CC SR 20220621 H - SB 932 Circulation Element
CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/21/2022
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar
AGENDA TITLE:
Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing Senate
Bill No. (SB) 932 (circulation element).
RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION:
(1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing SB 932, which would require cities
to develop and implement bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic calming plans in the
general plan circulation element and would create a cause of action against a city
that fails to implement those plans for certain persons injured in a collision in high
injury areas.
FISCAL IMPACT: None
Amount Budgeted: N/A
Additional Appropriation: N/A
Account Number(s): N/A
ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst
REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager
APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager
ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS:
A. Draft letter opposing SB 932 (page A-1)
B. Text of SB 932 (as amended May 4, 2022)
BACKGROUND AND DISUCSSION:
On November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform,
outlining the policy positions of the City.1 The platform includes the opposition of
legislation that usurps local control and erodes the City’s authority to control its own affairs
(2022 Legislative Platform, item 1.A.).
1 The 2022 Legislative Platform and a record of the bills the City Council has taken a position on during
the 2021-2022 legislative session is available at rpvca.gov/LegislationCorner.
1
SB 932, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (La Cañada Flintridge), would require
circulation elements (the portion of the City’s general plan related to transportation) to
include specified contents related to bicycle plans, pedestrian plans, and traffic calming
plans; would require cities to implement those plans; and would provide that failure to
implement the plans creates a cause of action for victims of traffic violence.
Assembly Bill (AB) 1358 (Statutes of 2008), known as the California Complete Streets
Act of 2008, requires cities, in their 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 context of the general
plan. Additionally, through the implementation of the Act, the Gov ernor’s Office of
Planning and Research (OPR) suggested many policies and considerations that local
governments may wish to adopt to comply with AB 1358’s requirements, including the
following:
• The consideration of traffic calming measures.
• The safety of the traveling public, including pedestrians and bicyclists.
• The accessibility and accommodation of bicycle and pedestrian traffic, where
appropriate, on and across major thoroughfares.
The City’s Circulation Element includes these recommendations. In addition, the City is
in the process of updating its Trails Network Plan, which includes, among other things, a
Bikeways Plan.
SB 932 would effectively mandate the recommendations of the Complete Streets Act
without funding. The bill would additionally require:
• The use of evidence-based strategies intended to eliminate traffic fatalities,
especially fatalities of bicyclists, pedestrians, and users of other human -powered
transportation.
• Identification of safety corridors and any land or facility that generates high
concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians and inclusion of safety measures
specific to those areas.
• Establishment of traffic calming measures around schools and parks, and within
business activity districts.
• A city or county to begin implementation of the modified circulation element within
two years of adopting the plan, and to complete implementation of the plan for a
multimodal transportation network, including all bicycle, pedestrian, and traffic
calming plans, and construction of related infrastructure, within 20 years of
adopting the modified circulation element.
Significant, unfunded costs would be incurred if this bill were to pass, both in the
development of the new sections of the circulation element, and particularly in relationship
to the construction and implementation of infrastructure needed to meet the plan’s outline.
Furthermore, the mandate does not allow for project/funding priorities. The City has
2
limited resources available for capital improvement projects and this bill would create a
significant unfunded mandate and may take resources away from priority projects.
In addition to the changes to the circulation element, SB 932 would also create a
significant new legal liability if the City were unable to meet the bill’s arbitrary
implementation timeframe, creating a cause of action for victims of traffic violence. This
would potentially make cities liable for injuries that may result from the actions of third
parties, such as motorists, and would expose local governments to significant costs that
might otherwise have gone to support the infrastructure SB 932 seeks to encourage.
Given this bill would make significant, unprecedented, and overly prescriptive changes to
the requirements of the circulation element of local general plans; impose costly,
unfunded mandates for physical changes to local transportation infrastructure; and
expose local governments to significant local liability, Staff recommends the City Council
authorize the Mayor to sign a letter opposing SB 932 (see Attachment A). It should be
noted that the City approaches traffic and roadway projects on a case -by-case basis with
input from the community, Traffic Safety Committee, and traffic enginee rs based on the
goals and policies identified in the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan.
ALTERNATIVES:
In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available
for the City Council’s consideration:
1. Identify revised language to add to the letter.
2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter.
3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate.
3
June 21, 2022 Via Email
The Honorable Anthony Portantino
California State Senate
1021 O Street, Suite 7630
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Notice of Opposition to SB 932
Dear Senator Portantino:
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully opposes SB 932, which would make
significant, unprecedented, and overly prescriptive changes to the requirements of the
circulation element of local general plans; impose costly, unfunded mandates for physical
changes to local transportation infrastructure; and expose local governments to significant
local liability.
Local agencies, such as Rancho Palos Verdes, support active transportation projects and
have been leading the charge to improve local streets and roads, while also retrofitting
them to improve safety for all roadway users. Despite the progress that local governments
have made in aggressively developing active transportation in their communities, SB 932
fails to consider local funding constraints, instead taking a top-down approach that
dictates both the type of improvements required as well as the timing f or implementing
such improvements. The time horizons in SB 932 do not account for existing funding
gaps, much less the additional capital costs of the improvements the bill requires.
The City of Rancho Palos Verdes is in the process of updating its Trails Network Plan,
which includes a Bikeways Plan, and as indicated in the City’s Circulation Element, the
City’s path and trail networks are an integral part of the City’s transportation network.
However, local agencies face significant tradeoffs in prioritizing competing needs for
roadway maintenance and improvements across their jurisdictions. The circulation
element must continue to provide flexibility as to the type of transportation improvements
warranted in specific contexts and any timelines for implementation must be developed
in consideration of realistically available financial resources. Furthermore, local agencies
are prohibited from charging any fees onto developers for capital improvements, such as
those mandated by this bill, and must use limited resources from their general fund,
A-1
Senator Portantino
June 21, 2022
Page 2
thereby placing cost pressures on and threatening the deployment of critical infrastructure
projects.
Finally, SB 932 creates significant new legal liability for the largest nine counties and the
cities located within those jurisdictions that fail to meet the bill’s arbitrary implementation
timeframes. In addition to the funding constraints and practical issues discussed above,
the new private right of action created by SB 932 will be counter -productive to making
progress on improving our local streets. Simply put, every additional dollar that goes
toward defending against litigation is one fewer dollar available for improving our local
streets and roads.
For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes opposes SB 932.
Sincerely,
David L. Bradley
Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes
cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District
Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th State Assembly District
Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities
Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association
Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group
Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager
A-2