Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2026-167RESOLUTION NO. 2026-167 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CITY COUNCIL POLICY 576-16 INSTALLATION OF PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALKS WHEREAS, on April 25, 1978, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9086 that established City Council Policy 576-16 “Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks” (“Policy”); and WHEREAS, federal, state, and City of Chula Vista (“City”) standards have been adopted, and new pedestrian crossing treatments have been developed subsequent to the Policy that reflect evolving priorities in the field of traffic engineering since the initial adoption of the Policy; and WHEREAS, the City’s population has more than tripled since adoption of the Policy and its roadway network has grown correspondingly; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, to update criteria for constructing crosswalks and associated enhancements to reflect established contemporary industry practices and traffic control devices for the installation of pedestrian crosswalks in the City; and WHEREAS, in compliance with Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 10.76.010, staff recommends authorizing the City Engineer or designee to adopt and approve on behalf of the City future amendments to Table 2: Crosswalk Treatment Screening in the Policy. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it approves revised Council Policy 576-16 Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, in the form presented, with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that it authorizes the City Engineer or designee to adopt and approve on behalf of the City future revisions to Table 2: Crosswalk Treatment Screening in Council Policy 576-16 Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks. [SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE] Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA Resolution No. 2026-167 Page No. 2 Presented by Approved as to form by Luis Schaar, PE Marco A. Verdugo Director of Engineering & Capital Projects/ City Attorney City Engineer PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 11th day of August 2026, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Chavez, Fernandez, Inzunza, and McCann NAYS: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: Preciado John McCann, Mayor ATTEST: Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Kerry K. Bigelow, City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2026-167 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 11th day of August 2026. Executed this 11th day of August 2026. Kerry K. Bigelow, MMC, City Clerk Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: I. BACKGROUND Crosswalks function to connect pedestrians through a network of sidewalks. Crosswalks can be categorized as either marked or unmarked. Marked crosswalks are delineated by white or yellow painted markings placed on the pavement that extend from curb to curb. Crosswalks without white or yellow painted markings on the pavement are considered unmarked crosswalks. Pedestrians have the right-of- way in both marked and unmarked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks are typically placed at intersections where there is substantial conflict between pedestrians and vehicles, where there is significant pedestrian activity, and/or where traffic movements are controlled, such as all-way stop-controlled intersections and signalized intersections. Marked crosswalks can also serve the purpose of guiding pedestrians onto a preferred path, encouraging pedestrians to use a particular crossing such as in the use of uncontrolled midblock marked crosswalks. To enhance pedestrian safety, California enacted the “Daylighting Law” via Assembly Bill 413 (AB 413) which became effective in January 2025. This new state law made it illegal to park within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, regardless of whether red curbs or signage is posted. California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22500 (n) provides that “[a] person shall not stop, park, or leave standing…” any vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any marked or unmarked crosswalks or within 15 feet of any crosswalks with curb extension. It is important to note that the City of Chula Vista already had a similar law in place under Municipal Code Section 10.52.070. The City’s original “Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks” Council Policy was adopted on April 25, 1978 per Council Resolution No. 9086. This latest revision to the City’s “Installation of Pedestrian Crosswalks” policy was developed to provide a methodology that is representative of current best practices, but suited to the context of Chula Vista. In addition, this revised policy considers several factors and criteria described in the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations which provides guidance on the use of various pedestrian-related safety measures, such as uncontrolled crossings, crosswalk visibility enhancements, pedestrian refuge islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pedestrian hybrid beacons, and other measures. Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: Finally, this revision also aims to highlight key regulatory provisions related to crosswalks. These include recent updates to the CVC concerning parking restrictions near crosswalks, rules governing when pedestrians may legally cross outside of designated crosswalks, and requirements for e-scooter operators to stop, dismount, and walk their device across a roadway—such as at a crosswalk—when making a turn, in accordance with applicable pedestrian regulations under the CVC. REGULATORY REFERENCES The following is a list of CVC and Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) sections with their content briefly summarized that are relevant to this Policy (Note: the summarized content is for informational purposes only, refer to CVC or CVMC, as appropriate, for specific regulations): • CVC 275 – Definition of “Crosswalk” • CVC 21950 – Requires that drivers of vehicles (including but not limited to motor vehicles, bicycles [CVC 21200], and motorized scooters [CVC 21221]) yield to pedestrians and operate “the vehicle as necessary to safeguard the safety of the pedestrian.” • CVC 21228 – When turning, e-scooter riders must stop, dismount and walk across roadway on foot, subject to restrictions on pedestrians per Chapter 5 of CVC. • CVC 21954 – Requires that pedestrians in roadways outside of marked crosswalks or unmarked crosswalks at intersections yield to vehicles; however, it allows for them to be present or cross if they are not placing themselves in immediate danger of a collision and are exercising due care for their safety. • CVC 22500 – “Daylighting Law” • CVMC 10.08.080 – Definition of “Crosswalk” • CVMC 10.52.070 – Prohibits parking vehicles in a crosswalk or within 20 feet of a crosswalk at an intersection • CVMC 10.73.110 – Prohibits parking electric micromobility vehicles within 15 feet of a marked or unmarked crosswalk • CVMC 10.76.010 – Authorizes the City Engineer to establish, designate and maintain crosswalks • CVMC 10.76.020 – Prohibits installing crosswalks on blocks less than 600 feet in length and shall be located as nearly as practicable at midblock • CVMC 10.76.030 – City Engineer may place signs directing that pedestrians shall not cross in the crosswalk indicated • CVMC 10.76.040 – Pedestrians must only cross roadways in business districts at crosswalks Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: II. PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish minimum criteria for the installation of pedestrian crosswalks between intersections or at intersections that are not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals and to provide guidance for crosswalk treatments based on roadway conditions. III. POLICY Staff shall conduct a study pursuant to this policy in order to determine whether installation of a marked crosswalk is warranted at a given location. If a location being considered for installation of a marked crosswalk does not meet the criteria of this policy, the City Engineer or designee may exercise engineering judgment in determining whether a marked crosswalk is recommended or appropriate at that location. STEP 1: BASIC SCREENING CRITERIA EVALUATION The following basic screening criteria are applied to determine if a proposed crosswalk location is suitable for further evaluation: • Pedestrian Demand: Is the pedestrian volume at the proposed crosswalk equal to 5 pedestrians 1 or more per hour during the peak pedestrian hour? If “No”, is the proposed crosswalk on a direct route to or from a pedestrian generator, such as a school, library, senior center, shopping center, park, or employment center? • Distance to Nearest Controlled Crossing: Is the proposed crosswalk location farther than 300 feet from the nearest controlled pedestrian crossing 2 (measured from the nearest edge of the proposed marked crosswalk to the closest edge of the controlled crossing)? • Approach Speed: Is the 85th percentile approach speed of the roadway that the proposed crosswalk would traverse less than 40 mph 3? 1 The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) addresses mid-block crossings for signalization using 20 persons per hour demand as the lowest threshold for pedestrian hybrid beacon installation on higher speed roadways. However, existing volume of pedestrian demand is difficult to assess in the absence of a crossing; therefore, observed existing crossing demand of five pedestrians per hour is appropriate for an unmarked and uncontrolled location for consideration of a marked crosswalk. 2 Per the CAMUTCD, midblock crossings should not be signalized if located within 300 feet of another traffic control signal unless the new signal will not restrict the progressive movement of traffic. 3 Per the CAMUTCD, midblock crosswalks shall not be installed if posted speed limits exceed 40 mph. Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: • Sight Distance: Does the proposed crosswalk location have a sight distance (in feet) that is greater than 10 times the posted speed limit (in mph)4 or will the sight distance be improved prior to installation of the crosswalk? STEP 2: POINT SYSTEM EVALUATION If all basic screening criteria are satisfied (i.e., answered as “Yes”), then the proposed crosswalk shall be further evaluated based on a point system, utilizing the following four warrant categories: 1. Pedestrian Volume – Assigns points based on the number of pedestrian crossings in a peak hour at the proposed crosswalk 2. Pedestrian Setting/Generators – Assigns points based on where the proposed crosswalk is located relative to pedestrian paths and land uses 3. General Factors – Assigns points based on various factors such as distance to nearest controlled crossing and vehicle volume 4. Gap Time – Assigns points based on the average number of adequate gaps in vehicle traffic at the proposed crosswalk Table 1 presents the point system scoring evaluation, noting the point value to be awarded by each question within the warrant categories. The point system includes a combination of “Yes/No” questions and data-related questions. In order for a location to satisfy the point system warrant evaluation, a threshold of 24 points must be achieved, which equates to 48% of the possible 50 points. STEP 3: CROSSWALK TREATMENT EVALUATION If the proposed crossing location meets both the Basic Screening and Point System warrants, then the most appropriate crossing treatments to be installed with the marked crosswalk are evaluated. The crossing treatments are based on: 1. Roadway Average Daily Traffic (ADT); 2. Roadway Configuration; and 3. Roadway Speed Limit. 4 Per the CAMUTCD, sight distance in feet is 10 times the posted speed limit in miles per hour. Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: Table 2 presents thresholds for identifying supplemental crossing treatments to be considered with the installation of new marked crosswalks. Generally, minimum treatments for an uncontrolled marked crosswalk include lighting with warning signage and associated pavement markings. As the roadway traffic volume, speed limit, and crossing distance increase, additional treatments become applicable. Intermediate treatments applicable to narrower, lower speed roads include additional warning signage, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, or traffic calming measures such as raised crosswalks or speed feedback signs. The widest roads with higher traffic volumes and speed limits would limit applicability of traffic calming measures and increase the likelihood that pedestrian hybrid beacons or traffic signals, which stop traffic for pedestrians, would be warranted. In compliance with CVMC Section 10.76.010, the City Engineer or designee is authorized to adopt and approve on behalf of the City future amendments to Table 2 in this Policy. In addition, the installation of any supplemental traffic control devices at a proposed uncontrolled crossing meeting both the Basic Screening and Point System warrants will be as determined by the City Engineer or designee. Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: Table 1: Marked Crosswalk Point System Evaluation Number of Crossings in Peak Hour (select one) 0 to 10 0 12 11 to 25 6 More than 25 12 Condition (Yes/No?) Yes/No? 2a. The proposed crosswalk is in a commercial, mixed land use, or high density residential area. 3 10 3 4 Point Warrant 3: General Factors Condition (Yes/No?) Yes/No? 3a.1 Nearest controlled crossing is greater than 500 feet from the proposed crosswalk. 5 23 3a.2 OR, the nearest controlled crossing is greater than 300 feet from the proposed crosswalk. 2 5 crossing between adjacent signalized intersections that are 750 4 4 would traverse is between 3,000 and 15,000 vehicles per day 5 Point Warrant 4: Gap Time Average Number of Adequate Vehicular Gaps (per 5-minute period) Point Value Available Points Enter Value Points Awarded 5 Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA CITY COUNCIL POLICIES POLICY NAME:POLICY NUMBER: Effective Date: Last Revised Date: Status:Page: Table 2: Crosswalk Treatment Screening Crossing Distance1 <1,500 and 25 mph 1,501 – 5,000 or 25 mph mph 12,001 – 15,000 or 35 mph > 15,000 or 40 mph < 40 feet A B B C C D2 A B C C D2 D A B C2 C D2 D D 1. Crossing distance can be measured to a pedestrian island if one is present. 2. For streets with more than one lane at an approach or posted speed limit of 30 mph or greater. A The following are required: • (W11-2) Pedestrian Warning signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50 • Installation of a street light (if missing) shall be required if the crossing is warranted B At least one of the following is required: • (W11-2) Pedestrian Warning signage with the corresponding (W16-7P) arrow plaque as shown in CA MUTCD Section 2C.50 • Installation of a street light (if missing) shall be required if the crossing is warranted • (R1-6) State Law – Yield to Pedestrian sign if median or signal mast arm is present • Raised crosswalk or other traffic calming treatments C At least two of the following are required: • Radar Feedback Signs • Striping changes such as narrower lanes, painted medians, road diets, or other speed reducing treatments. • Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) • Staggered crosswalks and pedestrian refuge island • Other supplemental safety measures identified by City Engineer D A traffic signal is required if the CA MUTCD warrants are met and it is recommended by a traffic engineering study. Otherwise, the following is required: • Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon if the CA MUTCD warrants are met HISTORY DATE ACTION RESOLUTION NO. Docusign Envelope ID: 9CCBF623-DB3C-8FEC-81FC-A5E5020EA7AA