Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.3 Bicycle Advisory Committeeor 19 82 /ii � 111 DATE: March 18, 2014 STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK File #930 -10 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers l FROM: Christopher L. Foss, Acting City Manager f SUBJECT: Designation of the Alameda County Transportation Commission Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to serve as the Bicycle Advisory Committee for the City of Dublin Prepared by Prepared by Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer (Traffic /Transportation) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) updated its Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA 3) policies requiring review of proposed bicycle and pedestrian projects by a bicycle advisory committee. Staff is requesting that the City Council designate the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) to serve as the City of Dublin Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), and assign Alameda CTC BPAC members appointed by the County Supervisor from supervisorial district one (1), the Mayor's Conference for Alameda County supervisorial district one (1), and the transit representative to serve as its representatives. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact associated with this item. Without the proposed designation, the City has the potential of losing funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects under the TDA 3 program. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt a Resolution Designating Alameda County Transportation Commission Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to Serve as the Bicycle Advisory Committee for the City of Dublin. ubmitte` By Public Works Director DESCRIPTION: \ Reviewed By Acting Assistant City Manager TDA 3 grant funding is limited for bicycle and pedestrian related capital projects. In the past, the City has used the Alameda CTC BPAC for review of all proposed projects and has successfully implemented projects to improve bicycle and pedestrian mode of transportation in the City. On June Page 1 of 2 ITEM NO. 4.3 26, 2013, the MTC updated TDA 3 policies by adopting Resolution 4108 (Attachment1), which required the review of all TDA 3 related proposed projects by a local BAC appointed by the City Council. Considering significant impacts to City resources and the fact that in the past the City of Dublin has been successful in implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects with the input from the Alameda CTC BPAC, the City sent a letter of concern (Attachment 2) to MTC prior to the adoption of Resolution 4108. The City requested maintaining flexibility in the implementation of the MTC resolution's intent of conducting a review of proposed projects by the bicycle and pedestrian advocates. Similar concerns were raised by other jurisdictions including our County Supervisor's office. In response to the concerns by cities and Alameda County, on October 8, 2013, Alameda CTC sent a letter (Attachment 3) to the MTC documenting that the Alameda CTC BPAC provides for expanded city representation and requested permission to use this body as a qualified Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee for TDA 3 purposes. On November 4, 2013, the MTC approved the requested flexibility (Attachment 4) in implementing the TDA 3 projects, but asked that each jurisdiction must provide a City Council or Board of Supervisor resolution designating the Alameda CTC BPAC as the local BAC. Staff is asking for City Council's support in approving the attached resolution (Attachment 5) designating Alameda CTC BPAC as the BAC for the City, and assigning Alameda CTC BPAC members appointed by the County Supervisor from supervisorial district one (1), the Mayor's Conference for Alameda County supervisorial district one (1), and the transit representative to serve as its representatives. If approved by the City Council, Staff will submit the resolution to Alameda CTC which will allow the City to maintain its eligibility for future TDA 3 funding. NOTICING REQUIREMENTS /PUBLIC OUTREACH: Copy of this staff report was provided to the Alameda County District 1 Supervisor office, Supervisorial District 1 appointee to the Alameda CTC BPAC, Mayors Conference appointee to the Alameda CTC BPAC, and East Bay Bicycle Coalition. ATTACHMENTS: 1. MTC Resolution 4108, updating TDA 3 policies 2. City of Dublin Letter to MTC requesting flexibility in the implementation of Resolution 4108 3. Alameda CTC letter to MTC requesting the use of Alameda CTC BPAC to serve as the local BAC 4. MTC letter approving Alameda CTC BPAC to serve as the local BAC 5. Resolution designating Alameda County Transportation Commission Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee to Serve as the Bicycle Advisory Committee for the City of Dublin Page 2 of 2 Date: June 26, 2013 W.I.: 1514 Referred By: PAC ABSTRACT Resolution No. 4108 This resolution establishes policies and procedures for the submission of claims for Article 3 funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities as required by the Transportation Development Act in Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99401.