HomeMy Public PortalAbout7E League of CA Cities Resolution-----~--
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
MANAGEMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
September 6, 2016
The Honorable City Council
Bryan Cook, City Manager
By: Peggy Kuo, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA
ITEM 7.E.
SUBJECT: LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE
RESOLUTION
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council is requested to receive and file the League of California Cities
(League) annual resolution and approve the voting delegate and voting alternate to use
their discretion to vote on the proposed resolutions.
BACKGROUND:
1. On April 5, 2016, the City Council (Council) adopted Resolution No. 16-5157
appointing City Councilmembers to serve on various governmental organizations.
Councilmember Chavez and Councilmember Man were appointed as delegate
and alternate respectively to the League.
2. On July 19, 2016, City Council designated Councilmember Chavez as the voting
delegate and Councilmember Man as the voting alternate for the League's Annual
Business Meeting.
3. On August 15, 2016, the City received an email from the League requesting City
Council formally designate a voting delegate and voting alternate who will be
attending the League's Annual Business Meeting on Friday, October 7, 2016 to
represent the City in voting on proposed resolutions.
3. On August 15, 2016, the City also received a copy of the League of California
Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Packet.
City Council
September 6, 2016
Page 2 of 3
ANALYSIS:
At its annual business meeting, the League adopts policy resolutions on issues of
statewide importance that have direct bearing on municipal affairs and are of broad
municipal interest. The League's primary means for developing policy is through their
standing policy committees and Board of Directors. Additionally, any city, elected or
appointed city official, or League Division, Department, or Policy Committee may submit
a resolution sixty days before the business meeting.
This year's General Assembly and business meeting will be held during the annual
conference on Friday, October 7, 2016 in Long Beach. The City Council has appointed
Councilmember Chavez as the City's voting delegate and Councilmember Man as the
voting alternate. During the conference, the respective League Policy Committees and
General Resolutions Committee will consider making recommendations on one
Resolution before they are voted on by the delegates in General Assembly. Below is a
brief summary of the resolution:
1. A Reso lution committing the League of California Cities to supporting Vision Zero.
towards zero deaths. and other programs or initiatives to make safety a top priority
for transportation projects and policy formulation. while encouraging cities to pursue
similar initiatives
Submitted by City of San Jose
Each year more than 30,000 people are killed on streets in the United States in
traffic collisions. Traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 2015 and are
estimated to have exceeded 35,000 people, with children, seniors, people of color,
low-income and persons with disabilities accounting for a disproportionate share.
The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that the traffic death rate per
person in the United States was about double the average of peer nations, with
close to 10% of these deaths occurri ng in California (3,074 in 2014). California's
largest city, Los Angeles, has the highest rate of traffic death among large U.S.
This resolution seeks to support Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and other
programs, policies, or initiatives that prioritize transportation safety; encourage cities
throughout California to join in these traffic safety initiatives to pursue the elimination
of death and severe injury crashes on our roadways; and encouraging the State to
consider adopting transportation safety as a top priority for transportation projects
and policy formulation .
Staff recommends City Council receive and file the League's proposed resolution and
approve the voting delegate and voting alternate to use their discretion to vote on the
proposed resolution. The League's Annual Conference Resolution Packet is attached
(Attachment "A").
City Council
September 6, 2016
Page 3 of 3
CITY STRATEGIC GOALS:
Receiving and filing the League's proposed resolution and approving the voting
delegate and voting alternate to use their discretion to vote on the proposed resolution
will promote the City Strategic Goals of Good Governance.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the current Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 City Budget.
ATTACHMENT:
A. League of Californ ia Cities Resolution Packet
l LEAGUE®
'-._OF CALIFORNIA
--.CITIES
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
ATTACHMENT A
2016 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California
October 5-7, 2 016
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
RESOLUTIONS CONTAJNED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that
resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and
recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the
General Re olu ti ons Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, one reso lution ha been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and
referred to the League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES: One poli cy committee ' ill meet at the Annual Confe rence to consider
and take action on the resolution referred to them. The committee is Transportation, Communication
and Public Works. The committee will meet 9:00 -I 0:30a.m. on Wednesda y, October 5, 2016, at
the Hya tt Regency. The sponsor of the resolution has been notified of the time and location of the
meeting.
GENERAL RE OLUTION COMMITTEE: This comm ittee will meet at I :00 p.m. on Thursday.
October 6, at the Hyatt Regency in Long Beach. to consider the report of the policy committee
regarding the resolution. Th is committee includes one representative from each of the League's
reg ional divisions, func tional departments and standing poli cy committees. as well as other
individuals appointed by the League pres ident. Please check in at the registration desk for room
location.
ANNUAL LU CHEONIB INESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting
wi ll be held at 12:00 p.m. on Friday. October 7. at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after th e norma l 60-day
dead line, a resolution may be introdu ced at the Annua l Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of I 0 percent of all member cities (48 va lid signatures required) and
presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the
Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:00 p.m ..
Thursday, October 6. Resolutions can be viewed on the League's Web site:
www.cacit ies .org/resolutions.
Any qu estions concerning the resolutions procedures ma y be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (9 16) 658-8224
---------------------------------·-
GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS
Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for
deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League's eight standing policy
committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a
changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence pol icy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to devel op League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
l. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted
at the Annual Conference.
2. The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern.
3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.
4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:
(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.
(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principals around
which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of
directors.
(c) Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and
board of directors.
(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).
