Laserfiche WebLink
From:Alan Wachtel <br />To:GRP-City Council <br />Cc:ATTY-General Mailbox <br />Subject:Proposed micromobility ordinance lacks legal foundation (Dec 22 meeting, item 9.A) <br />Date:Saturday, December 20, 2025 9:16:27 PM <br />Some people who received this message don't often get email from alan.wachtel@gmail.com. Learn why this is <br />important <br />To: Members of the City Council <br />City of Redwood City <br />Cc: City Attorney <br />Members of the Council: <br />I sympathize with the Council's desire to improve safety for operators of bicycles, e-bikes, e- <br />scooters, and other low-speed devices in the City of Redwood City. Nonetheless, state and <br />local regulation of bicycles and related devices is a subject I happen to be well acquainted <br />with, having drafted several of the relevant statutes myself, as well as written a review of <br />bicycle law in California. I've also consulted as an expert witness. Regardless of its merits, it <br />appears that the ordinance to be introduced on December 22 as item 9.A is unintentionally <br />overbroad (notably in its age limits for operators and speed limits for devices), lies in part <br />outside the City's authority to enact, and therefore risks being invalid and unenforceable. I <br />strongly recommend that you refer this matter to your City Attorney for study before you act <br />on the ordinance. <br />Here I'll set out the reasons for these statements, and then indicate what actions I believe the <br />City may still properly take. The bottom line is that state law strictly limits the extent to which <br />local authorities can regulate traffic, and this ordinance exceeds those limits. But there are <br />other effective steps the City can take, which I'll set out below, and narrower ordinances that <br />would pass legal muster. <br />Preemption <br />California Vehicle Code §21(a) states: <br />Except as otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of this code are applicable <br />and uniform throughout the state and in all counties and municipalities therein, <br />and a local authority shall not enact or enforce any ordinance or resolution on the <br />matters covered by this code, including ordinances or resolutions that establish <br />regulations or procedures for, or assess a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a <br />violation of, matters covered by this code, unless expressly authorized by this <br />code. <br />This doctrine, known as preemption, means that cities may not enact ordinances on any <br />subject covered by the Vehicle Code--regardless of whether they do or do not conflict with <br />that code, supplement it, or even substantially or fully restate its language--unless expressly <br />authorized. This principle has been repeatedly and firmly upheld by the courts, e.g., Rumford <br />v. City of Berkeley (1982) 31 Cal.3d 545, 550, and is strictly construed. "[A] city's police <br />powers do not extend to control of vehicular traffic on its streets; that field has been <br />preempted." (At p. 553.)