To: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
From: ANDREW WINJE, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
TITLE
title
INTRODUCE BY TITLE ONLY ORDINANCE NO. 3285-24, AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 7, ARTICLE 3, SECTIONS 3-7.1201, 3-7.1203, 3-7.1204, 3-7.1205, 3-7.1206, 3-7.1207, 3-7.1208, AND 3-7.1209 OF THE REDONDO BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING PARKING ZONES AND DELETING IN ITS ENTIRETY SECTION 3-7-1210 REGARDING TAXICAB STANDS, FOR INTRODUCTION AND FIRST READING
end
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recent changes to California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500 now prohibit the stopping, standing, or parking of any vehicle 20 feet on approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk. The parking restriction is reduced to 15 feet on approach where a curb extension (bulbout) is present. The intent of this restriction is to improve motorists’ visibility of pedestrians using crosswalks. Effective January 1, 2025, these prohibited parking areas, sometimes referred to as “daylight zones,” do not need to be marked by a painted curb or by signage in order to be enforceable. This is a similar marking approach to the statewide prohibition of parking on the street near a fire hydrant. The Redondo Beach Municipal Code (RBMC) currently restricts citywide parking 25 feet on approach to a crosswalk (30 feet in the Central Traffic District), which is enforceable when marked. Lack of resources have prevented the City from marking every approach in the City, leaving many of these locations unmarked and unenforceable.
In anticipation of the new state law, staff is recommending a change to the RBMC to comply with the less restrictive state requirements. Additional amendments to the City’s parking restrictions, found in Title 3, Chapter 7, Article 12, are also being recommended to update and remove conflicting red curb language to reflect current and best practices for discretionary curb markings. The proposed changes also take advantage of a state law allowing a reduction in the mandatory restricted parking space adjacent to fire hydrants.
It should be noted that City resources are not sufficient to mark and enforce every “daylight zone” prohibited for parking by state law. Accordingly, staff plan to evaluate the intersections in the City with a safety concern history and implement curb markings and signage as resources permit and the benefits intended by the new law have the most positive impact.
BACKGROUND
Several modifications to the City’s existing parking ordinances are needed to make it consistent with CVC 22500. CVC 22500 now prohibits parking or stopping 20 feet in advance of any legal crosswalk on the approach side, or 15 feet if a curb extension is present. Cities may install amenities such as bicycle parking corrals or bioswales within the 15 feet daylighting zone, so long as clear sight lines are maintained. Note that daylighting zones are not required on the departure side of crosswalks/intersections but can be added based on site-specific circumstances and engineering judgement.
Currently, RBMC 3-7.1203 mandates the painting or marking of “no parking” zones within 30 feet of any intersection in the Central Traffic District (area bound by Beryl Street, the coast, Ruby Street, and PCH), or within 25 feet of all other intersections and crosswalks. In practice, the City has not had the resources to implement or enforce this section of the RBMC, which is more restrictive than state law. Additionally, due to the high demand for parking in the City’s Central Traffic District, enforcement of the City’s restrictive policy has not been a priority for residents. The proposed revisions to the RBMC would align the City’s Code with state law and eliminate regulatory confusion. Additionally, the changes would reduce the City’s burden to mark, for enforceability purposes, the minimum lengths of the no parking zones.
Staff also recommends revisions to other subsections of RBMC Title 3, Chapter 7, Article 12 to update and remove conflicting red curb language to reflect best practices for discretionary curb markings. The proposed changes also take advantage of a state law allowing a reduction of mandatory restricted parking adjacent to a fire hydrant. Engineering staff consulted with the Fire Department, which tested various lengths of no parking zones around fire hydrants. The Fire Department determined that a 20-foot no parking zone, running 10 feet either side of a fire hydrant, is sufficient for their operations. Correspondence between Public Works and Fire Departments can be found in attachments within the PWSC Administrative Report. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, the fire hydrant no parking zone would be reduced from the default State minimum of 30 feet to a locally adopted minimum of 20 feet, allowing potential gains in unrestricted curb parking. Therefore, staff is recommending a municipal code modification to allow for this change. Also, staff recommends removing the taxicab stand section of RBMC (3-7.1210) due to societal shifts around ride-hailing and the lack of known and active taxicab zones within the City.