2
LOCATION OF MEETINGS
Policv Committee Meetings
Wed nesday. October 5
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 outh Pine treet, Long Beach
9:00 -10:30 a.m.: Transportation. Commun ication & Pu blic Works
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday. October 6, I :00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine treet, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting a nd General Assembly Luncheon
Friday. October 7. 12:00 p.m.
Long Beach Convention Center
300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach
3
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS
Resolutions have been grouped by po licy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 -Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 -General Resolutions Committee
3 -General Assembly
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND PUBLIC WORKS POLICY
COMMITTEE
2 3
Vision Zero
Informati on pertaining to the Annual Conference Resoluti ons will also be posted on each
committee's page on the League webs ite: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet wi II
be posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.
4
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)
Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.
KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES
l. Poli cy Committee
2. General Resolutions Committee
3. General Assembly
ACTION FOOTNOTES
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
** Existing League policy
*** Local authority presently exists
Procedural Note:
KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
A Approve
D Disapprove
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
a Amend+
Aa Approve as amended+
Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy
committee for study+
Raa Additional amendments and refer+
Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and
Disapprove+
Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take o
Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the League
Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League's website by clicking on this
link: Resolution Process.
5
1. RESOLUTION COMMITTING THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES TO
SUPPORTING VISION ZERO, TOWARD ZERO DEATHS, AND OTHER PROGRAMS OR
INITIA TNES TO MAKE SAFETY A TOP PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS AND POLICY FORMULATION, WHILE ENCOURAGING CITIES TO
PURSUE SIMILAR INITIATfVES
Source: City of San Jose
Concurrence of five or more citi es/citv officials: Cities: Fremont; Los Angeles; Sacramento; San Diego:
San Francisco; Santa Monica; and West Hollywood
Referred to: Transpmtation, Communication and Public Works Policy Committees
Recommendation to General Resolution Committee:
WHEREAS, each year more than 30,000 people are killed on streets in the United States in
traffic collis ions; and
WHEREAS, traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 2015 and is estimated to have
exceeded 35,000 people; with pedestrians and cyclists accounting for a disproportionate share: and
WHEREAS the Centers for Disease Control recently indicated that America's traffic death rate
per person was about double the average of peer nations: and
WHEREAS Vision Zero and Toward Zero Deaths are comprehensive strategies to el iminate all
traffic fatalities and severe injuries using a multi-discipl inary approach, including education, enforcement
and engineering measures; and
WHEREAS a core principal of Vision Zero and Toward Zero Deaths is that traffic deaths are
preventable and unacceptable; and
WHEREAS cities across the world have adopted and implemented Vision Zero and Toward Zero
Deaths strategies and successfully reduced traftlc fatalities and severe injuries occurring on streets and
highways; and
WHEREAS safe, reliabl e and efficient transportati on systems are essential fo undations for
thriving cities.
RESOLVED that the League of California Cities commits to suppo1ting Vision Zero, Toward
Zero Deaths, and other programs, pol icies, or initiatives that prioriti ze transportation safety;
AND encourage cities throughout California to j oin in these traffic safety initiatives to pursue the
elimination of death and severe injury crashes on our roadways;
AND encourage the State of California to consider adopting safety as a top priority for both
transportation projects and policy form ulation.
/111111111
Background Information on Resolution to Support Tran portation Safety Programs
Each year more than 30.000 people are killed on streets in the United States in traffic collis ions. Traffic
fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 201 5 and are estimated to have exceeded 35,000 people.
with children, seniors. people of color, low-income and persons with disabilities accounting for a
disproportionate share. The Centers for Disease Control recently reported that the traffic death rate per
6
person in the United States was about double the average of peer nations, with close to 10% of these
deaths occurring in California (3 ,074 in 20 14). California's largest city, Los Angeles, has the highest rate
of traffic death among large U.S . cities, at 6.27 per I 00,000 people.
Cities around the world have adopted traffic safety projects and policies that underscore that traffic deaths
are both unacceptable and preventable. In 1997, Sweden initiated a program called Vision Zero that
focused on the idea that ''Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society."
The World Health Organization has officially endorsed Vision Zero laying out traffic safety as an
international public health crisis and the United Nations General Assembly introduced the Decade of
Action for Road afety 2011 -2020 and set the goal for the decade: "to stabilize and then reduce the
forecast level of road traffic fata lities around the world'' by 50% by 2020.
As of this wri ting, 18 U.S. citi es have adopted Vision Zero programs (including New York City, Boston,
Ft. Lauderdale, Austin, San Antonio, Washington DC, and Seattl e) to reduce the numbers of fatal crashes
occurring on their roads (http://visionzeronetwork.org/map-o f-vision-zero-ci tie~. Californ ia cities lead
the way, with the cities of San Jose, San Francisco, San Mateo, San Diego, Los Angeles, Long Beach and
Fremont having adopted Vision Zero strategies and many others are acti vely considering adoption.
In 2009 a national group of traffic safety stakeholders launched an effort called .. Toward Zero Deaths: A
National Strategy on Highway Safety". This initiative has been supported by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tzdl) and states throughout the United States,
including California (http://www.ots.ca.gov/OTS and Traffic Safety/About OTS.asp).
