CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 01, 2022
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILMEMBERS
SUBJECT: APPROVE LETTER OPPOSING SB 932 (PORTANTINO) GENERAL PLANS: CIRCULATION ELEMENT: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
PLANS
SYNOPSIS
SB 932 (Portantino) General plans: Circulation Element: Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan would create unfunded mandates for costly improvements to local transportation infrastructure without providing funding for implementation and would expose many local governments to new legal risks that may result in litigation costs to defend and settle. Staff recommends that the City Council send a letter of opposition to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and bill author, Senator Portantino.
DISCUSSION
Background
Existing law states the Legislature’s intention that a county or city general plan and the elements and parts of that general plan comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the adopting agency. Existing Planning and Zoning Law requires the legislative body of a city or county to adopt a comprehensive general plan that includes various elements, including a circulation element, which must consist of the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, any military airports and ports, and other local public utilities and facilities. The legislative body, upon any substantive revision of the circulation element, is required to modify the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network that meets the needs of all users of streets, roads, and highways for safe and convenient travel in a manner that is suitable to the rural, suburban, or urban context of the general plan. “Users of streets, roads, and highways” are defined to mean bicyclists, children, persons with disabilities, motorists, movers of commercial goods, pedestrians, users of public transportation, and seniors.
Analysis
As described in the Assembly Committee on Transportation’s June 2022 analysis, the bill:
1. Would require the legislative body of a city or county, upon the next substantive revision of the circulation element occurring on or after January 1, 2025, to develop or update the plan for a balanced, multimodal transportation network, as specified, and to ensure that the plan includes bicycle plans, pedestrian plans and traffic calming plans for any urbanized area, as defined, within the scope of the county or city general plan.
2. Would require a city or county to begin implementation of the plan within two years of the date of adoption of the modified circulation element that includes the bicycle, pedestrian and traffic calming plans.
3. Would require the revised circulation element for any urbanized area to include the following:
a. The bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming plans to address all of the following:
i. Identify safety corridors and any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, as defined. ii. Use evidence-based strategies to develop safety measures specific to those areas that are intended to eliminate traffic fatalities, with an emphasis on fatalities of bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of any other form of micromobility device, as defined.
iii. Establish traffic calming measures around schools and parks, and within business activity districts, as defined.
b. A county or city to begin implementation of the modified circulation element plan within two years of the date of adoption of the plan.
i. Requires a city or county to complete implementation of the plan for a multimodal transportation network and the construction of any related infrastructure within 25 years of the date of adoption of the modified circulation element.
ii. Provides that a city or county shall have an additional 10 years to complete implementation if the circulation element contains measures that decrease traffic fatalities by at least 20% within the first 5 years of its implementation period, and the city or county implements those measures within those 5 years.
4. Provides that a city or county shall not be required to comply with the requirements of the bill upon making a written finding based on substantial evidence that its failure to comply with the requirements of the bill are the result of unforeseen circumstances outside of the control of the city or county.
5. Provides that, from January 1, 2025 through January 1, 2028, the failure by a city or county to comply with the requirements of the bill creates a cause of action for bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of any other form of micromobility device injured as a result of a collision with a motor vehicle within the right-of-way of safety corridors and any land or facility that generates high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians, as defined, in the following counties:
a. Alameda
b. Contra Costa
c. Los Angeles
d. Orange
e. Riverside
f. Sacramento
g. San Bernardino
h. San Diego
i. San Francisco
j. Santa Clara
6. Defines the following:
a. “Business activity district” has the same meaning as defined in Section 22358.9 of the Vehicle Code.
b. “Land facilities that generate high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians” has the same meaning as described in Section 22358.7 of the Vehicle Code. c. “Micromobility device” means a bicycle, electric bicycle, or motorized scooter as those terms are defined and described in Division 1 (commencing with Section 100) of the Vehicle Code.
d. “Safety corridor” has the same meaning as defined in Section 22358.7 of the Vehicle Code.
e. “Urbanized area” has the same meaning as defined in Section 21071 of the Public Resources Code.
7. States the intent of the Legislature to create an annual grant program, and an appropriation, to be awarded to any county or city that shows implementation of timely and effective short-term efforts to mitigate bicycle, pedestrian, and other micromobility device injuries and fatalities, in order to incentivize any county or city with few financial resources to take small, affordable steps towards fulfilling its traffic and street safety goals.
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee:
1. There are “[u]nknown significant local costs for cities and counties to update circulation elements and to develop and implement bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic calming plans for any urbanized areas within their jurisdiction. The bill includes ‘local fee disclaimer’ language indicating that the bill’s costs are not state-reimbursable because local agencies have general authority to charge and adjust planning and permitting fees to cover their administrative expenses associated with new planning mandates. (local funds)”
2. There are “[u]nknown court cost pressures due to increased workload for the judicial branch to adjudicate court filings generated by the new cause of action created by this bill. (Trial Court Trust Fund, General Fund)”
3. There are “[u]nknown, major cost pressures to establish, administer, and fund a grant program to provide resources to cities and counties to offset their costs for updating circulation elements, as specified in the bill. (General Fund)” The League of California Cities recommends local agencies send letters of opposition as SB 932 would create unfunded mandates for costly improvements to local transportation infrastructure without providing funding for implementation and expose many local governments to new legal risks that may result in litigation costs to defend and settle. The timeframes in SB 932 do not account for existing funding gaps, much less the additional capital costs of the improvements the bill mandates.
It is more appropriate to solicit local government input and planning for incorporation into the state’s active transportation plans, which are not required to be updated, rather than creating the new private right of action. Every dollar that goes toward defending against litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local streets and roads.
Finally, SB 932 does not contain a funding mechanism despite the Legislature proposing $1.5 billion in the state budget for active transportation projects. SB 932 should be amended to create a grant program tied to the $1.5 billion allocated for these projects.
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the proposed letter of opposition to SB 932, unless amended.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City to send a letter of opposition.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public Contact was made through posting of the City Council agenda on the City’s official notice bulletin board, at the Pleasant Hill Library, and at the Pleasant Hill Police Department. The agenda and staff report are posted on the City’s web page.
RECOMMENDED CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Send the proposed letter of opposition to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations and bill author, Senator Portantino.
ALTERNATIVES TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
Do not send a letter of opposition.
Give direction to staff to amend the letter of opposition.
ATTACHMENT(S):
Proposed Letter of Opposition
Text of SB 932
Prepared by: Danielle K. Habr, Principal Management Analyst/City Clerk Reviewed by: Ananthan Kanagasundaram, City Engineer, and Ethan Bindernagel, Community Development Director/Assistant City Manager Approved by: June Catalano, City Manager