HomeMy WebLinkAbout17 - NB-4 - Presentation on CA Senate Bill 127 - 10/1/20191
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2019 ITEM NUMBER: NB-4
SUBJECT: PRESENTATION ON CALIFORNIA SENATE BILL 127 – COMPLETE
STREETS
DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2019
FROM: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
PRESENTATION BY: LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON, CITY MANAGER
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE AT (714) 754-5328
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the City Council provide direction to staff on a position to take on
Senate Bill 127 (Attachment 2), currently pending before Governor Newsom. Such a
position would be communicated by sending a letter requesting the Governor either sign
or veto Senate Bill 127. This review was requested by Council Member Reynolds.
BACKGROUND:
Senate Bill 127 – Transportation Funding: Active Transportation: Complete Streets
As listed in the Senate Floor Analysis (Attachment 3), this bill would require:
• The Department of Transportation (department), in coordination with the
Transportation Commission (commission), to prioritize the implementation of safe
and connected facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on all State
Highway Operation and Protection Program projects (SHOPP) in their asset
management plan. Under this bill, the department is also required to include
complete streets elements in the asset management plan;
• The commission to adopt performance measures for projects pertaining to the
asset management plan and that the department and the commission develop a
plain language performance report;
• The department, commencing with the 2022 State Highway Operation and
Protection Program, to include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve
existing facilities, for projects that receive funding through SHOPP;
2
• Funding for safety improvements from the State Highway Account prioritize
reducing fatalities and severe injuries, including fatalities and injuries of
pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on the state highway system.
While SB 127 could result in higher costs, it could be argued that the bill takes a significant
step in requiring the review and analysis of active transportation elements in all SHOPP
infrastructure projects, a goal consistent with Governor Newsom’s focus on active
transportation, as evidenced by Executive Order N-19-19, signed on September 20, 2019
(Attachment 4).
Upwards of approximately 40 organizations have supported SB 127, a majority of which
are community bike and walkability advocates. Support for the bill also includes the
American Heart Association and the South Bay Cities Council of Governments.
This bill faces opposition from a number of labor organizations, including but not limited
to the Southern California Contractors Association, District Council of Laborers, and the
California State Council of Laborers. Consultants to the Senate Rules Committee also
indicate that the state Department of Finance opposes this bill for increasing state costs
on projects and thereby, impeding the goals set by SB 1 (2017).
The League of California Cities considers SB 127 a bill to “watch”, while the Association
of California Cities – Orange County has taken no position.
Council Policy on Legislative Review
Staff is currently working on an update to Council Policy 000-8, until such time as an
update is approved the policy is still in effect. Council Policy 000-8 (Attachment 1) details
the City’s existing program for consideration of legislative issues. This Council Policy was
last revised on September 20, 1999, and has been inconsistently applied in the past.
Below are the relevant sections, sections 1,6, & 8 have been omitted here, but are in the
attachment:
1. A Legislative Review Team, consisting of the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and the City
Manager, shall periodically review legislation and formulate the City’s position.
2. The Mayor is authorized to execute position letters on behalf of the City Council
when the position in in concurrence with that of the National League of Cities, State
League of Cities, the Orange County Division of the League of Cities, or the
Orange County Council of Governments. At the direction of the Legislative Review
Team, position letters may also be executed by the City Manager, or his/her
designee, as appropriate.
3. Formal Council approval is required in instances in which the City’s position may
differ from that of the National League of Cities, the State League of Cities, the
Orange County Division of the League of Cities, or the Orange County Council of
Governments.
3
4. Formal Council approval is required in instances in which the National League of
Cities, the State League of Cities, the Orange County Division of the League of
Cities, or the Orange County Council of Governments have not taken a formal
position.
5. All City Council members shall receive a copy of all legislative position letters
written on city letterhead. A quarterly activity report of the City’s legislative
positions, and the status of such legislation, will be provided to the City Council.
The City of Costa Mesa currently works with the Association of California Cities - Orange
County (ACC-OC) as a legislative partner in addition to the partners listed in Council
Policy 000-8. While ACCOC is not on the Council Policy 000-8 list of legislative partners,
Costa Mesa is currently a member of ACC-OC in the same capacity as it is with the
League of California Cities, and has considered ACC-OC’s legislative positions similarly.
For each bill on which a legislative position is taken by the Legislative Review Team or
City Council as provided in Council Policy 000-8, staff will draw up a legislative position
letter on city letterhead for signature by the Mayor and submittal to the Legislature.
Governor Newsom has until October 13, 2019 to sign or veto all bills submitted to him by
the Legislature.
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED:
The City Council may choose not to take a position on this bill.
FISCAL REVIEW:
The specific fiscal impacts to Costa Mesa, if any, of the bill referenced in this report are
unknown at this time.
However, Senate Floor analysis indicates that this bill would increase construction costs for
CalTrans for SHOPP projects by $1.1 billion.
According to the Senate Floor analysis, there is a lack of alternative funding sources to
compensate for the measures proposed in the bill. By including the new measures, there
will likely be a reduction in the number of projects implemented throughout the state, and
cost pressures on projects will increase.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney’s Office has reviewed and approved this report as to form.
COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Goal 2 – Improve Our Neighborhoods and Quality of Life
4
Goal 5 – Improve Mobility and Parking
CONCLUSION:
Staff requests that the City Council provide direction to staff on a position to take on
California Senate Bill 127 pending before Governor Newsom.
_______________________
KELLY A. TELFORD, CPA
Finance Director
_______________________ ______________________
LORI ANN FARRELL HARRISON KIMBERLY HALL BARLOW
City Manager City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: 1
2
3
4
City Council Policy 000-8
SB 127 Text
SB 127 Senate Floor Analysis
Executive Order N-19-19
Attachment 1
Senate Bill No. 127
Passed the Senate September 11, 2019
Secretary of the Senate
Passed the Assembly September 10, 2019
Chief Clerk of the Assembly
This bill was received by the Governor this day
of , 2019, at o’clock m.
Private Secretary of the Governor
Attachment 2
CHAPTER
An act to amend Sections 14526.4 and 14526.6 of, and to add
Section 14526.8 to, the Government Code, and to amend Section
167 of the Streets and Highways Code, relating to transportation.
legislative counsel’s digest
SB 127, Wiener. Transportation funding: active transportation:
complete streets.
(1) Existing law provides that the Department of Transportation
has full possession and control over the highways of the state and
is responsible for preparing the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program for the expenditure of transportation funds for
major capital improvements that are necessary to preserve and
protect the state highway system.
Existing law also creates the California Transportation
Commission, with specified powers and duties relative to the
programming of transportation capital improvement projects and
the allocation of state transportation funds for state transportation
improvement projects. Existing law requires the department, in
consultation with the commission, to prepare an asset management
plan to guide selection of projects for the State Highway Operation
and Protection Program consistent with any applicable state and
federal requirements. Existing law requires the commission, in
connection with the asset management plan, to adopt targets and
performance measures reflecting state transportation goals and
objectives.
This bill would require the asset management plan to prioritize
the implementation of safe and connected facilities for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and transit users on all State Highway Operation and
Protection Program projects, as specified. The bill would require
the department to include complete streets elements in the asset
management plan, as specified.
The bill would require the commission, in connection with the
asset management plan, to adopt performance measures that include
conditions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities, accessibility and
safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on the state
highway system. The bill would require that the plain language
94
— 2 — SB 127
performance report developed by the department, in consultation
with the commission, include a description of pedestrian and
bicycle facilities on each project, including the number, extent,
and type of elements.
The bill would require the department, commencing with the
2022 State Highway Operation and Protection Program, when
undertaking a specified capital improvement project on a state
highway or on a local street crossing a state highway that is funded
through the State Highway Operation and Protection Program, to
include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing
facilities, as part of the project, consistent with specified
requirements. For each project development team that the
department establishes for a project, the bill would require the
department to include specified representatives on the team.
(2) Existing law requires funds in the State Highway Account
to be programmed, budgeted, and expended to maximize the use
of federal funds and to be based on a specified sequence of
priorities, including, among others, safety improvements where
physical changes, other than adding additional lanes, would reduce
fatalities and the number and severity of injuries.
This bill would require those safety improvements to prioritize
reducing fatalities and severe injuries, including fatalities and
injuries of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on the state
highway system.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
following:
(a) Walking and bicycling trips have doubled between 2000 and
2012 and constitute nearly 20 percent of all trips in California,
based on the National Household Travel Survey.
(b) People walking and bicycling are killed or seriously injured
in California at much higher rates than car drivers or passengers
based on the percentage of trips and relative miles traveled.
(c) According to the Smart Growth America report Dangerous
by Design 2019, California is the 16th worst state for pedestrian
fatalities, with 7,127 pedestrian deaths between 2008 and 2017.
Older adults, people of color, and people walking in low-income
communities are disproportionately represented in these deaths.
94
SB 127 — 3 —
(d) Complete streets policies make communities and
neighborhoods more livable by ensuring all people can safely get
to where they need to go. This includes work, school, the library,
grocery stores, or parks. They also help people feel more connected
to their neighbors, which improves quality of life.
(e) The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) adopted Deputy
Directive 64 in 2008 and updated it in 2014 to require the
department to consider complete streets in all phases of design,
delivery, construction, and rehabilitation on all projects.
(f) Caltrans adopted Strategic Management Plan 2015–2020,
which includes targets to triple bicycling and double walking by
2020. The plan also includes targets to include “complete streets”
improvements on an increasing number of projects between 2015
and 2020.
(g) These goals cannot be achieved without significant
improvements to infrastructure and safety on major roadways and
highways.
(h) Some low-income communities and communities of color
lack well-maintained routes to parks and schools, roads, bike lanes,
and sidewalks for decades. In many cases, those communities
simply have no transportation options. The same communities
often experience higher rates of chronic diseases like diabetes and
heart disease.
(i) Encouraging even more Californians to walk or bike, a
necessary outcome for public health and the environment, requires
the state to leverage its existing resources to get serious about
improving the safety of the roadways. Studies have shown that
more and higher quality sidewalks are associated with higher rates
of walking and more adults meeting the daily physical activity
recommendations.
SEC. 2. Section 14526.4 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
14526.4. (a) The department, in consultation with the
commission, shall prepare a robust asset management plan to guide
selection of projects for the State Highway Operation and
Protection Program required by Section 14526.5. The asset
management plan shall be consistent with any applicable state and
federal requirements, and shall prioritize the implementation of
safe and connected facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit
94
— 4 — SB 127
users on all projects in the program, where applicable, pursuant to
Section 14526.7.
(b) The department shall include complete streets elements in
the asset management plan, including pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit facilities on the state highway system that are not required
under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42
U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
(c) In connection with the asset management plan, the
commission shall do both of the following:
(1) Adopt targets and performance measures reflecting state
transportation goals and objectives. Performance measures shall
also include conditions of bicycle and pedestrian facilities,
accessibility and safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users
on the state highway system.
(2) Review and approve the asset management plan.
(d) As used in this section, “asset management plan” means a
document assessing the health and condition of the state highway
system with which the department is able to determine the most
effective way to apply the state’s limited resources.
SEC. 3. Section 14526.6 of the Government Code is amended
to read:
14526.6. (a) The department shall report to the commission
quarterly, for projects which complete construction in the previous
quarter, on the information outlined in subdivision (b) for all major
State Highway Operation and Protection Program projects, as
defined by the commission pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section
167 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(b) The department shall report to the commission on the
approved capital and support budgets compared to expenditures
at contract construction acceptance for all projects included in
subdivision (a).