This past January the U.S. Department of Transportation launched its "Mayors' Challenge for Safer
People and Safer Streets." This effort calls on elected officials to partner with the USDOT and raise the
bar for safety for people bicycling and walking by sharing resources, competing for awards, and taking
action. The California cities of Beverly Hills, Davis. Maywood, Cupertino, Culver City, Rialto. Santa
Monica, Porterville, Los Angles, San Jose, Monterey. Glendale, Irvine, Oakland, Palo Alto, Alameda,
West Hollywood and Fullerton signed on to this effort. Additionally, the Institute of Transportation
Engineers (ITE), a leading organization for transportation professionals, recently launched a new
initiative to aggressively advance the Vision Zero and Towards Zero Deaths movements
(http:/11 ibrary. it e. org!pub/ed 59a040-caf4-5300-8ffc-3 5deb3 3 ce0 3d).
Ultimately all of these programs share the fundamental belief that a data-driven, systems-level,
interdisciplinary approach can prevent severe and fatal inj uries on our nation's roadways. They employ
proven strategies, actions, and countermeasures across education, enforcement and engi neering. Support
for many of these life-saving programs extends far beyond government agencies, and includes National
Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO). American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Kaiser Permanente, AARP, the National Safe Routes to School
Partnership. and the International Association of Chiefs of Pol ice, among many others.
There is wide-spread recognition that cities and towns need safe, efficient transportation systems to be
economically prosperous. A resolution by the League of Cali fornia Cities to suppo1t transportation safety
policies like Vision Zero and Toward Zero Deaths, and encourage implementation of projects and
programs that prioritize safety will help California elevate the health and safety of its residents and
position us as a leader in national efforts to promote a culture of safe mobility for all.
/IIIII/III
7
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Rony Berdugo
Committee: Transportation, Communication, and Public Works
Summarv:
T he resolved clauses in Resolution No. I: commits the League of California Cities to:
I) Supporting Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and other programs, policies, or initiatives that
prioritize transportation safety;
2) Encouraging cities throughout California to join in these traffic safety initiatives to pursue the
eli mination of death and severe inj ury crashes on our roadways; and
3) Encouraging the State to consider adopting transportation safety as a top priority for transportation
projects and policy formulation.
Background:
The City of San Jose notes national and international efforts to reduce fatal and severe injwy traffic
coll isions through systematic data driven approaches, such as Vision Zero and Toward Zero Deaths.
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), "Vision Zero is a traffic safety policy, developed in
Sweden in the late 1990s and based on four elements: ethics, responsibility, a philosophy of safety, and
creating mechanisms for change."' Below is a summary of each Vision Zero element, according to WHO:
I. Ethics -Life and health trump all other transportation benefits, such as mobility.
2. Responsibility -Responsibility for crashes and injuries is shared between the providers of the system
and the road users.
3. Safety Philosophy -Asserts that a transpot1ation system should account for the unstable relationship
of human error with fast/heavy machinery to avoid deaths/serious injwy, but accept crashes/minor
injuries.
4. Dri ving Mechanisms for Change -Asserts that road users and providers must both work to
guaranteeing road safety, taking measures such as: improving levels of seat belt use, installing crash-
protective barriers, wider use of speed camera technology, increasing random breathalyzer tests, and
promoting safety in transportation project contracts.
A Vision Zero City meets the following minimum standards:
• Sets clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries
• Mayor has publicly, officially committed to Vision Zero
• Vision Zero plan or strategy is in pl ace, or Mayor has committed to doing so in clear time frame
• Key city depat1ments (including police, transporta tion and publ ic health) are engaged
List of cities that meet the minimum Vision Zero standards nationally include: Anchorage, AK;
Austin, TX; Boston, MA; Cambridge, MA; Denver, CO; Eugene, OR; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Fremont, CA;
Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Pot1land, OR; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, TX; San Diego, CA;
San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; Washington, DC
List of cities that are considering adoption of Vision Zero nationally include: Ann Arbor, Ml;
Bellevue, OR; Beth lehem, PA; Chicago, IL; Columbia, MO; Houston, TX; Long Beach, CA;
1 http://who.int/violence injury prevention/publications/road traffic/world report/chapterl.pdf
8
New Orl eans, CA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsbur~h, PA; an Mateo, CA; anta Ana, CA; Santa Cruz, CA;
Santa Monica, CA; St. Paul, MN; Tampa, FL
Vision Zero -Samples:
I. an Francisco-In 2015, the City established a two-year action strategy that outlines the projects and
policy changes to implement its Vision Zero goal of zero traffi c deaths by 2024. The strategy adopts
fi ve core principles, such as: I) traffic deaths are preventable and unacceptable; 2) safety for all road
modes and users is the highest priority; 3) transportation system design should anticipate inevitable
human error; 4) education. enforcement, and vehicle technology contribute to a safe system; and 5)
transportation systems should be designed for speeds that protect human li fe.3 The strategy focuses on
engineering. enforcement. education. evaluation, and pol icy changes that can be made to achieve their
goals. The City is working on projects, such as:
a. Creating protected bike lanes
b. Building wider sidewalks
c. Reducing traffic speeds4
The City is also exploring policy changes to state law that will allow the City to place traffic cameras
near schools and senior centers to c ite speeding drivers through automated speed enforcement.5
2. Los Angeles-the City has established a commitment to eliminate all traffic deaths by 20:25. They
have identified a network of streets, known as the High Inj ury Network (HI )6, which maps out their
areas of concern where they plan on making strategic investments in reducing deaths/severe injury.
According to the City, only 6% of their city streets account for 2/3 of all deaths/severe injUty for
pedestrians. The City highlights the three followi ng projects as part of their Vision Zero efforts7:
a. Install ation of22 new Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPis) at signals throughout the city.
which gives pedestrians a head start against right-turning vehicles when crossing
b. Install ation of a pedestrian scramble at the intersection of Holl) wood and Highland. \-vhich
stops traffic in all four-directions during pedestrian crossing.
c. Install ation of curb extensions along Cesar E. Chavez A venue in their H IN, which reduces
the crossing distance for pedestrians, narrows the intersections. and reduces speed for turning
vehicles.