(a). Funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects is established by PUC Section 99233.3. This resolution supersedes MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised commencing with the FY2014 -15 funding cycle. Further discussion of these procedures and criteria are contained in the Programming and Allocations Summary Sheet dated June 12, 2013. Date: June 26, 2013 W.I.: 1514 Referred By: PAC RE: Transportation Development Act, Article 3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects: METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4108 WHEREAS, the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et sec.., requires the Transportation Planning Agency to adopt rules and regulations delineating procedures for the submission of claims for funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities (Article 3, PUC Section 99233.3); state criteria by which the claims will be analyzed and evaluated (PUC Section 99401(a); and to prepare a priority list for funding the construction of pedestrian and bicycle facilities (PUC Section 99234(b)); and WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the Transportation Planning Agency for the San Francisco Bay Region, adopted MTC Resolution No. 875 entitled "Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian/Bicycle Projects ", that delineates procedures and criteria for submission of claims for Article 3 funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and WHEREAS, MTC desires to update these procedures and criteria commencing with the FY2014 -15 funding cycle, now therefore be it RESOLVED, that MTC adopts its policies and procedures for TDA funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities described in Attachment A ; and be it further RESOLVED, that the prior policy governing allocation of funds contained in Resolution No. 875 is superseded by this resolution, effective with the FY 2014 -15 funding cycle, METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Amy Rein W I h, Chair The above resolution was approved by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission at a regular meeting of the Commission held in Oakland, California, on June 26, 2013. Date: June 26, 2013 W.I.: 1514 Referred By: PAC Attachment A Resolution No. 4108 Page 1 of 7 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3, PEDESTRTAN/BICYCLE PROJECTS Policies and Procedures Eligible Claimants The Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code Sections 99233.3 and 99234, makes funds available in the nine- county Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Region for the exclusive use of pedestrian and bicycle projects. MTC makes annual allocations of TDA Article 3 funds to eligible claimants after review of applications submitted by counties or congestion management agencies. All cities and counties in the nine counties in the MTC region are eligible to claim funds under TDA Article 3. Joint powers agencies composed of cities and/or counties are also eligible provided their JPA agreement allows it to claim TDA funds. Application 1. Counties or congestion management agencies will be responsible for developing a program of projects not more than annually, which they initiate by contacting the county and all cities and joint powers agencies within their jurisdiction and encouraging submission of project applications. 2. Claimants will send one or more copies of project applications to the county or congestion management agency (see "Priority Setting" below). 3. A project is eligible for funding if: a. The project sponsor submits a resolution of its governing board that addresses the following six points: 1. There are no legal impediments regarding the project. 2, Jurisdictional or agency staffing resources are adequate to complete the project. 3. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or the ability of the project sponsor to carry out the project. 4. Environmental and right-of-way issues have been reviewed and found to be in such a state that fiord obligation deadlines will not be jeopardized. 5. Adequate local funding is available to complete the project. 6. The project has been conceptually reviewed to the point that all contingent issues have been considered. Attachment A Resolution No. 4108 Page 2 of 7 b. The funding requested is for one or more of the following purposes: 1. Construction and/or engineering of a bicycle or pedestrian capital project 2. Maintenance of a multi- purpose path which is closed to motorized traffic 3. Bicycle safety education program (no more than 5% of county total). 