(c) The department shall develop, in consultation with the
commission, a plain language performance report to increase
transparency and accountability of the State Highway Operation
and Protection Program. The plain language performance report
shall include a description of pedestrian and bicycle facilities on
each project, including the number, extent, and type of the
elements.
SEC. 4. Section 14526.8 is added to the Government Code, to
read:
94
SB 127 — 5 —
14526.8. (a) Commencing with the 2022 State Highway
Operation and Protection Program, except as provided in
subdivisions (b) and (c), the department, when undertaking any
capital improvement project located in an active transportation
place type on a state highway or a local street crossing a state
highway that is funded through the program, shall include new
pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing facilities, as
part of the project, as follows:
(1) Facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists shall be provided,
and implementation of traffic calming improvements shall be
considered in consultation with the appropriate city or county.
(2) Priority shall be given to communities that are most
vulnerable to the inequities in the state’s transportation system.
These communities include:
(A) Low-income communities, as defined in Section 39713 of
the Health and Safety Code.
(B) Communities with a low percentage of private vehicle
access.
(C) Communities with a high percentage of persons who are
disabled.
(3) For each project development team that the department
establishes for a project located in an active transportation place
type, the department shall include representatives from the local
transportation agency, local bicycle and pedestrian advisory
committee, community-based organizations, residents of
low-income communities, and other local stakeholders impacted
by the project.
(b) This section does not apply to capital improvement projects
on street and highway facilities that are closed, by law, to use by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and other nonmotorized users, or other
projects that do not impact pavement. However, if a project
includes changes to highway entrances and exits that interact with
local streets, the department shall consider bicycle and pedestrian
improvements to the entrance and exit intersections on the project
in consultation with the appropriate city or county.
(c) This section does not limit the department’s authority to
undertake a capital improvement project on a state highway on or
a local street crossing a state highway that is funded through the
program and is outside an active transportation place type to
include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improvement of
94
— 6 — SB 127
existing facilities, as part of the project to the extent beneficial,
cost effective, safe, and practicable in the context of facility type,
right-of-way, project scope, and quality of nearby alternative
facilities, and where feasible, in consultation with the appropriate
city or county.
(d) The department may exempt a capital improvement project
from the requirements of this section through documentation in
writing by the department’s district director and supported by data,
after at least one public hearing in the jurisdiction most impacted
by the project, to demonstrate any of the following:
(1) Accommodating the needs of the particular user group for
the transportation project is not cost effective and would be
excessively disproportionate to the current or future need or
probable use of the facilities by the particular user group.
(2) There is not a demonstrated practical future need by the
particular user group, as determined by factors, including current
and future land use, current and projected user volumes, population
density, and crash data.
(3) The adverse impacts of accommodating the needs of the
particular user group significantly outweigh the benefits.
(e) For purposes of this section, “active transportation place
type” means a state-owned conventional highway, excluding a
freeway or expressway, that is within the boundaries of a city or
within a census designated place for the 2020 census, as defined
in 83 Federal Register 56290.
SEC. 5. Section 167 of the Streets and Highways Code is
amended to read:
167. (a) Funds in the State Highway Account in the State
Transportation Fund shall be programmed, budgeted subject to
Section 163, and expended to maximize the use of federal funds
and shall be based on the following sequence of priorities:
(1) Operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation of facilities for
all users of the state highway system.
(2) Safety improvements where physical changes, other than
adding additional lanes, would reduce fatalities and the number
and severity of injuries. Safety improvements shall prioritize
reducing fatalities and severe injuries, including fatalities and
injuries of pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users on the state
highway system.
94
SB 127 — 7 —
(3) Transportation capital improvements that expand capacity
or reduce congestion, or do both.
(4) Environmental enhancement and mitigation programs.
(b) With respect to the funds in the State Highway Account, in
the Public Transportation Account, and in the Passenger Rail Bond
Fund, the proposed budget shall be organized on a program basis.
