explained that due to the significant amount of snowfall this winter, public complaints were received regarding the lack of ability to get around Anchorage, and the two pedestrian fatalities, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee decided to address the maintenance issues and discuss better, more efficient ways at less cost in light of the budget cuts. AMATS is hoping to host an inter-agency forum allowing an opportunity to discuss challenges faced and how partnerships could be improved to ensure that future years will do better at serving the non-motorized and disabled public.

9 Page 9 of 18 MR. LINDAMOOD does believe this is an issue, but is not clear as to what action is being requested by staff. If the committee recommends this, does it just go to AMATS staff to schedule the forum? MS. WILM explained that this would be an action item that the TAC would recommend approval to the Policy Committee (PC). If the PC approves of it, staff will schedule an inter-agency forum. MS. HEIL asked for clarification that this approach would be using AMATS funds to setup and operate the forum, which is why it would require approval by the PC. MR. LYON stated that all memorandums submitted by advisory committees have to be recommended by the TAC to the PC. In response to Ms. Wong s question as to who might be invited to serve on this inter-agency forum, MS. WILM thinks it could include Public Transit, DOT, Parks and Recreation, AMATS, Traffic Department, and Health and Human Services. CHAIR MORMILO suggested that Right-of-Way or Code Enforcement should be included in the discussion. MR. LYON believes that staff should research the state of the practice to see if there are any new ideas, such as Madison, Calgary, or Edmonton, and gather and provide that information to those that do the actual work for the state and the municipality for their input. MR. LINDAMOOD commented that it is still a matter of priorities. It is the decision to plow the road or plow the sidewalk, or plow a certain bike path and what are the ramifications of those choices. His biggest criticism of the whole bike plan was using the coastal trails as their primary east-west connectors and, in reality, they are never plowed for many reasons, but it is one of things that has exacerbated the problem because if you do not plow the sidewalks or the trails, then you have nothing. He thinks it will have to go beyond what is the latest and greatest technique to melt snow, and look for policy type decisions to solve the problems. It cannot just be limited to what can be used to remove the snow. MS. HEIL added that this couples with education because people do not understand that there are delays due to clearing the main roads before sidewalks. MS. WILM informed the committee that the Mayor of Madison just provided a presentation showing that Madison plows all of the roads first, followed by the bike lanes and facilities, and neighborhoods are plowed last. Your residential street would not get plowed until all of the bike facilities had been cleared. Finland just packs the snow on the trails, they do not plow them. MR. HASSAN recommended that the research with the legal obligation is utilizing federal funds for ADA accessibility in relation to the Department of Justice and that needs to be a major component of something like this, especially when discussing accessibility. Therefore, it is no longer a recommendation, but a requirement. CHAIR MORMILO asked for public comments.

10 Page 10 of 18 GLORIA MANNI noted that she participates in the Safe Route to Schools group and would like to know if the schools are aware of what happens during heavy snowfall winters when the roads are not cleared all the way to the sidewalk. On Hillcrest Drive going to West High, the walks are not completely cleared and the children, literally, walk into the paths of cars. She does not know the person that would best contribute to this as she is sure this is not the only area in Anchorage where it occurs, but she would like the schools to be involved this. MR. LINDAMOOD moved to recommend to the Policy Committee for approval directing AMATS to host an inter-agency forum. MS. HEIL seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. MS. WONG clarified that Mr. Hassan s comments regarding ADA and the Department of Justice will be included in the recommendation. d. Freight Advisory Committee Appointment Teri Lindseth BACKGROUND: The AMATS Freight Committee provides AMATS with advisory recommendations on freight mobility and access issues affecting the AMATS area. Currently, members are working on an updated Freight Mobility Study. Members of this eleven member committee serve rotating three-year terms. Committee bylaws limit members to two consecutive terms. MR. LYON requested for the to appoint Ms. Teri Lindseth as a replacement for Katie Gage. Ms. Gage will be moving from Alaska in May Ms. Lindseth served as a Freight Advisory Committee member from 2012 through 2015 and has agreed to fill the seat again. There were no comments. MS. HEIL moved to recommend to the Policy Committee approval of the appointment of Teri Lindseth to the Freight Advisory Committee. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. ITEM 5(b) that was previously tabled has been taken from the table and is now open for discussion. b Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Update Public Involvement Plan MR. HASSAN requested to replace the referencing of People Mover with Public Transportation Department. MS. UNDERWOOD suggested scheduling a standing work session prior to the TAC meetings.