4. Development of a comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plans (allocations to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once every five years). S. Restriping Class II bicycle lanes. Refer to Appendix A for examples of eligible projects. C. The claimant is eligible to claim TDA Article 3 funds under Sections 99233.3 or 99234 of the Public Utilities Code. d. If it is a Class I, II or III bikeway project, it must meet the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highw_y Design Manual (Available via Caltrans headquarters' World Wide Web page), or if it is a pedestrian facility, it must meet the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chanter 100 of the California Highway Design Manual (Available via Caltran.s headquarters' World Wide Web page). e. The project is ready to implement and can be completed within the three year eligibility period. f. If the project includes construction, that it meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.) and project sponsor submits an environmental document that has been stamped by the County Clerk within the past three years. g. A jurisdiction agrees to maintain the facility. h. The project is included in a locally approved bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan. Priority Setting 1. The county or congestion management agency (CMA) shall establish a process for establishing project priorities in order to prepare an annual list of projects being recommended for funding. 2. Each county and city is required to have a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC) to review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle plans. BACs should be composed of both bicyclists and pedestrians. Attachment A Resolution No. 4108 Page 3 of 7 A city BAC shall be composed of at least 3 members who live or work in the city. More members may be added as desired. They will be appointed by the City Council. The City or Town Manager will designate staff to provide administrative and technical support to the Committee. An agency can apply to MTC for exemption from the city BAC requirement if they can demonstrate that the countywide BAC provides for expanded city representation. A county BAC shall be composed of at least 5 members who live or work in the county. More members may be added as desired. The County Board of Supervisors or Congestion Management Agency (CMA) will appoint BAC members. The county or congestion management agency executive /administrator will designate staff to provide administration and technical support to the Committee. 3. All proposed projects shall be submitted to the County or congestion management agency for evaluation/prioritization. Consistent with the county process, either the Board of Supervisors or the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) will adopt the countywide list and forward it to MTC for approval. 4. The county or congestion management agency will forward to MTC a copy of the following; a) Applications for the recommended projects, including a governing body resolution, stamped environmental document, and map for each, as well as a cover letter stating the total amount of money being claimed; and confirmation that each project meets Caltrans' minimum safety design criteria and can be completed before the allocation expires. b) The complete priority list of projects with an electronic version to facilitate grant processing. c) A Board of Supervisors' or CMA resolution approving the priority list and authorizing the claim. MTC Staff Evaluation MTC Staff will review the list of projects submitted by each county. If a recommended project is eligible for funding, falls within the overall TDA Article 3 find estimate level for that county, and has a completed application, staff will recommend that funds be allocated to the project. Attachment A Resolution No. 4108 Page 4 of 7 Allocation The Commission will approve the allocation of funds for the recommended projects. The County Auditor will be notified by allocation instructions to reserve funds for the approved projects. Claimants will be sent copies of the allocation instructions and funds should be invoiced in accordance with the "Disbursement" section below. Eligible Expenditures Eligible expenditures may be incurred from the start of the fiscal year of award plus two additional fiscal years. Allocations expire at the end of third fiscal year following allocation. For example, if funds are allocated to a project in October 2014, a claimant may be reimbursed for eligible expenses that were incurred on or after July 1, 2014. The allocation expires on June 30, 2017 and all eligible expenses must be incurred before this date. All disbursement requests should be submitted by August 31, 2017. Disbursement The claimant shall submit to MTC the following, no later than two months after the grant expiration date: a) A copy of the allocation instructions along with a dated cover letter referring to the project by name, dollar amount and allocation instruction number and the request for a disbursement of funds; b) Documents showing that costs have been incurred during the period of time covered by the allocation. c) With the final invoice, the claimant shall submit a one paragraph summary of work completed with the allocated funds. This information may be included in the cover letter identified in bullet "a" above and is required before final disbursement is made. If the project includes completion of a Class I, II or III bicycle facility, this information should be added to Bikemapper or a request should be made to MTC to add it to Bikemapper. 