The proposed budget shall list the proposed expenditures for the
transportation program under the following program elements:
(1) Administration.
(2) Program development.
(3) Maintenance.
(4) State highway operation and protection.
(5) Local assistance.
(6) Interregional improvements.
(7) Regional improvements.
(8) Environmental enhancement and mitigation programs.
(c) State operations expenditure amounts of the department for
interregional and regional transportation improvement projects
shall be listed as required by subdivision (b) of Section 14529 of
the Government Code, but those amounts other than those for the
acquisition of rights-of-way, construction, and construction support
shall not be subject to allocation by the commission.
(d) To align the annual budget with the adopted state
transportation improvement program, the department may submit
to the Department of Finance revised capital outlay support and
capital outlay budget estimates as part of its May Revision process.
Budget proposals related to these changes shall be provided to the
Legislature no later than May 1.
(e) The budget shall not include specific appropriations for
specific transportation improvement projects, and the Legislature
shall not enact legislation containing specific individual
transportation projects.
(f) The basis for defining major and minor capital outlay projects
shall be established by the commission.
(g) The Legislative Analyst’s Office shall prepare an analysis
of the proposed expenditures for each program element as a part
of the budget analysis.
(h) The department shall submit to the Legislative Analyst’s
Office, and the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review
and the Assembly Committee on Budget, on an annual basis,
94
— 8 — SB 127
supplemental information to substantiate the department’s proposed
capital outlay support budget. The information shall be provided
no later than May 1 of each year, and may be provided at an earlier
date. The information shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
(1) A list of projects for which the department will perform
capital outlay support work in the budget year. For each project,
the department shall include:
(A) The planned project support budget for support of
environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction phases.
(B) The planned capital costs, including construction capital
costs and right-of-way capital costs.
(C) The estimated or actual construction start date and
completion date.
(D) The name and year of the state transportation program in
which the project is programmed, if applicable.
(E) Total prior fiscal year expenditures for capital outlay support.
(F) The number of full-time equivalent positions requested to
perform support of environmental, design, right-of-way, and
construction work in the fiscal year of the budget request.
(G) Milestones of project work by phases that are planned to
be completed in the fiscal year of the budget request.
(H) The ratio of support to capital costs based on current
programming.
(2) The capital-to-support ratio for all projects completed in the
prior fiscal year in each program in each district.
(3) The current total number of authorized and vacant positions
in the capital outlay support program in headquarters and in each
district.
(4) A five-year projection of the department’s staffing needs to
support the state’s transportation capital programs and any
workload performed by the department related to federal or local
funding for highway capital projects.
(5) The average cost of a personnel-year equivalent in each
district based on the department’s existing contracts for capital
outlay support work performed by a private company under
contract with the department. For each average cost, the department
shall provide a description of what factors are included in that cost.
(6) The average cost of a state staff personnel-year in the capital
outlay support program in each district and in headquarters. The
94
SB 127 — 9 —
cost shall include the salary and wages, benefits, program overhead,
administrative overhead, and other associated costs. The
department shall provide a description of each component of the
average cost.
(7) A summary of expected capital outlay support workload for
the budget year that includes the following:
(A) The total full-time equivalents requested for each type of
the following activities: environmental, design, right-of-way, and
construction.
(B) The total full-time equivalents requested for each type of
project, including, but not limited to, the state transportation
improvement program, the State Highway Operation and Protection
Program, bond programs, regional and local agency partnership
workload, and any other program.
(8) The total number of projects with requested resources, as
well as the number of projects in which the department is limited
to an oversight role.
(9) The number of milestones scheduled, including
environmental, design, right-of-way, and construction deliverables,
as well as the number of projects expected to begin construction
and reach completion.
(10) A summary for the most recently completed fiscal year for
both of the following:
(A) Full-time equivalents and related funding expended,
including support of environmental, design, right-of-way, and
construction activities.
(B) Approved and filled positions as of the end of the fiscal
year.