San Francisco's Vision Zero Categori es:
I. Engineering-implement treatments and redesign streets to reduce the frequency and severi ty
of collisions (i.e. using/implementing: high inj ury network maps. signal timing. high
visibility crosswalks, bus stop lengths, etc.)
2. Enforcement -use data driven approach to cite and focus on violations of the California
Vehicul ar Code and S.F. Transportation Code that identify as causative in severe and fatal
coli is ions (i.e. explore implementation of E-citation Pi lot, reporting on traffic collision data,
police training, etc.)
2 http://visionzeronetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/VZ-map-April-20-2016-4.jpg
3 http://www .joomag.com/magazine/vision-zero-san-fra ncisco/0685197001423594455 ?short
4 http://visionzerosf.org/vision-zero-in-action/engineering-streets-for-safety/
5 http://visionzerosf.org/vision-zero-in-action/public-policy-for-change/
6 http://ladot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapJournal/index.html?appid=488062fOOdb44efOa29bf481aa337cb3
7 http://visionzero.lacity.org/actions/
9
3. Education -coordinate among city departments to create citywide strategy for outreach and
safety programs, such as Safe Routes to Schools. (i.e. education campaign includes-Safe
Streets SF, large vehicle safe driving for municipal vehicles, etc.)
4. Evaluation-evaluate the impact of engineeri ng, enforcement, education and policy efforts to
provide recomtnendations for refinement (i.e. use of web-based data sharing and tracking
systems for transparency and accountability).
5. Policy-support and mobilize local and state policy initiati ves that advance Vision Zero (i.e.
Advance Automated Safety Enforcement initiative at the state level, in-vehi cle technology
usage, partnering with state and federal agencies on administrative and legal issues. etc.)
In its annual repotting, the City has established the following measures for successful
benchmarks:
• Decreasing total severe and fatal injuries
• Decreasing the proportion of severe and fatal injuries in communities of concern to
address social inequities
• Decreasing medical costs at SF General Hospita l relating to collisions
• Increasing the number of engineeri ng projects and miles of streets receiving safety
improvements
• Decreasing the speeds on SF streets
• Increasing investigation and prosecution of vehicular manslaughter
• Increasing public awareness of Vision Zero and traffic safety laws
• Increasing policy changes made at the state and local levels to advance Vision Zero
Toward Zero Deaths-The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) wi thin the United States
Department ofTranspmtation (US DOT) is committed to the vision of eliminating fatalities and
serious injuries on national roadways. FHWA has a strategic goal of ensuring the "nation's
highway system provides safe, reliable, effective, and sustainable mobility for all users."8 It is
essentially the national version of Vision Zero administered primarily through the Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
At the state level, the California Office ofTraftic Safety (OTS) has a mission to "effectively and
efficiently administer traffic safety grant funds to reduce traffic deaths, injuries, and economic
losses."9 They make available grants to local and state public agencies for traffic law
enforcement. public traffic safety education, and other programs aimed at reducing fatal ities.
injuries. and economic loss from collisions.
Support: City of Fremont, City of Los Angeles, City of Sacramento, City of San Francisco, City
of San Jose, City of Santa Monica, and City of West Hollywood
Opposition: One individual
Fiscal Impact: Unknown. The costs to any patiicular city can va ry tremendously depending on
the level and scope of investment any particular city would seek to make. For example, the City
of San Francisco has Vision Zero project costs ranging from $30,000 for pedestrian safety
treatments up to $12,000,000 for a Streetscape project. The cost of any particular effort could be
well below, above, and anywhere between those ranges for Vision Zero implementation.
8 http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tzd/
9 http://www.ots.ca.gov/OTS and Traffic Safety/About OTS.asp
10
Comment:
I) Policy committee members are encouraged to consider carefully how the adoption of the
resolved clause in this resolution may affect the League's fu ture policy when it comes to
advocating for transportation fund ing and other existing priorities. Whil e the clause
"encouraging cities throughout California to join in these traffic safety initiatives to pu rsue
the elimination of death and severe injury crashes on our roadways" provides an opportunity
to highlight strategies that can be considered to improve transportation safety. two other
aspects of the resolved appear to establish new policy for the organization in that it would
·'commit" the League to:
• Supporting Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and other programs, policies, or
initiatives that prioritize transportation safety.
• Encouraging the State to consider adopting transportation safety as a top priority
fo r transportation projects and policy formulation.
2) Effects of various strategies to improve transportation safety can vary. According to an article
published in the San Francisco Chronicle on March 26, 2016. deaths in an Francisco traffic
were not fa lling despite Vision Zero efforts. 10 The article notes that there were seven deaths
in 2016, while there was only one in the first I 0 weeks of 20 15 and seven in 2014 during the
same period. The San Francisco Department of Public Health commented that despite these
incidents, it's too early to make any conclusions about Vision Zero's effectiveness. In Los
Angeles, however, the city has cited sign ificant decreases in severe and fatal injuries with
implementation of ce1tain technologies, such as installation of pedestrian scrambles. The
success of Vision Zero in any particular city will likely depend on the level of investment and
scope of the project(s) as the projects can vary widely.
3) In the fifth '·Whereas" clause rrom the top, the word ·'principal" should be '·principle.''