2. MTC will approve the disbursement and, if the disbursement request was received in a timely fashion and the allocation instruction has not expired, been totally drawn down nor been rescinded, issue an authorization to the County Auditor to disburse funds to the claimant. Rescissions and Expired Allocations Funds will be allocated to claimants for specific projects, so transfers of funds to other projects sponsored by the same claimant may not be made. If a claimant has to abandon a project or cannot complete it within the time allowed, it should ask the county or congestion management Attachment A Resolution No. 4108 Page 5 of 7 agency to request that MTC rescind the allocation. Rescission requests may be submitted to and acted upon by MTC at any time during the year. Rescinded funds will be returned to the county's apportionment. Allocations that expire without being fully disbursed will be disencumbered in the fiscal year following expiration. The funds will be returned to county's apportionment and will be available for allocation. Fiscal Audit All claimants that have received an allocation of TDA funds are required to submit an annual certified fiscal and compliance audit to MTC and to the Secretary of Business and Transportation Agency within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, in accordance with PUC Section 99245. Article 3 applicants need not file a fiscal audit if TDA funds were not expended (that is, costs incurred) during a given fiscal year. However, the applicant should submit a statement for MTC's records certifying that no TDA funds were expended during the fiscal year. Failure to submit the required audit for Any TDA article will preclude MTC from making a new Article 3 allocation. For example, a delinquent Article 4.5 fiscal audit will delay any other TDA allocation to the city /county with an outstanding audit. Until the audit requirement is met, no new Article 3 allocations will be made. TDA Article 3 funds may be used to pay for the fiscal audit required for this funding. Attachment A Resolution No. 4108 Page 6 of 7 Appendix A: Examples of Eligible Projects 1, Projects that eliminate or improve an identified problem area (specific safety hazards such as high - traffic narrow roadways or barriers to travel) on routes that would otherwise provide relatively safe and direct bicycle or pedestrian travel use. For example, roadway widening, shoulder paving, restriping or parking removal to provide space for bicycles; a bicycle /pedestrian bridge across a stream or railroad tracks on an otherwise useful route; a segment of multi- purpose path to divert young bicyclists from a high traffic arterial; a multi- purpose path to provide safe access to a school or other activity center; replacement of substandard grates or culverts; adjustment of traffic- actuated signals to make them bicycle sensitive. Projects to improve safety should be based on current traffic safety engineering knowledge. 2. Roadway improvements or construction of a continuous interconnected route to provide reasonably direct access to activity centers (employment, educational, cultural, recreational) where access did not previously exist or was hazardous. For example, development of Multi- purpose paths on continuous rights -of -way with few intersections (such as abandoned railroad rights -of -way) which lead to activity centers; an appropriate combination of Multi- purpose paths, Class II, and Class III bikeways on routes identified as high demand access routes; bicycle route signs or bike lanes on selected routes which receive priority maintenance and cleaning. 3. Secure bicycle parking facilities, especially in high use activity areas, at transit terminals, and at park - and -ride lots. Desirable facilities include lockers, sheltered and guarded check - in areas; self-locking sheltered racks that eliminate the need to carry a chain and racks that accept U- shaped locks. 4. Other provisions that facilitate bicycle /transit trips and walk/transit. For example, bike racks on buses, paratransit/trailer combinations, and bicycle loan or check -in facilities at transit terminals, bus stop improvements, wayfinding signage. 5. Maintenance of multiple purpose pathways that are closed to motorized traffic or for the purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes (provided that the total amount for Class II bicycle lane restriping does not exceed twenty percent of the county's total TDA Article 3 allocation). 