BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2586
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 11, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Lorena Gonzalez, Chair
AB
2586 (Gatto) - As Amended April 6, 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Policy |Transportation |Vote:|16 - 0 |
|Committee: | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|-------------+-------------------------------+-----+-------------|
| |Local Government | |6 - 3 |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: YesReimbursable:
Yes
SUMMARY:
This bill makes several changes to the state's parking laws.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Deletes the January 1, 2017, sunset on provisions authorizing
parking, up to the posted time limit, at inoperable parking
meters or inoperable parking payment centers (kiosks).
AB 2586
Page 2
2)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.
3)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.
4)Requires a local jurisdiction, when installing new parking
technology, to consider the feasibility of demand-based
pricing technology and to identify appropriate locations where
it can be utilized.
5)Requires the local jurisdiction to include a written finding
regarding the consideration in (4) before installing new
parking technology and to retain a copy of the finding and
post it on their website.
FISCAL EFFECT:
Potential significant reimbursable costs to the extent local
agencies must undertake feasibility studies to consider
demand-based pricing technology prior to upgrading their parking
meters. While local jurisdictions might undertake such analyses
regardless of this bill, this mandate will require state
reimbursement for this activity. These costs are unknown, but
for example, the City of Sacramento indicates that, in 2013, it
spent about $400,000 for studies in advance of upgrading its
parking meter technology.
AB 2586
Page 3
COMMENTS:
1)Purpose. According to the author, every year cities issue
thousands of parking tickets to motorists for every imaginable
violation ranging from parking at inoperable meters,
obstructing driveways, parking too close to fire hydrants and
stop signs, and abandoning vehicles. He asserts that, in
part, these actions are driven by budget deficits that forced
many local governments to run their parking enforcement
programs as revenue-generation mechanisms rather than as a
mechanism to enforce sensible parking restrictions. He points
out that these excessive citations add up. In 2014 alone, the
City of Los Angeles generated $165 million in citations and,
similarly, the City of San Francisco generated $130 million.
The author has introduced this bill, which he describes as a
"Parking Bill of Rights," to address a variety of parking
offenses that he believes are being excessively cited by local
jurisdictions and are overly punitive.
2)Broken Parking Meters. This bill removes the sunset on
provisions set forth in AB 61 (Gatto), Chapter 71, Statutes of
2013, which until 2017 prohibit local governments from
ticketing cars parked at broken meters until 2017. The author
contends that allowing this prohibition to expire will allow
local jurisdictions to simply resume ticketing after the
sunset date.
The author contends that the intent of AB 61, to make as many
parking spaces available to motorists as possible, has been
achieved. He contends that AB 61 has also created an
incentive for local jurisdictions to promptly repair or
replace broken meters. Local jurisdictions, on the other
hand, contend, that AB 61, while well intended, encouraged
increased parking meter vandalism which, when successful,
AB 2586
Page 4
allows motorists to park for free.
3)Valet Parking. The bill also prohibits valet parking operators
from blocking metered spaces and loading zones from public
use. The author notes that this provision addresses numerous
complaints from motorists in the Los Angeles area that valet
parking services are unfairly utilizing public parking stalls
to benefit only a small handful of businesses and individuals.
4)Demand-Based Parking. The author notes that demand-based
pricing, which allows prices to fluctuate based on demand, can
serve as a mechanism to increase "turnover" of parking spaces,
making more parking stalls available throughout the day. He
notes that while some cities have successfully implemented
this system, many cities fail to consider it, and he feels
that this bill would encourage local jurisdictions to look at
and potentially implement these parking alternatives.
The San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(SFMTA), recently upgraded all of that city's 29,000 parking
meters to demand-based "smart meters," contends these meters
improve parking availability without increasing double
parking, congestion, or parking citations. Additionally,
SFMTA noted that "cruising" for parking spaces decreased by
30% and meter-related parking tickets decreased 23% after the
"smart meters" were installed.
5)Opposition. The League of California Cities generally opposes
each aspect of the bill as an unnecessary restriction on local
governments' authority to regulate parking.
Analysis Prepared by:Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916)
319-2081
AB 2586
Page 5