11 Page 11 of 18 The committee discussed having a standing work session and what day would best suit the members and the noticing period for any action items on the agenda. MS. UNDERWOOD will send out a committee poll for every Tuesday of the same week that the TAC meeting is held each month. CHAIR MORMILO asked for public comments. CATHY GLEASON, Acting President, Turnagain Community Council spoke on her own behalf as the council has not voted on anything. She referred to page 4 of the document that addresses three large public meetings and the first one identifies issues on goals and objectives and criteria, and noted that those are things that really set the tone for the rest of the plan and is a pretty important meeting. When she heard that the first public meeting is scheduled for June, she knew they should all be available 24/7 twelve months out of the year. Attending the first meeting right at the beginning of summer when so many people are not engaged from a public perspective for so many reasons, and speaking for the community council, she mentioned that they meet June 1 st and do not meet in July or August. A lot of councils do not meet in June and take three months off in the summer. She does not have any suggestions, but this is a big concern for her and would like the TAC to take that into consideration when scheduling. Also on page 4, there is a list of ways to view outreach and they look good, but one thing she did not notice were s to groups that can then get the word out to their members, or their sub-committees, such as the Federation of Community Councils (FCC) so they can notify all of the individual community councils. She is not sure this is the appropriate place, but it should be added somewhere on the list when doing outreach. There is an issue with Federation of Community Councils being listed under Potential Stakeholders on page 9. She explained that the Federation of Community Councils is an umbrella organization that receives municipal funding to operate an office with an office manager. The sole purpose of this organization is to support the individual community councils, so to have one person from the Federation of Community Councils represent the entire community council family throughout the municipality is not appropriate. She happens to be the delegate for Turnagain on FCCs group and their responsibility as delegates is not to provide that role at all. The individual community councils need to be engaged because they are all stakeholders there by charter and need to be notified of every road project that comes along. The Federation of Community Councils should not be listed as a stakeholder. To list someone from each community council would be very burdensome and she does not have any answers, but this is not the appropriate way to engage community councils, which should be considered under the stakeholder section. MR. LYON explained that what really needs to be emphasized is the fact that this is a list, as it says, of potential stakeholders. AMATS is going to contact a lot more people than this with all of the different methods that they use. This is potential and there will be more groups added to this list; more groups contacted; and they will certainly contact the community councils individually by notifying them of all current items and invite them to the meetings. The choice was either to not put anyone on the list, or start a list and continue to add to it as someone is suggested. In response to Ms. Heil s request for a note to that respect be added, MS. ACTON stated that this comment is already in the Comment/Response Table.