6. Funds may be used for construction and plans, specification, and estimates (PS &E) phases of work. Project level environmental, planning, and right- of-way phases are not eligible uses of funds. 7. Projects that enhance or encourage bicycle or pedestrian commutes, including Safe Routes to Schools projects, Attachment A Resolution No. 4148 Page 7 of 7 8. Intersection safety improvements including bulbouts /curb extensions, transit stop extensions, installation of pedestrian countdown or accessible pedestrian signals, or pedestrian signal timing adjustments. Striping high - visibility crosswalks or advanced stop - back lines, where warranted. 9. Purchase and installation of pedestrian traffic control devices, such as High - intensity Activated crossWalK (HAWK) beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), or pedestrian safety "refuge" islands, where warranted. 10. Projects that provide connection to and continuity with longer routes provided by other means or by other jurisdictions to improve regional continuity. 11. The project may be part of a larger roadway improvement project as long as the funds are used only for the bicycle and/or pedestrian component of the larger project. 12. Bicycle Safety Education Programs. Up to five percent of a county's Article 3 fund may be expended to supplement monies from other sources to fund public bicycle safety education programs and staffing. 13. Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan. Funds may be allocated for these plans (emphasis should be for accommodation of bicycle and walking commuters rather than recreational uses). A city or county may not receive allocations for these plans more than once every five years. Environmental documentation and approval necessary for plan adoption is an eligible expense. i4 June 24, 2013 C f "i'Y o F Honorable Chair Allay tteln Worth )I JBLIN Metropolitan Tr'ansl)ortation Commission Joseph P. Bork Metro Center 100 CVif. Plaza 101 Cighth Street, Oakland, CA 94407 DuIA% Ca11fo1nict W560 Phonw (925) ft33'6650 Suhlect! Proposed Update to Transportation Development Act, Article 3 Policies and fax: (925) 1133.6651 Procedures Rear Chair Worth: The City of Dublin appreciates Metropolitan Transl)ortation CommIssion (MTC) assistance In Implementing various blCyCle and pedestrian projects In the City. I would specifiCally like to acknowledge MTC's role In encouraging and supporting the local context In the Implementation of these projects. We have also found MTC staff to be extremely open to listening and addressing our concerns, Keeping past support and understanding In ltllnd, the City of Dublin requests that the MTC consider flexibility In the alcycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) requirement for the Transportatlon Development Act, Article 3 (TDA Art.3) program, Since the funds under the TDA Art. 3 program are not eligible for estabilshMg and maintaining a BPAC, tills requirement will need to be satisfied from other City funds and, therefore, will be burdensome oil the City's resources, taking away bicycle anti pedestrian funds from the actual Implementation of Improvements, The TDA Art.3 program has been quite successful ill the City of Dublin In funding bicycle and pedestrian Improvements, and all the past improvements were reviewed by the Alameda cny Council County BPAC. The City also maintains a Traffic Safety Committee, which reviews projects that (925) 833.6650 are geared towards Improving traffic safety in tile City, 'rills committee meets every month and oily rtutmoor Its recommendations are Implemented through various projects and programs that are {925)833.6050 approved by the City Cotincil. Given the limited resources and inellglbllity of the TDA Art.3 G 925) 433- bovoleirntonl [925) 833.6610 funds ds for the operation of a BPAC; and City's demonstrated success In Implemeltting I r y F. <onotuic Dovelopmonl conlilluility based bicycle and pedestrian lmprovements, the City would request continue using (925) 833.6650 these two committees In the future for the review of TDA Art.3 projects and I icyde plan Fintimo /Adman 5orvicus (925)1133.6640 development. Firo 11ravonllon (925) 833.6606 We hope that the MTC Board will reconsider the Programming and Allocation Committee Ilumon ltosaercos recommended language on the local BPAC review requirement and allow the City of Dublin to (925) 833,6605 continue the current review process that has demonstrated to be very successful, Please )tarps & Communily Sorvicas (925) 556.4500 contact Obaid Khan, Senior Civil Engineer, at 925- 833.6630, If you have mly questions or like to Police discuss. (925) 833.6670 Public works /Entilnoarhiji (925) 833.6630 Sincerely, .e yj- Joni L. Pattillo I)utriill City Manger Ad tsan��acai Cc: Dublin City council Scott Haggetty, District Supervisorand MTC Commissioner Chris Foss, Assistant City Manager 111 [ I Gary Huishigh, Pul)lic works Director obald Khan, Sr. Civil Engineer (Traffic) 5v5'15Y.c)11I1I hi.ca.8ov py ", 0 e 011/01 0 ALAMEDA 1=10l' on, October 8, 201,1 I I I I