Existing League Policv: '·The League supports additional funding for local transportation and other
critical unmet infrastructure needs. One of the League's priorities is to support a consistent and
continuous appropriation of new monies fro m various sources directly to cities and counties for the
preservation, mai ntenance and rehabilitation of the local street and road system. New and additional
revenues should meet the following policies:
• System Preservation and Maintenance. Give n the substantial needs for all modes of transportation, a
significant portion of new revenues should be focused on system preservation. Once the system has
been brought to a state of good repair, revenues for maintenance of the system would be reduced to a
level that enables sufficient recurring ma intenance.
• Commitment to Efficiency. Priority sho uld be given to using and improving current systems.
Recipients of revenues should incorporate operational improvements and new technology in projects.
• All Users Based System. New revenues should be borne by all users of the system from the
traditional personal vehicle that relies solely on gasoline. to those with new hybrid or electric
technology, to commercial vehicles moving goods in the state, and even transit, bicyclists. and
pedestrians who also benefit from the use of an integrated transpo11ation network.
• Alternative Funding Mechanisms. Given that new technologies continue to improve the efficiency of
many types of transp01tation methods, transportation stakeholders must be open to new alternative
funding mechanisms. Further, the goal of reducing greenhouse gases is also expected to affect vehicle
miles traveled, thus further reduce gasoline consumption and revenue from the existing gas tax. The
10 http://www .s fch ron icle .com/baya rea/art icle/0 ea ths-i n-S-F-traffic -not-fa !ling -d esp it e-Vision -71824 86. ph p
11
existing user based fee, such as the base $0.18-cent gas tax is a declining revenue source.
Collectively, we must have the politi cal will to push for sustainable transpor1ation revenues.
• Unified Statewide Solution. For statewide revenues, all transportation stakeholders must stand united
in the search for new revenues. Any new statewide revenues should address the needs of the entire
statewide transportation network, focused in areas where there is defensible and documented need.
• Equitv. New revenues should be distributed in an equitable manner, benefiting both the n011h and
south and urban, suburban, and rural areas as well as being equally split between state and local
projects.
• Flexibility. Needs vary from region to region and city to city. New revenues and revenue authority
should provide the flexibility for the appropriate level of government to meet the goals of the
constituents.
• Accountability. All tax dollars should be spent properly, and recipients of new revenues should be
held accountable to the taxpayers, whether at the state or local level." 11
Additionally, the League adopted to "Increase Funding for Critical Transportation and Water
Infrastructure" as its number one strategic goal for 2016. It reads, "Provide additional state and federal
fi nancial assistance and new local financing tools to help meet the critical trans portation (streets, bridges,
active transportation, and transit) and water (supply, sewer, storm water, flood control, etc.) infrastructure
maintenance and construction needs throughout California's cities."12
11 http://www .caciti es.o rg/R eso urces-Docu m ents/Po I icy-Advocacy-Section/Pol i cy-D eve Ia pm ent/2 016-Summary-
of-Exist ing-Policy-and-Guiding-Princi.aspx
12 http://www.cacities.org/Secondary/About-Us/Strategic-Priorities
12
LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE
Resolution No. 1
VISION ZERO
13
Office of tile Mayor ••• Freili6nt 3300 Capitol Avenue, Building A I P.O. Box 5006, Fremont, CA 94537-5006
510 284-4011 ph I 510 284-4001/ax I www.fremonl.gov
July 21, 2016
The Honorable Dennis Michael, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: A RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION AND
IMPLEMENTATION OF INITITIAVES TO PRIOIRITZE TRAFFIC SAFEY THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
.,. .
Dear President Michael,
The City of Fremont enthusiastically endorses the proposed resolution to support the implementation of
initiatives to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries on our roadways. Fremont is among the early
adopters of the Vision Zero traffic safety strategy. With City Council's approval of our Fremont Vision
Zero 2020 action plan in March 2016, we are already seeing the benefits of building a safety first culture
in our community.
I strongly encourage other California cities to join a growing coalition of support for Vision Zero.
Accordingly, we concur in the submission of the resolution for consideration by the League of Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 5, 2016.
Traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 2015 and is estimated to have exceeded 35,000
people. This is about double the average of peer nations and must be addressed. Safety of our
residents and visitors is paramount and this is especially true on the roads and streets of our cities. We
must put safety as the top priority for all users of our streets. It is fundamental for the prosperity of
California cities as safe, efficient, organized transportation systems are essential for economically
vibrant and sustainable communities.
The City of Fremont has embraced Vis ion Zero and we are in strong support of expanded transportation
safety in California cities and support the proposed Resolution.
Sincerely,
~~
Bill Harrison
Mayor
14
August 2, 2016
The Honorable Dennis Michael
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
RE: League of Californi a Cities Resolution Supporting Initiatives to Prioritize Traffic Safety
Dear President Michael:
We write in support of the proposed resolution to support the adoption and implementation of
Vision Zero initiatives throughout California to eliminate traffic fatalities and injuries. Vision Zero
and Towards Zero Deaths strategies have been adopted in cities throughout California,
including the City of Los Angeles. Accordingly, we concur in the submission of the resolution for
consideration by the League of Cities General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 5,
2016.
Every year, more than 200 people are killed while trying to move around Los Angeles. Nearly
half of the people who die on Los Angeles streets are people walking and bicycling, and an
alarming number of them are children and older adults. The safety of our residents and visitors
is paramount. If we can realize Vision Zero throughout California, children will be safer walking
to school, families will be safer going to the park, and commuters will be safer getting to work.