94
— 10 — SB 127
Approved , 2019
Governor
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE
Office of Senate Floor Analyses
(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478
SB 127
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 127
Author: Wiener (D), et al.
Amended: 9/3/19
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 9-3, 4/23/19
AYES: Beall, Dodd, Galgiani, McGuire, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Umberg,
Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Morrell, Stone
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 4-2, 5/16/19
AYES: Portantino, Bradford, Hill, Wieckowski
NOES: Bates, Jones
SENATE FLOOR: 29-9, 5/23/19
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Atkins, Beall, Bradford, Caballero, Chang, Dodd,
Durazo, Galgiani, Glazer, Hertzberg, Hill, Hueso, Hurtado, Jackson, Leyva,
McGuire, Mitchell, Monning, Pan, Portantino, Roth, Rubio, Skinner, Stern,
Umberg, Wieckowski, Wiener
NOES: Bates, Borgeas, Grove, Jones, Moorlach, Morrell, Nielsen, Stone, Wilk
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-17, 9/10/19 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Transportation funding: active transportation: complete streets
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST: This bill changes state policies for the management of the state
highway system, including requiring the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) to incorporate new pedestrian and bicycle facilities into projects in
specified areas.
Assembly Amendments (1) require complete streets elements, such as pedestrian
and bicycle facilities, to be included in Caltrans’ asset management plan; (2)
require Caltrans, beginning with the 2022 State Highway Operation and Protection
Attachment 3
SB 127
Page 2
Program (SHOPP), when considering a project in an active transportation place
type, as defined, to give priority to communities that are most vulnerable to the
inequities in the state’s transportation system, as defined; (3) d efine “active
transportation place type” as a state-owned highway, excluding a freeway or
expressway, that is within the boundaries of a city or within a census designated
place for the 2020 census, as defined in the Federal Register; and (4) remove the
creation of the Active Transportation Assets Branch within Caltrans.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
SHOPP
1) Requires the Caltrans , in consultation with the California Transportation
Commission (CTC), to prepare an asset management plan to guide selection of
SHOPP projects, which are major capital improvements necessary to preserve
and protect the state highway system.
2) Limits SHOPP projects to capital improvements relative to maintenance, safety,
and rehabilitation of state highways and bridges that do not add a new lane to
the system.
3) Requires the CTC to adopt the SHOPP and submit it to the Legislature and
Governor by April 1 of each even-numbered year.
Complete Streets
5) Requires the concept of “complete streets” (e.g. bicycle and pedestrian
facilities) to be incorporated into the Caltrans Highway Design Manual.
6) Requires, to the extent beneficial, cost effective, and practicable, Caltrans, cities
and counties receiving funds under the Road Maintenance and Rehabilit ation
Program (SB 1, Beall, Chapter 5, Statutes of 2017) to incorporate complete
street elements into projects, including, but not limited to, elements that
improve the quality of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and that improve safety
for all users of transportation facilities.
7) Establishes Caltrans Deputy Directive 64-R2 (an internal department policy),
first signed in October 2008 and renewed in October 2014, that directs Caltrans
to implement complete streets.
SB 127
Page 3
This bill:
1) Requires that the Caltrans asset management plan prioritize the implementation
of safe and connected facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users. The
plan shall include complete streets elements.
2) Requires Caltrans, commencing with the 2022 SHOPP, to include new
pedes trian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing facilities, as specified.
Priority shall be given to low income communities, communities with a low
percentage of private vehicle access, and communities with a high percentage
of persons who are disabled. Projects can be exempted from this requirement
after a public hearing with specified documentation and upon a finding that
accommodating the needs of a particular user group is not cost effective and
would be excessively disproportionate to the current o r future need by that user
group . Certain projects are categorically exempted from this requirement , such
as those on highways which are closed by law for use by pedestrians and
bicyclists .