Broadymy, Suite 000, Oakland, CA 94607 510.208,7400 Vow wo, A,lo nit) daC:TC,org Ken KirRey Director of Planning Metropolitan Transportat 1 oil Conunission mom Eighth Street Oakland, CA 94607 SUBJECT: Request to use Alailleda County'llansportation Conimission Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee as Qualified Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee for TDA Article 3 Purposes Dear Mr, Ki r1cey, MTC updated its policies and procedures for TDA, Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle funding oil June 26, 2013. Time new policies and procedures include a requirement that each county and city have a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), and stipulate that all agency can apply to MTC for exemption ftoni the city BAC requirement if they can demonstrate that the countywide BAC provides for expanded city representation, Oil July 10, 2013, MTC issued a memorandum clarifying that "expanded city representation" is interpreted to mean providing representation from ait jurisdictions. This letter demonstrates that the Alameda Comity Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) meets the expanded city representation requirement and requests that MTC consider the Alameda OTC BPAC to be a qualified countywide BAC for'I'DA Article 3 purposes. The Alanieda CTC BPAC includes merabers appointed by directly elected officials representing residents of ail jurisdictions in Alameda County, which provides for expanded representation within Alameda County, As such, the Alameda CTC BPAC i's oil appropriate body to review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects, continuing its historical role performing this work, Time Alameda CTC nict with representatives of local jurisdictions oil September , 2013 to discuss (lie implications of the new TDA Article 3, Policies and Procedures. There is general consensus among jurisdictions that the Alarneda CTC BPAC has provided all effective forum for the review of TDA Article 3 projects and should continue to serve this function in Alameda County,, The Alameda CTC BPAC includes one appointee per County Supervisor (five total), one appointee for each supervisorial district, selected by the Mayors' Conference (five total), and one appointee representing transit agencies, This Structure ensures that the Alameda CTC BPAC provides for complete geographic and jurisdictional coverage of the comity, as the Alameda Coulity Supervisorial Districts include all areas and jurisdictions within the county. The structure also provides for an interjurisdictional and hiterniodal perspective towards bicycle rand pedestrian planning and project prioritization. Through the collective knowledge of the it committee meniber&, the Alanieda CTC BPAC has comprehensive awareness of the needs of cyclists and pedestrians of the entire county, Keii Kirkey October 8, 2013 PA90 2! The Alameda. CTC BPAC has provided art effective body to review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects in Alameda County since 2ooli, and it remains well-positioned to continue in this role. Please contact me if you have ally questions or comments regarding the Alameda CTC BPACs role in the TDA Article 3 Process. Sincerely, Arthur L. Dao Executive Director, Alameda CTC CC: Press Lengyel, Deputy Director of Planning, Alameda CTC Matthew Bomberg, County-wide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, Alameda CrC Matthew Todd, Principal Transportation Engineer, Alameda CTC Vivek Bhat, Senior Transportation Engineer, Alameda GrC Paul Keener, Senior Transportation Planner, Alameda County Public Works Agency Anne Flernmer, Deputy Executive Director, Policy, MTC Cheryl Chi, Transit Investment Analyst, MTC Sean Co, Active Transportation Planner, MTC 912MIRRIZEIRNMIM TR A N S 110 RTATI 0 N COMMISSION ,&'y ROM WwAh, 11,40 November 4, 2013 Awo Come, 11(t 03�,(0;1 "q Mr, Arthur L. Dao, Executive Director lfld"Cifgpdw Alarneda County Transportation Commission I I I I Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, CA 94607 jowph 11, Illot %kool""'Cilur 101 Viglid) slral O.Almd, CA 9 TA VIA MJ FINX 310.411, 5949 FAIML ill Giell a WFAI wxwlMC.'A rar lnj flara 10,10VII-itW ,,, RE- A nroval to Use Alameda Coup jyTr ,ins portqjqL�Q rim ` s%o�r T is � clo hedestrian Advi or Commit cc as ualified Countyw de icy le Adyisoiy Committee for TDA Article 3 Purposes M11 0,14 0 bear 0. 