The City of Los Angeles adopted Vision Zero as part of its Transportation Strategic Plan, and an
executive directive was issued in 2015 directing its implementation. We are in strong support of
Vision Zero in California, and we support the proposed Resolution.
Sincerely,
LC---H-'-~,.·
ERIC GARCETTI
Mayor
~~~
JOE BUSCAINO
Councilmember, 15th District
League of California Cities Representative
15
OFFICE OF 1HE
CITY COUNCll.
JAY SCHENIRER
COUNCIUAEMBER
OISTRJCT FfVE
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
CALIFORNIA
July 27, 2016
The Honorable Dennis Michael, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES SUPPORTING THE ADOPTION
AND IMPLEMENTATION OF INITIATIVES TO PRIORITIZE TRAFFIC SAFETY
THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA
Dear President Michael,
The City of Sacramento supports the proposed resolution to support the adoption and
implementation of initiatives to prioritize transportation safety toward eliminating death and severe
injuries on our roadways. Vision Zero and Towards Zero Deaths strategies have been adopted in
many cities and Sacramento is currently developing its own Vision· Zero Action Plan.
Accordingly, we concur in the submission of the resolution for consideration by the League of Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 5, 2016.
Traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 2015 and are estimated to have exceeded
35,000 people. This is about double the average of peer nations and must be addressed. Safety of
our residents and visitors is paramount and this is especially true on roads and streets of our cities.
We must put safety as a top priority for all users of our streets. It is funaamental for prosperity of
California cities as safety, efficient, organized transportation systems are essential for economically
vibrant and sustainable communities.
The City of Sacramento is in strong support of prioritized and expanded transportation safety in
California cities and supports the proposed Resolution.
Sincerely,
Jay Scheni
Chair, Law
915 I S'nU:ET 51h FLOOR, SA6JW1ENTO, CA 95814-2604
PH 916-808-7005 • FAX 916-264-7680 • jschenirer@cityofsacr:~mento.org
-~.
-~ ' ? DIVERSITY
THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO
August 9, 2016
The Honorable Dennis Michael, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear President Michael:
RE: A resolution of the league of California Cities Supporting the Adoption and
Implementation of Initiatives to Prioritize Traffic Safety throughout California
The City of San Diego Transportation & Storm Water Department supports the proposed
resolution to support the adoption and implementation of initiatives to eliminate death and
severe injuries on our roadways. Vision Zero and Towards Zero Deaths strategies have been
adopted in numerous cities throughout California, including the City of San Diego
(Attachment 1). Accordingly, we concur in the submission of the resolution for consideration
by the League of Cities General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 5, 2016.
Traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high in 2015 and is estimated to have exceeded
35,000 people. This is about double the average of peer nations and must be addressed.
Safety of our residents and visitors is paramount and this is especially true on the roads and
streets of our cities. We must put safety as the top priority for all users of our streets. It is
fundamental for the prosperity of California cities as safe, efficient, organized transportation
systems are essential for economically vibrant and sustainable communities.
The City of San Diego Transportation & Storm Water Department has embraced Vision
Zero/Towards Zero Death and I am in strong s upport of expanded transportation safety in
California cities and support the proposed Resolution.
Sincerely,
Kris McFadden
Director
Attachment: A Resolution of the Council of the City of San Diego Adopting a Vision Zero
Plan to Eliminate Traffic Fatalities and Serious Injuries in the Next Ten Years
cc: Katherine Johnston, Director of Infrastructure and Budget Policy, Office of the Mayor
Kristin Tillquist, Director of State Government Affairs, Office of the Mayor
Vic Bianes, Assistant Director, Transportation & Storm Water Department
Linda Marabian, Deputy Director, Traffic Engineering Operations
Transportation & Storm Water Department
202 C Street, 9th Floor) lAS 9A • Son Diego, CA 92101
Tel (619) 236·6594 Fox (619) 236·6570
RESOLUTION NUMBER R-31 Q 0 4 2
DATE OF FINAL PASSAGE NOV 0· .. ~ 2015
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
OTEGO ADOPTING A VISION ZERO PLAN TO ELIMINATE
TRAFFIC FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES IN TI-lE
NEXT TEN YEARS.
/iJf ;:2.'fjl-::l
# 330
(R-2016-155)
WHEREAS, on average one person each day is seriously injured or killed on the road
whi le walking, bicycling, or driving the streets of San Diego; and,
WHEREAS, the City has adopted numerous studies and plans that outline design
concepts to improve safety for people walking and biking in the City including a Pedestrian
Master Plan and Bicycle Master Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City of San Diego's draft Climate Action Plan proposes to achieve 50
percent of commuter mode share for walking, biking and transit use in transit priority areas by
2050 and safer conditions for walking and biking can help implement this Plan; and,
WHEREAS, the City will increase in population by approximately 30 percent by 2050
and the majority of growth will result from in fill development thereby increasing demand for
safe walking and bicycling; and,
WHEREAS, communities in San Diego have prioritized infrastructure projects that
improve walking and biking safety among other project types as represented by tl1e Community
Planning Committee report to Infrastructure Committee in November 2013; and,
WHEREAS, the City incurs costs to respond to lawsuits alleging the City's failure to
provide safer streets; and,
and,
WHEREAS, restoring infrastructure in the City is a priority of the Council and Mayor;
-PAGE 1 OF 3-
18
(R-2016-155)
WHEREAS, Vision Zero provides a framework for reducing traffic deaths to zero
through a combination of safe engineering measures, education, and enforcement practices; and,
WHEREAS, Vision Zero has been adopted in many cities throughout the country, most
notably in New York City which has seen the lowest number of pedestrian fatalities in its first
year of implementation since documentation began in 191 0; and,
WHEREAS, Circulate San Diego is convening an Advisory Committee to advance
Visio~ Zero Goals; NOW, THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Diego, that it hereby adopts a goal
of eliminating traffic deaths and serious injuries by 2025; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Diego, that it urges
City staff from the Mayor's office, Transportation and Stonnwater Department, San Diego
Police Department, and a representative ofthe City's Oicyclc Advisory Committee to attend
meetings of Circulate San Diego's Vision Zero Advisory Committee for a limited time to
develop a traffic safety plan that will help the City reach the goal of zero traffic deaths and
serious injuries; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that lhc traffic safety plan will be guided by innovative
engineering solutions to improve road safety fo r all users, especially the most vu lnerable; will
measure and evaluate performance ruulUally; and will include enforcement and education
strategies to prevent the most dangerous behaviors that cause public hann, especially along the
cotTidors where collisions are most frequent.
-PAGE 2 OF 3-
19
APPROVED: JAN I. GOLDSMITH, City Attorney
By
TCZ:cfq
September 24, 2015
Or.Dept:Envir. Comm.
Doc. No.: 1116742
(R-2016-155)
l cert.ify that the fmcr~YWzo~ution was passed by the Council of the City of San Diego, at tlus
meeting of .
Approved: _.L_t ~..~-V-2.-,___L__s ___ _
date)
Vetoed:
(date) KEVIN L. FAULCONER, Mayor
-PAGE 3 OF 3-
20
Passed by the Council of The City of San Diego on OCT 2 7 2015 , by the following vote:
Councilmembers Yeas Nays Not Present Recused
Sberri Lightner r21 0 0 0
Lone Zapf ~ 0 0 0
Todd Gloria (A 0 0 0
Myrtle Cole C1 0 0 0
Mark Kersey 0 0 0 0
Chris Cate l/1 0 0 0
Scott Shem1an (21 0 0 0
David Alvarez 0 0 ~ ·o
Marti Emerald ¢ 0 0 0
'
Date of final passage __ N_OV_0_;~_20_15 __ _
(Please note: '\Vhen a resolution is approved by the Mayor, the date of final passage is the date the
approved resolution was returned to the Office of the City Clerk)
KEVIN L. FAULCONER
AUTHENTICATED BY: Mayor of The City of San Diego, California.
(Seal)
Office of the City Clerk, San Diego, California
Resolution Number R-310012
21
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
SAN FRANCISCO
August 1, 2016
The Honorable Dennis Michael
President, League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
EDWIN M. LEE
M AYOR
Re: Resolution of the League of California Cities Supporting the Adoption and
Implementation of Initiatives to Prioritize Traffic Safety Throughout California
Dear President Michael,
On be~alf of the City and County of San Francisco, I am writing to express my support for the
propos'ed resolution to support the adoption and implementation of initiatives to eliminate death
and severe injuries on our roadways. Vision Zero and Towards Zero Deaths strategies have
been adopted in numerous cities throughout California including San Francisco, San Jose, San
Mateo, San Diego, Los Angeles, Santa Barbara, and Santa Monica. Accordingly, I encourage
the submission of the resolution to support Vision Zero, Toward Zero Deaths, and other
initiatives that make traffic safety a priority, which will be considered by the League of Cities
General Assembly at its annual meeting on October 5, 2016.
Every year in San Francisco, approximately 30 people lose their lives and over 200 more are
seriously injured while traveling on our streets. These deaths and injuries are unacceptable and
preventable, and the City is strongly committed to stopping further loss of life. San Francisco
adopted Vision Zero as a policy in 2014, committing to build better and safer streets, educate
the public on traffic safety, ~nforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that save lives. Our
goal is to create a culture that prioritizes traffic safety and to ensure that mistakes on our
roadways do not result in serious injuries or deaths. The safety of our residents and the over 18
million visitors that use our streets each year is paramount, and the same holds true for cities
across the California, which need safe, efficient, and organized transportation systems to
support economically vibrant and sustainable communities.
The City and County of San Francisco has embraced Vision Zero, and I am in strong support of
expanded transportation safety in California cities and, in turn, the proposed Resolution.
Sincerely,
1 DR. CARLTON 8. GOODLETT PLACE, ROOM 200
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102-4681
TELEPHONE: (41 5) 554-6 141
22
City of
Santa l'tlonlcae
July 21, 2016
Mayor Tony Vazquez
Mayor Pro Tempore Ted Winterer
Councilmembers
Gleam Davis
Sue Himmelric:h
Kevin McKeown
Pam O'Connor
Terry O'Day
The Honorable Dennis Michael, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CONSIDERATION OF INITmAVES TO PRIOIRITZE TRAFFIC SAFEY THROUGHOUT
CALIFORNIA
Dear President Michael:
The City of Santa Monica supports initiatives to eliminate death and severe injuries on our roadways. VIsion Zero and Towards
Zero Deaths strategies have been adopted in numerous cities throughout California, leading to the submission of the resolution
for consideration by the League of Cities General Assembly at Its annual meeting on October 5, 2016.
The City of Santa Monica embraced Secretary Anthony Foxx's Mayor's Cha llenge for Safer People, Safer Streets In March 2015.