Comments
1) Purpose. According to the author, “current state law does not facilitate the
ability of Caltrans to meet state priorities and goals set forth for active and
sustainable transportation. California's state highways that act as local streets
and roads with a lot of pedestrian and bike traffic do not include critical features
such as bike lanes and safe crosswalks."
2) Support. Supporters contend that SB 127 helps Caltrans implement its Strategic
Management Plan goals by ensuring that state highways are safer and more
accessible for everyone. While walking and biking have increased, supporters
believe that Caltrans has not created an adequate amount of new facilities to
protect the growing population of walkers and bikers.
3) Caltrans’ Complete Streets Efforts. Caltrans defines a complete street as “A
transportation facility that is planned, designed, operated, and maintained to
provide safe mobility for all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, transit
vehicles, truckers, and motorists appropriate to the function and context of the
facility.” Caltrans has been slowly incorporating complete streets principles
into its planning, design and operation. It adopted a complete streets policy in
2008 which was renewed in 2014 in the following policy:
SB 127
Page 4
The Department provides for the needs of travelers of all ages and abilities
in all planning, programming, design, construction, operations, and
maintenance activities and products on the State Highway System.1
In February 2010 Caltrans issued its Complete Streets Implementation Action
Plan which had 73 action items, including updating the Highway Design
Manual to include complete streets. In late 2014, Caltrans issued its Complete
Streets Implementation Plan 2.0 which had 109 additional action items to
further integrate complete streets into all Caltrans functions and processes. One
of those actions was the development of a State Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
That plan, called Toward an Active California and published in May 2017, is
Caltrans first statewide policy plan to support travel by bicyclists and
pedestrians through objectives, strategies, and actions. The plan accounts for
the $1 billion over ten years in additional bicycle and pedestrian funding
contained in SB 1. (Total state spending on active transportation programs is
about $250 million annually.) While Caltrans policy has supported complete
streets for over ten years, it should be acknowledged that Caltrans has
historically been an automobile-centric organization. Adapting to a new
transportation world with a much greater emphasis on different types of users is
a cultural shift that is difficult to accomplish quickly.
4) A Good Effort. California’s efforts to improve its bicycle-friendliness have
been recognized. In 2017, the League of American Bicyclists ranked California
the third mo st bike friendly state.
5) Valuable Property. Streets and highways are often a limited resource;
expansion is expensive if it can be done at all. That means that the different
types of users have to share the limited space. Conflicts between uses (e.g.
drivers, bicyclists, pedestrians, scooters, delivery vehicles, busses, parking) are
inevitable as growing numbers of users contend for their fair share of that
space. It is a zero -sum game.
6) Build It. Commencing with the 2022 SHOPP, this bill requires that all SHOPP
projects in cities and census designated places for the 2020 census (Caltrans
estimates the census designated places cover about 17% of the state highway
system) shall include new pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or improve existing
facilities , with specified exceptions. Caltrans may exempt a project from this
requirement if, after a public hearing and development of supporting data, it
finds that accommodating the needs of a particular user group is not cost
1 Deputy Directive 64-R2.
SB 127
Page 5
effective and would be excessively disproportionate to the current or future
need by that user group. The bill gives priority to SHOPP projects in low
income communities, communities with a low percentage of private vehicle
access, and communities with a high percentage of persons who are disabled.
7) Opposition. The construction industry, including organized labor, oppose the
bill. This is predicated on a recently produced fiscal analysis issued by the
Department of Finance (DOF) noting that Caltrans estimates the bill will
increase SHOPP project costs by $1.1B annually in order to incorporate the
complete streets elements required by the bill.2 DOF opposes the bill because it
significantly increases state costs and makes it more difficult for the state to
meet the transportation system improvement goals contained in SB 1 (Beall;
Chapter 5 of 2017).
8) Promises Not Kept? A crucial aspect of SB 1 was the articulation of specific
accountability measures to assure citizens that their additional taxes would be
used for the promised purposes. Those accountability measures include the
following specific performance goals:
Not less than 98 percent of pavement on the state highway system in good or
fair condition.