12 Page 12 of 18 MS. HEIL moved to approve the AMATS Public Involvement Plan for the MTP. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. MS. HEIL recommended addressing these by pages rather than individually and wanted to discuss the list of comments submitted by the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) and what their role is. She explained that this is the first time using this CAC since it was changed from the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) due to their lengthy process in adding items to the PZC agenda and to allow more flexibility in providing comments and citizen input on AMATS plans and projects. Given that, she does not think they should continue with the way the CAC had worked in the past, but look at how AMATS wants to utilize this group of people to provide information to all of their plans using formal comments. In regard to Number 6, the CAC should have an opportunity and not be called in just quarterly, but call a quorum to vote and submit formal comments as needed. The public should also be made aware of what is happening and allowed the opportunity to comment during the meetings. She felt that a lot of the comments would be dealt with since this is a specific plan for the MTP if the CAC were given more of a formal role, but it has to consist of a quorum with a majority vote agreeing to the comments. She did not find any documentation in this plan that speaks to this. MR. LYON expressed that this is exactly how the CAC is envisioned. They are an AMATS advisory committee that is designed to be a geographic mix of every single Assembly district in this city. Just like the, the Freight Advisory Committee, and the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee, they are fully constituted and items will be presented in a formal manner to them as a business item before a quorum, and they will formally move on that item. MR. JONGENELEN pointed out that beginning on page 20, the PIP talks about deliverables, reviews and approvals, and it does note who is reviewing, and who is approving, and who is making recommendations. The CAC is noted to be reviewing a lot of things, but when recommending it becomes more of a formal process because everything goes before the TAC prior to going to the Policy Committee. When the CAC performs a review, they are given the opportunity to provide some kind of formal response to whatever was provided to them. In response to Ms. Heil s comment that she does not see any note of a formal recommend item, MS. UNDERWOOD referred again to page 20 noting that under the review definition it says, provide written comments on the working draft. She also mentioned that it is awkward doing it this way and thinks the internal process of the CAC should be hammered out. The CAC did make fair comments, but their process has not been fully identified yet. MS. ACTON added that this is a freshman committee and this is their first time providing comments. The CAC is still trying to figure out if they want to be engaged as a group of citizens. They are volunteers and she has noticed with this process that they are interested and are providing at a different level of engagement at any given time. She has fears of burning them out because some are really motivated in making resolutions, but others will only commit to four meetings a year, so care needs to be taken in what exact level the TAC is asking them to engage in, at this point, until the CAC truly understands what it means for them. There are former DOT, AMATS committee members, and those that know this process, but the other members are not as engaged to formalize this process. On some level, AMATS would like them to have ownership without staff having to tell them to make a formal

13 Page 13 of 18 resolution. If this is the guidance that the TAC would like staff to relay to the CAC to provide formal recommendations for each item, then the CAC should be made aware that this will be an expectation. CHAIR MORMILO noted that, the way she understands it, the comment that says the CAC only has a review and consultation role, they kind of do. All of the advisory committees are that way by providing formal recommendations to the TAC and it is at the discretion of the TAC to make modifications to any of the documents before forwarding them to the Policy Committee. She did not know if the CAC was just implying that they wanted a bigger role and actually having veto power. When just reading the text, you could be losing context on what the actual comment is about and her understanding is that the Freight Advisory Committee, the Bike/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the Citizens Advisory Committee (when they are reviewing it) are still reviewing it very similar to the way the TAC does, and making formal recommendations as to what that committee actually came to a consensus about. This is a little difficult because she interpreted it a little different than Ms. Heil did. MS. UNDERWOOD asked the TAC if guidance should be given by making this a requirement of all the advisory committees and how they should do their business, and note that in the bylaws, or somewhere, making it clear what is expected of them. The committee and staff discussed what advisory committees should make resolutions and formal recommendations, such as the Air Quality Committee, and the different levels of recommendations. CHAIR MORMILO noted that the question for the TAC is if there should be an expectation from the CAC that may not be as well-coordinated and established as the Planning and Zoning Commission. MS. HEIL asked if the TAC wanted eleven comments all over the board, or have all of the comments narrowed down to specific recommended items making it easier for the TAC to forward them to the Policy Committee. MR. LINDAMOOD pointed out that there are 63 comments in the table and 59 are all from the CAC. If this is their first time, from his perspective, the TAC needs to find a better or different way to engage what their expectations are. MR. JONGENELEN noted that he is confused because these comments are filtered out to the ones that are staff recommendations. All of the comments will have to be presented to the TAC regardless of whether they have been filtered through the CAC or not. He added that staff will not be able to eliminate or reduce the time it takes to process these and asked if the TAC would like staff to request the CAC to make changes to certain ones, and just comment on others. The committee and staff discussed having the Comment/Response Table in order by topic, section, page, and then comments. They also discussed if the comments were recommended for approval as a committee and if any major problems were identified that need immediate attention, or just consisted of minor edits.