Although marking of daylight zones would aid in regulatory compliance, there is no plan to mark the daylight spaces citywide. Given the limitation of resources, staff intends to prioritize the consideration of installation of red curb at locations with a history of problematic vehicle/pedestrian patterns. Areas that will be evaluated include:
• School zone (painted yellow) crosswalks
• Signalized intersections
• Crosswalks with visibility challenges
• Crosswalks across multiple lanes of traffic in the same direction
• Crosswalks with higher pedestrian crossing volumes
• Crosswalks determined by engineering staff to experience higher driver/pedestrian conflicts based on engineering judgement, crash history, and/or resident/RBPD feedback
Given the City’s lack of resources, only the critical areas that would most benefit from new new street markings will receive red curb installation.
October 1, 2024 City Council Discussion
Staff presented the updated CVC 22500 (also known as AB 413) to the City Council at their October 1, 2024 meeting, along with recommended changes to the RBMC to make it consistent with CVC, clean up obsolete language, and reflect best practices with respect to parking restrictions identified by marked curbs and/or signage. Due to justifiable concerns related to loss of on-street parking, the City Council directed staff to explore the feasibility of an engineering safety study that could justify a Citywide reduction to the daylighting zone. CVC 22500(n)(1)(B)(i) allows jurisdictions to adopt a different intersection daylighting distance, if justified by established traffic safety standards. Staff has explored this possibility, but did not find any practical or affordable way to carry this forward in a manner that would provide certainty regarding reduction to the impacts to parking that result from the new state law. More detail on that research follows.
When discussed at the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting, staff was directed to get clarification on National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) concerns with blanket statewide daylighting and its potential to create highway-like “clear zones.” Staff was also directed to explore the feasibility of an engineering study that, if adopted, could reduce the no parking zone from the CVC-specified 20 feet to a distance less than that. CVC 22500(n)(1)(B)(i) allows jurisdictions to adopt a different distance, if justified by established traffic safety standards. If a different distance daylighting zone is adopted, each location must be marked with red curb or posted with signage.
Basis of Vehicle Code Daylighting Zones (AB 413) in California
Driver licenses, driving regulations, and the form and placement of traffic control devices (e.g., signs, striping, signals) are a matter of statewide concern, which typically preempts local agencies from adopting traffic regulations that differ substantially from state law. This is enshrined through regulations like the CVC. Most state vehicle codes were historically based on the United States Uniform Vehicle Code (UVC), which serves as a recommended guide for states. Early versions of the UVC prohibited parking within 25 feet of intersections, which is the likely source of the same prohibition in the City’s current regulations found in RBMC Section 3-7.1203. The current UVC prohibits parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk. Most state vehicle codes originate from the UVC, which is why 43 states currently have some form of daylighting in their vehicle codes, typically ranging from 20-30 feet. However, the CVC was not initially drafted to align with the UVC, so AB 413 brought the CVC into alignment with the UVC. In addition, the federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), to which the California MUTCD must be substantially compliant, cites 20-30-foot daylighting minimums per UVC.
NACTO Discussion
During the State Senate Rules Committee’s Third Reading of AB 413, the NACTO provided comments and guidance for daylighting zones. Generally, NACTO recommends daylighting within 20-25 feet of the intersection. However, NACTO expressed concerns that a prescriptive statewide policy would be contrary to their guidance. NACTO provided a letter to the Rules Committee stating their daylighting recommendation “is intended to promote the practice of daylighting but is not intended as a blanket requirement.” Especially for topics as contextually specific as daylighting and curbside use, there might be some unintended consequences of directly copying that relatively simple guidance into law. For example, a City may determine that less than 10 feet - or more than 20 feet - is appropriate for a specific intersection.” NACTO discourages agencies from creating much longer highway-like clear zones that could decrease safety by creating wide lanes and generous corners that cause drivers to speed through intersections.
City staff reached out to NACTO for clarification on their comments, and their attached comments clarify that NACTO supports the adoption of AB 413 and implementing strategies to improve visibility between people walking and driving by prohibiting parking within approximately 20 feet of a marked or unmarked crosswalk. NACTO’s letter to the State Senate advocated for cities to preserve their authority to use engineering judgement to determine local best practices, such as slightly smaller distances at locations with curb extensions or very slow neighborhood streets (e.g., 95th percentile speeds under 25 mph), or slightly longer distances on streets with parking-protected bicycle lanes. City staff determined that “highway-like clear zone” conditions as described by NACTO likely apply to daylighting zones that exceed 30 feet, and within the context of larger intersections or wider streets with large corner radii. These conditions are not common in Redondo Beach. NACTO’s support of local authority to shorten daylight zones for specific conditions was carried forward in the law and will underpin the City’s authority to mark curbs differently from state law, when specific field conditions warrant it, as determined on a case-by-case basis.