Not less than 90 percent level of service achieved for maintenance of
potholes, spalls, and cracks.
Not less than 90 percent of culverts in good or fair condition.
Not less than 90 percent of the transportation management system units in
good condition.
Fix not less than an additional 500 bridges.
The DOF analysis indicates that achieving these goals will be more difficult
because of the substantial new costs resulting from this bill.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee:
1) Costs of an unknown, but presumably significant amount, likely in the range of
millions of dollars to tens of millions of dollars annually (special fund), to
2 Caltrans derives this cost from considering the cost of Active Transportation Projects submitted to the CTC in the
last several years and developing a n average cost per mile. By applying the requirements of the bill to the 2020
SHOPP projects Caltrans can determine the number of miles effected . The product of the two gives a cost of $1.35
billion. Subtracting the current $250 million annual ATP expenditure results in an incremental cost of $1.1 billion.
SB 127
Page 6
Caltrans to implement the requirements of this bill. Specific cost drivers are
including pedestrian and bicycle facilities in capital improvement projects and
preparing project-specific exemptions from the requirements of this bill.
2) Cost pressures in the millions of dollars, to the extent this bill results in funding
for pedestrian and bicycle facilities as part of capital improvement projects that
would not otherwise have received funding. This is because the bill makes no
additional funding available for capital improvement projects and, despite
recent increases in transportation funding made available by the Road Repair
and Accountability Act of 2017, demand for capital improvement dollars
outstrips supply. To the extent the bill results in funding for pedestrian, bicycle
and other facilities that otherwise would have gone to other types of capital
improvements for which there is demand, the bill creates cost pressure to satisfy
the unmet funding needs.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/10/19)
ActiveSGV
Alameda County Transportation Commission
American Heart Association
BikeSD
California Bicycle Coalition
California Interfaith Power and Light
California Park and Recreation Society
California Walks
City and County of San Francisco
Climate Resolve
Coalition for Clean Air
Coalition for Responsible Transportation Priorities
Fossil Free California
Leadership Counsel for Justice and Accountability
Los Angeles County Bicycle Coalition
Los Angeles Walks
Natural Resources Services
Planning and Conservation League
PolicyLink
Rails to Trails Conservancy
Redwood Community Action Agency
Sacramento Area Bicycle Advocates
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Santa Monica Spoke
SB 127
Page 7
Save the Bay
Seamless Bay Area
Shasta Living Streets
Sierra Club California
Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Transform
Transportation Agency for Monterey County
Trust for Public Land
Walk and Bike Mendocino
Walk Long Beach
Walk Sacramento
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/10/19)
AGC California
California Alliance for Jobs
California Asphalt Paving Association
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association
California State Council of Laborers
Northern California Carpenters
Southern California Contractors Association
Southern California District Council of Laborers
Southern California Partnership for Jobs
Transportation California
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 58-17, 9/10/19
AYES: Aguiar-Curry, Arambula, Bauer-Kahan, Berman, Bloom, Boerner
Horvath, Bonta, Burke, Calderon, Carrillo, Cervantes, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley,
Daly, Eggman, Friedman, Gabriel, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson,
Gloria, Gonzalez, Gray, Grayson, Holden, Irwin, Jones -Sawyer, Kalra,
Kamlager-Dove, Levine, Limón, Low, Maienschein, McCarty, Medina, Mullin,
Nazarian, O'Donnell, Petrie-Norris, Quirk, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz
Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Salas, Santiago, Smith, Mark
Stone, Ting, Weber, Wicks, Wood, Rendon
NOES: Bigelow, Brough, Chen, Cunningham, Diep, Flora, Fong, Gallagher,
Kiley, Lackey, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Patterson, Voepel,
Waldron
SB 127
Page 8
NO VOTE RECORDED: Choi, Cooper, Frazier, Muratsuchi
Prepared by: Randy Chinn / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121
9/10/19 22:01:20
**** END ****
Attachment 4