BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2586
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Susan Talamantes Eggman, Chair
AB 2586
(Gatto) - As Amended April 6, 2016
SUBJECT: Parking.
SUMMARY: Imposes a number of restrictions and requirements on
local authorities' ability to regulate parking in their
jurisdictions. Specifically, this bill:
1)Declares the intent of the Legislature that if a local
authority prohibits or restricts the parking or standing of
vehicles for the purposes of street sweeping, the local
authority shall ensure that parking is made available as soon
as the street sweeping is completed, regardless of the posted
hours of street sweeping.
2)Deletes the sunset date on provisions that prohibit local
authorities from prohibiting or restricting parking of
vehicles in a space regulated by an inoperable parking meter
or an inoperable parking payment center, thereby extending
these provisions indefinitely.
3)Prohibits valet parking services in business districts from
restricting motorists' ability to park in available metered
parking spaces and from prohibiting motorists from using
AB 2586
Page 2
designated passenger loading areas.
4)Prohibits a local authority, when using contracted private
parking enforcement services, from promoting incentives
(monetary or otherwise) for issuing higher numbers of
violations or increasing fines to cover the costs of the
contracted enforcement services.
5)Requires local jurisdictions to consider the feasibility of
using demand-based pricing technology and to identify
appropriate locations where it can be utilized, when
installing new parking technology within their jurisdictions.
6)Requires local jurisdictions to include a written finding when
considering the use of demand-based pricing technology for
parking and to retain a copy of the finding and post it on
their Internet Web site (website), if they have one.
7) Provides that no reimbursement is required by this bill,
pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIIIB of the California
Constitution, for certain costs that may be incurred by a
local agency because, in that regard, this bill creates a new
crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or
changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, or changes the
definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of
Article XIIIB of the California Constitution. However, if the
Commission on State Mandates determines that this bill
contains other costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to
local agencies for those costs shall be made, pursuant to
current law governing state-mand8)ated local costs.
EXISTING LAW:
AB 2586
Page 3
1)Defines parking as the standing of vehicles, whether occupied
or not, otherwise than temporarily for the purpose of and
while actually engaged in loading and unloading of merchandise
or passengers.
2)Allows local authorities to establish parking meter zones and
fix the parking fee for such zones by ordinance.
3)Authorizes local jurisdictions to issue parking citations to
allow for street sweeping.
4)Prohibits, until January 1, 2017, a local authority, by
ordinance or resolution, from prohibiting or restricting the
parking of vehicles in a space that is regulated by an
inoperable parking meter or inoperable parking payment center.
FISCAL EFFECT: This bill is keyed fiscal.
COMMENTS:
1)Bill Summary. This bill makes a number of changes to law
governing local jurisdictions' authority to regulate parking,
as follows:
a) Declares the intent of the Legislature that if a local
authority prohibits or restricts the parking or standing of
vehicles for the purposes of street sweeping, the local
authority must ensure that parking is made available as
soon as the street sweeping is completed, regardless of the
posted hours of street sweeping;
AB 2586
Page 4
b) Deletes the January 1, 2017, sunset on provisions that
prohibit local authorities from prohibiting or restricting
parking of vehicles in a space regulated by an inoperable
parking meter or an inoperable parking payment center,
thereby extending these provisions indefinitely;
c) Prohibits valet parking services in business districts
from restricting motorists' ability to park in available
metered parking spaces and from prohibiting motorists from
using designated passenger loading areas;
d) Prohibits a local authority, when using contracted
private parking enforcement services, from promoting
incentives (monetary or otherwise) for issuing higher
numbers of violations or increasing fines to cover the
costs of the contracted enforcement services; and,
e) Requires local jurisdictions to consider the feasibility
of using demand-based pricing technology and to identify
appropriate locations where it can be utilized, when
installing new parking technology within their
jurisdictions. When considering the use of demand-based
pricing technology, local jurisdictions must include a
written finding, retain a copy of the finding, and post it
on their website, if they have one.
This bill is sponsored by the author.
2)Author's Statement. According to the author, "Every year,
cities issue thousands of parking tickets to motorists for
every imaginable violation, ranging from expired meters to
AB 2586
Page 5
driveway obstruction, proximity to fire hydrants and stop
signs to abandonment of a vehicle. Unfortunately, budget
deficits have led many local governments to run their public
parking enforcement programs as additional sources of revenue,
rather than as mechanisms for enforcing sensible parking
restrictions. These tickets add up, and in 2014, were
responsible for approximately $165 million of Los Angeles's
city budget and almost $130 million of San Francisco's city
budget. This profit-driven parking enforcement system has a
disproportionate impact on low-to-moderate income residents
who live in densely populated urban areas. As Los Angeles
Mayor Eric Garcetti recently stated, 'It's a 'got-ya'
culture?It doesn't work for the businesses, it doesn't work
for the drivers.'"