14 Page 14 of 18 CHAIR MORMILO asked the TAC if they want to address the Comment/Response Table page-by-page and discuss only the highlighted items that actually resulted in edits. She did not see any comments that would be considered a game-changer per se. The committee agreed to proceed and address the comments page-by-page. PAGE 1 Number 1: CHAIR MORMILO noted that the first highlighted item is in regard to adding more people to the stakeholders and asked if there was an additional comment to this. MS. ACTON noted that Bob French s comment on Number 18 reads, 5.3 Stakeholders. Table 1 outlines a list of potential stakeholders that is not intended to be exhaustive. This will be indicated in Section 5.3. MS. HEIL referred to page 6 of the draft PIP regarding the CAC receiving drafts as informational items and not for formal approval, but to provide the opportunity to collaborate and provide comments and make recommendations to the AMATS TAC. CHAIR MORMILO asked for clarification that if that change is made to the CAC, is it their intent to change that for the Bike and Pedestrian Committee and the Freight Advisory Committee as well, or just to the CAC. The language is consistent throughout for those advisory committees and if they get that specific with the CAC, should they get that specific with the other advisory committees. MS. HEIL thinks everyone should be making recommendations. It is a clarification letting them know what their job duties are. Number 6: MS. UNDERWOOD pointed out that this is to make a formal recommendation, if desired. MR. JONGENELEN added that they may not always make a recommendation. MS. HEIL moved to approve the edit to add, and will provide comments and recommendations, if desired, to the AMATS TAC. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. CHAIR MORMILO asked for clarification if this is only for the CAC or include the other advisory committees. MS. HEIL revised her motion to read, The CAC, BPAC and the FAC will receive drafts will provide comments and recommendations, if desired, to the AMATS TAC. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. CHAIR MORMILO restated that the motion is to add language to include all of the advisory committees that state,, and will provide comments to the AMATS TAC to read, and will provide comments and/or recommendations, if desired, to the TAC. Hearing no objections, this motion passed.

15 Page 15 of 18 PAGE 2 Number 9: MS. ACTON explained that this is not staff s highlighting, but the comment provided was already highlighted and she did not remove it. PAGE 3 Number 13: Remove the word mean. Number 14: Add language to the roles and responsibilities. PAGE 4 Number 18: Stakeholders was previously discussed. PAGE 5 Number 26: Spell out AMATS. Number 27: Stakeholders was previously discussed. PAGE 6 Number 28: Stakeholders was previously discussed. Numbers 30 through 36 also pertained to stakeholders. PAGE 7 Number 39: Administrative edit to strike Metropolitan Planning Organization. Number 40: The use of proper nouns. Number 43: Add Throughout the development and adoption of the 2040 MTP Update. PAGE 8 Number 44: To strike text that reads, The MTP is on a tight schedule and replace it with The 2040 MTP Update must be completed by November 19, In regard to Number 47 on pages 8 and 9, MS. ACTON explained that this is actually a guidance from the International Association of Public Participation and involves their best practices and what it means to have effective community engagement. She was not sure if the one making the comment was asking for specific techniques, or really wanted a definition of what effective community engagement looks like. Her interpretation of the comment was what is the outcome of effective community engagement and how is it held. The bullet points listed in the response do not come out of the document.

16 Page 16 of 18 CHAIR MORMILO referred to the first sentence in Section 4, Strategy, that reads, Effective community engagement is essential to developing an MTP for AMATS that reflects community desires. The question is to define what is effective community engagement? In response to Ms. Acton s comment that it is difficult without having measurements and metrics to see if it was effective, but they do have metrics in their Public Participation Plan about how they will measure effectiveness of public participation and how they can be addressed, MS. HEIL indicated that maybe those terms should not be used. MR. LINDAMOOD clarified that staff has the ability and, assuming that this is true, it could mean whatever the metrics are. MS. ACTON thinks it goes beyond just the metrics because it, sometimes, may not be visible and that is why she answered it in this manner, but she is more than willing to put the metrics in. She pointed out that Number 50 talks about Preferred Alternatives. MS. HEIL believes the goal is to get as much public involvement as possible and fancy words cannot be defined. CHAIR MORMILO does not know if staff should add a reference that the Public Participation Plan adopted by AMATS has said metrics for public engagement, or if that sort of information should be included in this section. It was mentioned that one of the comments back from FHWA was that if you do not have enough, but what is enough community engagement if you do not have enough comments. If there is something within the Public Participation Plan that can be referenced, this might be the appropriate location to do so. MR. LINDAMOOD added that if it is referred back to AMATS metrics and demonstrating that the requirement is being met, this might be enough information to fight back with. MS. ACTION will reference that comment. MS. UNDERWOOD referred to the goals of the Public Participation Plan on pages 2 and 3 under Guiding Principles and suggested adding a little bit more depth to it. MS. HEIL moved for staff to relook at Comment Number 47 and see what they can do with that one. MR. LINDAMOOD seconded. Hearing no objections, this motion passed. PAGE 9 Number 48: Resolved (see Number 47). Number 49: MS. ACTON explained that the language will be stricken in order to stay on schedule as referenced in an earlier comment about pushing the public to participate based on a schedule and driving that public participation because of the deadline requirements.

