Loading...
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