7Mo, Thank you for your letter dated October 8, 2013 to request that flie Alameda CTC Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) be approved as a qualified countywide Bicycle Advisory Conu-nittee for Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3) purposes. We have reviewed your request and approve the use of the Alameda. CTC W)Idwd BPAC in lieu of a local agency forming their own advisory committee. provided the following: o Jurisdictions that would like to use the Alameda CTC BPAC in lieu of their own Sao, I leownN must formally confirm this through council or board resolution, The resolution should designate the inember or members" positions within the BPAC that will Mick Luee serve as their representative(s) and designate the Alameda BPAC as their review body for TDA Article 3 purpose& e The adopted resolutions along with a letter confirming the jurisdictions to be Joe Ph- included in the exemption should be sent to Alix Bockelman of my staff. yean OAL,Ohp Should you require further follow-up regarding this matter,, please contact Alix Bockelman at 510-817-5850 or &bD _c -4 1 V, A 4r Sinecrely, Ann Fleiner Solf (Ptow k",;� ­', Deputy Executive Director, Policy Aw AF: cc JAA1R0J EC I Mi nd,ijigVf ()A--STA Ad nil nist ral loff TDA M lcle 1- RtAso 'rDA 3 Pol lolvskALA BAC H n No pflon Lowt,doo �hm 14(ma ". VO,q EC. Tess Lengyel, Deputy Director of Planning, Alameda CTC Matthew Bomberg, Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Coordinator, Alomeda CTC Matthew Todd, Principal Transpoitation Engineer, Alameda CTC Vivek Chat, Senior Transportation Engineer, Alameda CTC Paul Keencr, Senior Transportation Planner, Alameda County Public Works Agency Ann Flemer, Deputy Executive Director, Policy, MTC Ken Kirkey, Director, MTC Theresa Romell, Principal, MTC Cheryl Chi, Transit Investment Analyst, MTC Sean Co, Active Transportation Planner, MTC RESOLUTION NO. - 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN DESIGNATING THE ALAMEDA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE (BPAC) TO SERVE AS THE BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF DUBLIN WHEREAS, Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) updated its policies and procedures for Transportation Development Act, Article 3 (TDA 3), Pedestrian and Bicycle funding on June 26, 2013. The new policies and procedures include a requirement that each county and city have a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC), but stipulate that a city or county can apply to MTC for exemption from the BAC requirement if it can demonstrate that the countywide BAC provides for expanded city representation; and WHEREAS, the Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Bicycle Advisory Committee (BPAC) includes members appointed by directly elected officials representing residents of all jurisdictions in Alameda County, which provides for expanded representation within Alameda County; and WHEREAS, the Alameda CTC BPAC includes one appointee per County Supervisor (five total), one appointee for each supervisorial district, selected by the Mayors' Conference (five total), and one appointee representing transit agencies; and WHEREAS, this structure ensures that the Alameda CTC BPAC provides for complete geographic and jurisdictional coverage of the County, as the Alameda County Supervisorial Districts include all areas and jurisdictions within the County; and WHEREAS, the structure also provides for an inter - jurisdictional and inter -modal perspective towards bicycle and pedestrian planning and project prioritization; and WHEREAS, through the collective knowledge of the 11 committee members, the Alameda CTC BPAC has comprehensive awareness of the needs of cyclists and pedestrians of the entire County; and WHEREAS, the Alameda CTC BPAC has provided an effective body to review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian projects in Alameda County since 2005, and it remains well - positioned to continue in this role; and WHEREAS, The Alameda CTC documented in a letter dated October 8, 2013 that the Alameda CTC BPAC provides for expanded city representation and requested permission to use this body as a qualified Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee for TDA 3 purposes; and WHEREAS, On November 4, 2013, the MTC approved the use of the Alameda CTC BPAC as a qualified Countywide Bicycle Advisory Committee for TDA 3 in lieu of a local agency forming their own advisory committee provided that each jurisdiction: 1. Formally confirm through a Council or Board resolution its desire to use the Alameda CTC BPAC in lieu of a city or county BAC; and 2. Designate by resolution the member or members' positions within the Alameda CTC BPAC that will serve as its representative(s); and 3. Designate by resolution the Alameda CTC BPAC as the city's review body for TDA 3 purposes; and WHEREAS, the Alameda CTC BPAC meets all other requirements established by the State and MTC; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Dublin confirms its desire to use the Alameda CTC BPAC in lieu of a city BAC; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin designates the Alameda CTC BPAC members appointed by the County Supervisor from supervisorial district one (1), the Mayor's Conference for Alameda County supervisorial district one (1), and the transit representative to serve as its representatives; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Dublin hereby designates the Alameda CTC BPAC as its review body for TDA 3 purposes. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk Mayor