17 Page 17 of 18 CHAIR MORMILO clarified that the paragraph in Section 4, Strategy, will change to read, To the greatest extent practicable, the PIP will rely upon existing AMATS mechanisms for public review, such as the CAC, TAC, PC, and AMATS committees on special topics that will be invited to participate as well. Formal approval via AMATS committees will be reserved for the Public Review Draft/Public Hearing Draft in 2018 and PAGE 10 Numbers 53 through 55 pertained to stakeholders and was previously discussed. MR. JONGENELEN replied to Chair Mormilo that AMATS is currently in Phase 1 and this is defined in the tables. MS. HEIL referred back to Number 49 regarding the working drafts and suggested that instead of just striking out the language in response to the comments, add the reference of the page that was read. PAGE 11 Number 59: Same discussion as Number 49 as striking the text does not respond to the question. MS. ACTON explained that the different tools are defined on page 4 and will make reference to that. The timing that AMATS will utilize those tools is, somewhat, laid out in the tables and the website being live will also be referenced. Number 61: MS. UNDERWOOD noted that dates need to be added. MS. ACTON added that the team is making sure of the meeting times and locations and providing the same information to everyone. Staff needs to review what has been presented, what they have contractor dollars for and what they have staff time for, and adjust accordingly. In response to Ms. Heil s question regarding TAC and PC meetings being held in Eagle River, MS. UNDERWOOD noted that has been done in the past and she suggested it again, but it did not seem to interest anyone. Number 63: MS. UNDERWOOD noted that staff recommended deleting specific context on page 25 and replace it with the How to Make a Comment from the AMATS Public Participation Plan using the following icon graphic: MAIN MOTION AS AMENDED TO INCLUDE ALL EDITS. Hearing no objections, the motion as amended passed.

18 Page 18 of 18 CHAIR MORMILO noted that the time is 4:28 p.m. and there are those in attendance presenting informational reports and asked the committee if they wish to extend the meeting to accommodate them. MR. LYON informed the committee that the 1st Quarter Obligation Report can be postponed until the next meeting. He added that Mr. Lindamood has some concerns regarding the MTP and these could be resolved during a work session. SEAN BASKI with DOT&PF noted that the Seward Highway presentation can also be postponed to the next meeting. 6. INFORMATION ITEMS All information items were postponed to May 11, a. 1 st Quarter Obligation Report b Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) Technical Memorandum 1A and 1B c. Seward Highway 7. COMMITTEE COMMENTS MS. HEIL introduced Teri Buck with ADEC as her replacement on the TAC in two months. MR. HASSAN noted that there is a Public Transportation Advisory Board meeting at 5:30 p.m. this evening at City Hall. He informed the committee that they have moved forward with a Public Transportation Plan that largely revises the way they operate services, and clarified that his department, as an agency, oversees three brands: People Mover, AnchorRides and RideShare. This is a consolidation process that leverages those three brands a bit better and will create a greater level of efficiency that gears towards meeting people where they are the densest and within proximity of jobs that are the highest within the Anchorage Bowl. 8. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None 9. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 4:32 p.m.