BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 61
SENATOR MARK DESAULNIER, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: gatto
VERSION: 1/7/13
Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no
Hearing date: June 11, 2013
SUBJECT:
Inoperable parking meters and payment centers
DESCRIPTION:
This bill prohibits, until January 1, 2017, a city or county
from citing vehicles for parking at an inoperable parking meter
or parking payment center for up to the posted time limit.
ANALYSIS:
Under current law, a city or county may establish parking meter
zones, within which the city or county may charge for on-street
parking. SB 1388 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 70, Statutes of 2012,
established a general rule that a vehicle owner may park without
penalty in any parking space for up to the posted time limit if
the parking meter or parking payment center is inoperable but
allows a city or county to opt out and adopt a different rule if
it provides adequate notice of the rule at parking locations,
parking meters, or parking payment centers.
This bill , until January 1, 2017, prohibits a city or county
from opting out and adopting a different rule regarding parking
at inoperable parking meters or parking payment centers. As a
result, the bill allows all vehicle owners to park without
penalty in any parking space for up to the posted time limit if
the parking meter or parking payment center is inoperable until
January 1, 2017, at which time cities and counties will again be
able to opt out and establish alternative rules.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, in the wake of
SB 1388, the City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance upholding
the city's policy of ticketing drivers who park in spaces with
broken parking meters. A recent investigation by the NBC
affiliate in Los Angeles found that the city issued more than
AB 61 (GATTO) Page 2
17,000 parking tickets in a single year for meters that were
reported as malfunctioning, costing motorists untold amounts
in fines for circumstances beyond their control. This measure
will protect individuals from cities and counties that are
overzealous and unfair in their parking enforcement and force
local governments to take greater responsibility for
maintaining their meters and keeping them in working order,
rather than punishing citizens for the city's mistakes and
inefficiencies.
2.Opting out of SB 1388 . It is not clear how many cities have
opted out of the SB 1388 rule and now ticket motorists for
parking at broken meters, but staff is aware of a few. As
mentioned above, the City of Los Angeles has passed an
ordinance to ticket motorists for parking at broken meters.
In addition, the City of San Francisco has adopted a local
ordinance that allows a vehicle to park at an inoperable
parking meter or payment center for the posted time limit or
two hours, whichever is shorter. In other words, even when
the time limit is greater than two hours, the city does ticket
for parking for longer than two hours at a broken meter. The
League of Cities reports that San Luis Obispo and Culver City
have also adopted opt-out ordinances.
3.Concern of vandalism . The one concern with allowing parking
at broken meters is that it could encourage meter vandalism.
If parking at a broken meter is free, a driver has a financial
incentive to disable a meter. On the other hand, it is not
clear how often this occurs, and vandalism of public property
is itself a crime that carries a higher penalty than a parking
citation, a base fine up to $1,000, up to one year in jail, or
both. Moreover, one supporter notes that cities that opt out
of the SB 1388 rule "may have a perverse incentive not to
repair [meters and payment centers] in a timely fashion, as
they may collect more for parking tickets than for parking
fees." The author has put a three-year sunset on this bill in
order to revisit the issue in the event that vandalism does
become a major problem.
4.Arguments in opposition . Opponents cite concerns of vandalism
discussed above and argue for flexibility in the statewide
policy to address local problems. They believe that SB 1388
struck an appropriate balance between a statewide policy and
local control and that there is no demonstrated need to
reverse the agreement made just a year ago.
AB 61 (GATTO) Page 3
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 72-0
L Gov: 8-0
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on
Wednesday,
June 5, 2013.)
SUPPORT: Atwater Village Chamber of Commerce
Automobile Club of Southern California
Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety
National Federation of Independent Business
United Chambers of Commerce: San Fernando Valley
& Region
OPPOSED: California Public Parking Association
City of Sacramento
City of San Luis Obispo
League of California Cities
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency