Staff ReportPREPARED BY : JANETTE JUDD
Executive Assistant to the Town Manager
Reviewed by: N/A Assistant Town Manager Town Attorney Finance
C:\Users \slombardo \Downloads \League.CA.Cities.VotingDelegate (1).doc
MEETING DATE: 0 9 /0 6 /1 6
ITEM NO : 1
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: AUGUST 1 6 , 201 6
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: LAUREL PREVETT I , TOWN MANAGER
SUBJECT: APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER ROB RENNIE AS THE TOWN’S VOTING
DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFE RENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCTO BER 5 -7 , 201 6 IN LONG BEACH ,
CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDATION :
Appoint Council Member Rob Rennie as the Town’s voting delegate for the League of California Cities
Annual Confe rence schedul ed for Octo ber 5 -7 , 201 6 in Long Beach , California.
REMARKS :
Each year the League of California Cities conducts an annual conference to discuss key legislative,
social, fiscal and service issues affecting California municipalities. One important aspect of the
conference is its annual business meeting where the League membership takes action on conference
resolutions . Annual conference resolutions guide cities and the League in efforts to improve the quality,
responsiveness, and vitality of local governm ent in California .
To expedite the annual business meeting, participating cities/towns have been asked to designate a
primary voting delegate and optionally, an alternate voting delegate . This year, neither the appointed
R epresentative or the appointed A lternate for the Town are avail able to attend the conference. At the
Mayor’s request, Council Member Rob Rennie has agreed to serve as the voting delegate.
PAGE 2
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
AUGUST 1 6 , 2016
SUBJECT: APPOINT COUNCIL MEMBER ROB RENNIE AS THE TOWN’S VOTING
DELEGATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL
CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR OCTO BER 5 -7 , 201 6 IN L ONG B EACH ,
CALIFORNIA
REMARKS (cont’d):
Attac hed is the 2016 League of California Cities Conference Resolutions Pack et (Attachment 1). I t has
been the past practice to have the Town voting delegate determine the Town’s position based on
resolution discussion and feedback at the League Annual Business Meeting.
Attachment:
1. 201 6 League of California Cities Conference Resolutions Packet
Annual Conference
Resolutions Packet
2016 Annual Conference Resolutions
Long Beach, California
October 5 – 7, 2016
INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES
R ESOLUTIONS CONTAINED 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 Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.
This year, one resolution has been introduced for consideration by the Annual Conference and
referred to the League policy committees.
POLICY COMMITTEES : One policy committee will meet at the Annual Conference 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 – 10:30 a.m. on Wednesday, October 5, 2016 , at
the Hyatt Regency . Th e sponsor of the resolution has been notified of the t ime and location of the
meeting .
GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE : This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday,
October 6 , at the Hyatt Regency in Long Beach , to consider the report of the policy committee
regarding the resolution. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s
regional divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other
individuals appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room
location.
ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY : This meeting
will be held at 12:00 p.m. on Friday, October 7 , at the Long Beach Convention Center.
PETITIONED RESOLUTIO NS : For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day
deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by
designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid 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.cacities.org/resolutions .
Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond at the
League office: mdesmond@cacities.org or (916) 658-8224
1
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 policy
decisions.
Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions
should adhere to the following criteria.
Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions
1. 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 di rection 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
Policy Committee Meetings
Wednesday, October 5
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Street, Long Beach
9:00 – 10:30 a.m.: Transportation, Communication & Public Works
General Resolutions Committee
Thursday, October 6 , 1:00 p.m.
Hyatt Regency Long Beach
200 South Pine Street, Long Beach
Annual Business Meeting and 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 policy committees to which they have been assigned.
Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action
1 2 3
1 - Policy Committee Recommendation
to General Resolutions Committee
2 - General Resolutions Committee
3 - General Assembly
TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION, AND PUBLIC WORKS POLICY
COMMITTEE
1 2 3
1 Vision Zero
Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each
committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org . The entire Resolutions Packet will
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 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN
1. Policy Committee
A Approve
2. General Resolutions Committee
D Disapprove
3. General Assembly
N No Action
R Refer to appropriate policy committee for
study
ACTION FOOTNOTES
a Amend+
* Subject matter covered in another resolution
Aa Approve as amended+
** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+
*** Local authority presently exists
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 No
Action+
W Withdrawn by Sponsor
Procedural Note :
T he 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
INITIATIVES TO MAKE SAFETY A TOP PRIORITY FOR TRANSPORTATION
PROJECTS AND POLICY FORMULATION, WHILE ENCOURAGING CITIES TO
PURSUE SIMILAR INITIATIVES
Source: City of San Jose
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials : Cit ies: Fremont; Los Angeles ; Sacramento; San Diego;
San Francisco; Santa Monica; and West Hollywood
Referred to : Transportation, 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 collisions; 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 a c counting for a dispropo r tion ate 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 compreh ensive strategies to eliminate all
traffic fatalities and severe injuries using a multi -disciplinary 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 traffic fatalities and severe injuries occurring on streets and
highways ; and
WHEREAS safe, reliable and efficient transportation systems are essential foundations for
thriving cities .