3)Background. SB 1388 (DeSaulnier), Chapter 70, Statutes of
2012, established a general rule that a vehicle owner may
park, up to the posted time limit, without penalty, in any
parking space where the parking meter or parking payment
center is inoperable. SB 1388 contained a provision that
allowed local jurisdictions to adopt different rules, provided
that adequate notice of the rule was provided at the parking
location. As a result, some local jurisdictions began banning
parking at inoperable meters using posted signs to notify
motorists. To address this loophole, AB 61 (Gatto), Chapter
71, Statutes of 2013, prohibited local jurisdictions from
ticketing at inoperable meters. These provisions sunset
January 1, 2017.
According to a July 5, 2012, article in the Los Angeles Times,
the City of Los Angeles issues 2.5 million parking citations
every year. In 2011, the city increased fines for the sixth
time in seven years, which was expected to generate an extra
$8.4 million for the city's general fund.
AB 2586
Page 6
An editorial published on February 15, 2013, in the Los
Angeles Times urged local action on the issue, noting the
adverse impact of the fines on low-income individuals and
those who live in neighborhoods with scant street or garage
parking. The editorial reported that parking tickets generate
$150 million in annual revenues for the city. The editorial
also noted irregularities with the private company, Xerox
State and Local Solutions, that operates the city's Parking
Violations Bureau, stating,
"Since Xerox took over, a group of people in the city says
the company has been trying to keep more parking revenue by
stonewalling attempts to fight tickets?(one individual)
filed a class-action lawsuit in January, claiming Xerox
doesn't really consider their cases but just sends form
letters stating that their appeals have been rejected.
Then, when motorists try to appeal to the Department of
Transportation, Xerox slaps them with late payment fees and
penalties?The city's data on tickets seem to back up (the
class-action litigant's) claim that Xerox is rejecting too
many appeals. Last year, the city dismissed thousands of
tickets after Xerox had rejected the drivers' appeal -
vindicating the small percentage of intrepid souls who
managed to bring their case to City Hall."
However, a Los Angeles Times editorial published on January 21
of this year in response to this bill states,
AB 2586
Page 7
"?these rules and regulations of street parking are not
issues for the state legislature. They're classic local
issues which different cities might want to handle
differently. And if problems arise, they're best fixed by
local governments?Interestingly, L.A. had been ticketing at
broken meters, on the dubious argument that not doing so
created an incentive for motorists to break them. But the
council changed that unpopular (and unreasonable) policy
after (AB 61) passed?
"In the last few years in Los Angeles there has been such
an outcry over confusing parking regulations and increases
in parking fines that Mayor Eric Garcetti created what he
calls the Parking Reform Working Group, which delivered a
report last year on how to reform the system. Councilman
Mike Bonin incorporated a number of its suggestions into
several motions that are now winding their way through
council committees. But the city needs to get moving on
this. The working group was formed in June 2014 and
reported back last February, yet none of its changes have
been implemented to date?Nevertheless, the fact remains
that City Hall is the place to enact any parking reforms
for city streets."
4)Previous Legislation. AB 61 (Gatto), Chapter 71, Statutes of
2013, prohibited, until
AB 2586
Page 8
January 1, 2017, a city or county from citing vehicles or
parking at an inoperable parking meter or parking payment
center for up to the posted time limit.
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 allowed a city or county to adopt a different
rule if it provided adequate notice of the rule.
5)State Mandate. This bill is keyed a state mandate, which
means the state could be required to reimburse local agencies
for implementing the bill's provisions if the Commission on
State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs
mandated by the state.
6)Arguments in Support. The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers
Association, in support, writes, "This bill includes a number
of common-sense provisions to ensure that taxpayers don't
spend their hard-earned money to deal with either government
incompetence or criminal activity far outside their control."
7)Arguments in Opposition. The League of California Cities, in
opposition, states, "This bill unnecessarily upends local
authority to regulate parking, an authority that cities have
had since at least 1959. In 2013, the state enacted AB 61
(Gatto), Chapter 71, Statutes of 2013,
a bill narrowly targeted at broken parking meters. The League
is currently in the process of surveying its members, but
initial responses indicate that there has been a significant
AB 2586
Page 9
increase in meter vandalism in just the two years since this
bill's implementation. Furthermore, broken meters represent
only a fraction of working parking meters, making this an
unusual candidate for statewide policy. Any attempt to make
this recent change in law permanent is premature, at best.
"Unlike AB 61, AB 2586 goes well beyond the limitations
imposed on local government authority to regulate its own
parking needs?No entity is better equipped than local
government to regulate its own parking needs. In fact, many
small cities throughout the state do not have any parking
meters and many of the larger cities are moving towards some
of the technology called for in this bill. Cities continue to
demonstrate their willingness to adapt to their residents'
parking needs and there is no demonstrated need for the state
to insert itself into this core local issue."
8)Double-Referral. This bill was heard by the Transportation
Committee on April 4, 2016, where it passed with a 16-0 vote.
AB 2586
Page 10
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association
Opposition
California Public Parking Association
City of Sacramento
City of San Carlos
Culver City Chamber of Commerce
League of California Cities
Analysis Prepared by:Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958
AB 2586
Page 11