Town of Truckee
During the October 1, 2024 City Council meeting, the City Council mentioned that the Town of Truckee was considering adopting a different daylighting distance. Subsequently, City staff reached out to their counterparts in the City of Truckee, a mountainous rural town near Lake Tahoe. Truckee does not have land uses or parking issues comparable to those found in Redondo Beach, with most of their streets lacking curbs, street parking, and sidewalks. The exception is the city’s downtown area, where intersections do include sidewalks, crosswalks, curbs, and street parking. Most of those intersections have been built with curb extensions. Most parking spaces in Truckee’s downtown area are also marked with parking T’s, providing strong definition to legal parking spaces that unmarked curbs do not provide. Because of the limited number of locations, and the particular existing infrastructure, Truckee is currently proposing an ordinance to adopt a different daylighting distance per CVC 22500(n)(1)(B)(i). Truckee drafted this ordinance with internal staff resources, rather than engaging an external engineering consultant. The latest available information indicates Truckee staff proposes to reduce the daylighting zone at locations with curb extensions from 15 feet to 5 feet, but is not proposing different daylighting zones at other locations. Redondo Beach staff do not believe Truckee’s approach could be effectively implemented in Redondo Beach as nearly all of Truckee’s intersections where parking is present, and pedestrian activity is expected, are enhanced with curb extensions. The impact of Truckee’s proposed ordinance would only impact a total of 17 parking spaces. Redondo Beach staff is not aware of any other jurisdictions that are publicly considering the adoption of shorter daylighting distances on a citywide basis.
Potential Engineering Study for Redondo Beach
As mentioned in CVC 22500(n)(1)(B)(i), local California agencies like Truckee and Redondo Beach are allowed to establish, by ordinance, a different daylighting distance if justified by established traffic safety standards. The City of Redondo Beach has thousands of approaches to be reviewed for any parking benefit to be gained. A defensible engineering decision would then be required to reduce the daylighting zone. While this approach may be useful on a case-by-case basis, a citywide effort is beyond available resources, and the potential benefit to parking is uncertain.
City staff contacted four transportation engineering firms, but none of these firms were willing to author a Citywide engineering study, stamped by a licensed Civil and/or Traffic Engineer, justifying a shorter daylighting distance as safe and legally defensible. Because of this, staff does not recommend pursuing a study that shortens the default Citywide daylighting distance, as this could create legal uncertainty for the City.
In addition, even if a different daylighting length were adopted, CVC 22500(n)(1)(B)(ii) mandates that each shorter (or longer) zone be marked with paint or signs. Otherwise, the statewide default of 20 feet would remain in effect. The City does not have the resources to paint red curbs at every intersection. In addition, a shorter zone does not necessarily recapture parking spaces. Staff has provided a cursory analysis of various intersections in the City, estimating the potential number of parking spaces that could be recaptured if the City adopted a daylighting distance that is half of what’s prescribed in the CVC. The actual number of spaces is subject to the size and manner of vehicles parked at each location. Many of these locations already have approximately 20 feet of red curb painted at approaches. Staff estimates that less than half of the estimated AB 413-related parking space losses could be gained back if a 10-foot daylighting distance were adopted.
COORDINATION
Coordination of this report and proposed revisions to RBMC took place within the Public Works Department, Fire Department, Police Department Parking Enforcement Unit, and the City Attorney’s Office. Communications also took place with engineers at other California cities, NATCO officials, and transportation engineering firms. Staff also discussed AB 413 with the Public Works and Sustainability Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no direct cost to modify the RBMC. The cost to install red curbs at critical intersections to aid motorists in compliance with CVC 22500 would be paid for from the Public Works Department’s annual operating budget as part of staff’s regular duties. When installed, staff would utilize GIS-based technologies to implement and track new red curb installations related to AB 413 and improve the efficiency and accuracy of the City’s red curb inventory.
APPROVED BY:
Mike Witzansky, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
• Ord - No. 3285-24 Amending Chapter 7, Article 3, Sections 3-7.1201, 3-7.1203, 3-7.1204, 3-7.1205, 3-7.1206, 3-7.1207, 3-7.1208 And 3-7.1209 of the Redondo Beach Municipal Code Regarding Parking Zones and Deleting in its Entirety Section 3-7-1210 Regarding Taxicab Stands
• Redline Revisions - Redondo Beach Municipal Code Section 3-7.12
• Administrative Report - City Council, October 1, 2024
• Administrative Report - Public Works & Sustainability Commission, March 25, 2024
• Email - NACTO Clarification Statement on Daylighting
• Overview - Redondo Beach Intersections with Default 20-feet under CVC 22500
• Daylighting Distance Comparison from Other States, California State Library