RESOLVED that the League of Ca lifornia Cities commits to supporting Vision Zero, Toward
Zero Deaths, and other programs , policies , or initiatives that prioritize transportation safety;
AND 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 encourage the State of California to consider adopting safety as a top priority for both
transportation project s and policy formulation.
//////////
Background Information on Resolution to Support Transportation Safety Programs
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
6
person in the Un ited States was about double the average of peer nations, with close to 10% of these
deaths occurring in California (3,074 in 2014). California’s largest city, Los Angeles, has the highest rate
of traffic death among large U.S. cities, at 6.27 per 100,000 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 he alth 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 t he United Nations General Assembly introduced the Decade of
Action for Road Safety 2011-2020 and set the goal for the decade: “to stabilize and then reduce the
forecast level of road traffic fatalities around the world” by 50% by 2020.
As of this writing, 18 U.S. cities have adopted Vision Zero programs (including New York City, Boston,
Ft. Lauderdale, Austin, San Antonio, Washington DC, and Seattle) to reduce the numbers of fatal crashes
occurring on their roads (http://visionzerone twork.org/map -of-vision -zero -cities/). California 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 actively considering ado ption.
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/tzd/) 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 b y 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://library.ite.org/pub/ed59a040-caf4 -5300-8ffc -35deb33ce03d ).
Ultimately all of these programs share the fundamental belief that a data -dri ven, systems -level,
interdisciplinary approach can prevent severe and fatal injuries on our nation’s roadways. They employ
proven strategies, actions, and countermeasures across education, enforcement and engineering. 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 Police, 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 California Cities to support 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.
//////////
7
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1
Staff: Rony Berdugo
Committee : Transportation, Communication, and Public Works
Summary:
The resolved clauses in Resolution No. 1: commits the League of California Cities to:
1) 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
elimination of death and severe injury crashes on our roadways; and
3) Encouraging the State to consider adopting transportation safety as a top priority for transportation
projects and policy formulat ion.
Background:
The City of San Jose notes national and international efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury traffic
collisions through systematic data driven approaches, such as Vision Zero and Toward Zero Deaths.
According to the World Health Organi zation (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.”1 Below is a summary of each Vision Zero element, a ccording to WHO:
1. 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 t hat a transportation system should account for the unstable relationship
of human error with fast/heavy machinery to avoid deaths/serious injury, but accept crashes/minor
injuries.
4. Driving 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 pro ject 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 place, or Mayor has committed to doing so in clear time frame
• Key city departments (including police, transportation and public health) are engaged
List of cities that meet the minimum Vision Zero standards nationally include : Anchorage, AK;
Austin, TX; Boston, MA; Camb ridge, MA; Denver, CO; Eugene, OR; Fort Lauderdale, FL; Fremont, CA;
Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; San Antonio, TX; San Diego, CA;
San Francisco, CA; San Jose, CA; Seattle, WA; Washington, DC
List of cities that are consider ing adoption of Vision Zero nationally include: Ann Arbor, MI;
Bellevue, OR; Bethlehem, PA; Chicago, IL; Columbia, MO; Houston, TX; Long Beach, CA;
1 http://who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/chapter1.pdf
8
New Orleans, CA; Philadelphia, PA; Pittsburgh, PA; San Mateo, CA; Santa Ana, CA; Santa Cru z, CA;
Santa Monica, CA; St. Paul, MN; Tampa, FL 2
Vision Zero – Samples :
1. San 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 traffic deaths by 2024. The strategy adopts
five core principles, such as: 1) 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 life.3 The strategy focuses on
engineering, enforcement, education, evaluation, and policy 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 speeds 4
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 cite speeding drivers through automated speed enforcement.5
2. Los Angeles – the City has established a commitment to eliminate all traffic deaths by 2025. They
have identified a network of streets, known as the High Inju ry Network (HIN)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 injury for
pedestrians. The City highlights the three following projects as part of their Vision Zero efforts 7 :
a. Installation of 22 new Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs) at signals throughout the city,
which gives pedestrians a head start against right -turning vehicles when crossing
b. Installation of a pedestrian scramble at the intersection of Hollywood and Highland, which
stops traffic in all four -directions during pedestrian crossing.
c. Installation of curb extensions along Cesar E. Chavez Avenue in their HIN, which reduces
the crossing distance for pedestrians, narrows the intersections, and reduces speed for turning
vehicles.
San Francisco’s Vision Zero Categories:
1. Engineering – imple ment treatments and redesign streets to reduce the frequency and severity
of collisions (i.e. using/implementing: high injury 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
Vehicular Code and S.F. Transportation Code that identify as causative in severe and fatal
collisions (i.e. explore implementation of E-citation Pilot, 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/m agazine/vision -zero -san -francisco/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=488062f00db44ef0a29bf481aa337cb3
7 http://visionzero.lacity.org/actions/
9
3. Ed ucation – 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. Evaluati on – evaluate the impact of engineering, enforcement, education and policy efforts to
provide recommendations for refinement (i.e. use of web-based data sharing and tracking
systems for transparency and accountability).
5. Policy – support and mobilize loca l and state policy initiatives that advance Vision Zero (i.e.
Advance Automated Safety Enforcement initiative at the state level, in -vehicle technology
usage, partnering with state and federal agencies on administrative and legal issues, etc.)
In its annual reporting, 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 Hospital relating to collisions
• Increasing the number of engineering projects and miles of streets receiving safety
improvements
• Decreasing the speeds on SF streets
• Increasing investigation and prosecution of vehicular manslaug hter
• 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) within the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT) is committed to the vision of eliminating fatalities and
serious injuries on national roadways. FHWA has a strategic goal of ensuring the “nation’s
h ighway 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 of Traffic 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 fatalities,
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 particular city can vary 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 Visio n Zero implementation.
8 http://safety.f hwa.dot.gov/tzd/
9 http://www.ots.ca.gov/OTS_and_Traffic_Safety/About_OTS.asp
10
Comment:
1) Policy committee members are encouraged to consider carefully how the adoption of the
resolved clause in this resolution may affect the League’s future policy when it comes to
advocating for transportation funding and other existing priorities. While the clause
“e ncouraging cities throughout California to join in these traffic safety initiatives to pursue
the elimination of death and severe injury crashes on our roadways” provides an opportunity
to highlight strategies th at 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
for 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 San Francisco traffic
were not falling despite Vision Zero efforts.10 The article notes that there were seven deaths
in 2016, while there was only one in the first 10 weeks of 2015 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 significant decreases in severe and fatal injuries with
implementation of certain technologies, such as installation of pedestrian scrambles. The
success of Vision Zero in any particular city will likely depend on the level of investme nt and
scope of the project(s) as the projects can vary widely.
3) In the fifth “Whereas” clause from the top, the word “principal” should be “principle.”
Existing League Policy: “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 from various sources directly to cities and counties for the
preservation, maintenance and rehabilitation of the local street and road system. New and additional
revenues should meet the following policies:
• System Preservation and Maintenance . Given 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 maintenance.
• Commitment to Efficiency. Priority should 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 transportation network.
• Alternative Funding Mechanisms . Given that new technologies continue to improve the efficiency of
many types of transportation methods, transportation stakeholders must be open to new alternative
fundi ng 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.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Deaths -in -S-F-traffic -not -falling -despite -Vision -7182486.php
11
existing user based fee, such as the base $0.18 -cent gas ta x is a declining revenue source.
Collectively, we must have the political will to push for sustainable transportation 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.
• Equity. New revenues should be distributed in an equitable manner, benefiting both the north 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
Ad ditionally, 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
financial assistance and new local financing tools to help meet the critical transportation (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.cacities.org/Resources -Documents/Policy -Advocacy -Section/Policy -Development/2016 -Summary -
of -Existing -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
14
CITY HALL
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90012
August 2, 2016
The Honorable Dennis Michael
President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street
Sacramento, California 95814
RE: League of California 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 a re in strong support of
Vision Zero in California, and we support the proposed Resolution.
Sincerely,
ERIC GARCETTI JOE BUSCAINO
Mayor Councilmember, 15 th District
League of California Cities Representative
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24