Simultaneously, the Council directed staff to initiate work on Vision Zero and 8-80 cities-a movement created by Gil Penalosa,
to make cities that work for people aged 8 to 80. Combined, these two efforts aim to create streets that are safe and
comfortable for people in all modes and of all abilities. In February 2016 the Santa Monica City Council adopted a Vision Zero
target In our first Pedestrian Action Plan. We are now actively working to Incorporate these visionary target s Into City
operations.
Our City cares deeply about the safety of our people, and their ability to access good, services, education, social networks and
employment. Creating a New Model for Mobility is one of the Council's Five Strategic Goals, Identified to organize and advance
work on our top priorities. A safe mobility network supports our urgent need to provide transportation options that reduce
greenhouse gas emissions, and provide equitable access to places and activities that support community Wellbeing. Reducing
and ultimately eliminating severe injury and fatal crashes part of a resilient, safe and prosperous community.
Traffic fatalities in America hit a seven-year high In 2015 and is estimated to have exceeded 35,000 people. This is about double
the average of peer nations and must be addressed. Safety of our residents and visitors Is paramount and this Is especially t rue
on the roads and streets of our cities. We must put safety as the top priority for all users of our streets. It is fundamental for
the prosperity of California cities as safe, efficient, organized transportation systems are essential for economica lly vibrant and
sustainable communities.
The City of Santa Monica has embraced Vision Zero/Towards Zero Deaths and I am in strong support of expanded
transportation safety In California cities.
Sincerely,
1685 M ain Street • PO Box 2200 • Santa Monica • CA 90407-2200
tel: 310 458-8201 • fax: 310 458-1621 • e-mail: council@smgov.net 23
" " . . . . . . . . . . . . . " . . . . . " " " " " " " . . . " " " " . . .
C l y o l W o O l H o l l y w O O d " " " " " " ' . . .
C I T Y H A L L
8 3 0 0 S A N T A M O N I C A B L V D .
W E S T H O t L Y W O O D , C A
9 0 0 6 9 - 6 2 1 6
T E L . : ( 3 2 3 ) 8 4 8 - 6 4 6 0
F A X : ( 3 2 3 ) 8 4 8 - 6 5 6 2
O F F I I : E O F T H E
l : I T ' V M A I \ I A i i E R
P A U L A R E V A L O
C I T Y M A N A G E R
C I T Y O f
W f S T H U l l Y W O O D
J u l y 2 1 , 2 0 1 6
T h e H o n o r a b l e L . D e n n i s M i c h a e l , P r e s i d e n t
L e a g u e o f C a l i f o r n i a C i t i e s
1 4 0 0 K S t r e e t
S a c r a m e n t o , C a l i f o r n i a 9 5 8 1 4
R E S O L U T I O N O F T H E l E A G U E O F C A L I F O R N I A C I T I E S S U P P O R T I N G T H E A D O P T I O N A N D
I M P L E M E N T A T I O N O F I N I T I T I A V E S T O P R I O I R I T Z E T R A F F I C S A F E Y T H R O U G H O U T
C A L I F O R N I A - S U P P O R T
D e a r P r e s i d e n t M i c h a e l :
T h e C i t y o f W e s t H o l l y w o o d s u p p o r t s t h e p r o p o s e d r e s o l u t i o n t o s u p p o r t t h e a d o p t i o n
a n d i m p l e m e n t a t i o n o f i n i t i a t i v e s t o e l i m i n a t e d e a t h a n d s e v e r e i n j u r i e s o n o u r r o a d w a y s .
V i s i o n Z e r o a n d T o w a r d s Z e r o D e a t h s s t r a t e g i e s h a v e b e e n a d o p t e d i n n u m e r o u s c i t i e s
t h r o u g h o u t C a l i f o r n i a . A c c o r d i n g l y , w e c o n c u r i n t h e s u b m i s s i o n o f t h e r e s o l u t i o n f o r
c o n s i d e r a t i o n b y t h e L e a g u e o f C i t i e s G e n e r a l A s s e m b l y a t i t s a n n u a l m e e t i n g o n O c t o b e r
5 , 2 0 1 6 .
T r a f f i c f a t a l i t i e s i n A m e r i c a h i t a s e v e n - y e a r h i g h i n 2 0 1 5 , a n d i t i s e s t i m a t e d t o h a v e
e x c e e d e d 3 5 , 0 0 0 p e o p l e . T h i s i s a b o u t d o u b l e t h e a v e r a g e o f p e e r n a t i o n s a n d m u s t b e
a d d r e s s e d . S a f e t y o f o u r r e s i d e n t s a n d v i s i t o r s i s p a r a m o u n t a n d t h i s i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o n
t h e r o a d s a n d s t r e e t s o f o u r c i t i e s . W e m u s t p u t s a f e t y a s t h e t o p p r i o r i t y f o r a l l u s e r s o f
o u r s t r e e t s . I t i s f u n d a m e n t a l f o r t h e p r o s p e r i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a c i t i e s a s s a f e , e f f i c i e n t ,
o r g a n i z e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s y s t e m s a r e e s s e n t i a l f o r e c o n o m i c a l l y v i b r a n t a n d s u s t a i n a b l e
c o m m u n i t i e s .
T h e C i t y o f W e s t H o l l y w o o d i s i n s t r o n g s u p p o r t o f e x p a n d e d t r a n s p o r t a t i o n s a f e t y i n
C a l i f o r n i a c i t i e s a n d s u p p o r t t h e p r o p o s e d R e s o l u t i o n .
P a u l A r e v a l o ,
C I T Y M A N A G E R
c : H o n o r a b l e M e m b e r s o f t h e W e s t H o l l y w o o d C i t y C o u n c i l
2 4
I
I I
I