BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2586
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
2586 (Gatto)
As Amended May 31, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Transportation |16-0 |Frazier, Linder, | |
| | |Baker, Bloom, Brown, | |
| | |Chu, Daly, Dodd, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Kim, Mathis, | |
| | |Medina, Melendez, | |
| | |Nazarian, O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Local |6-3 |Eggman, Waldron, |Bonilla, Cooley, |
|Government | |Alejo, Chiu, Beth |Gordon |
| | |Gaines, Linder | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |19-1 |Gonzalez, Bigelow, |Bonilla |
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
AB 2586
Page 2
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, | |
| | |Obernolte, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Makes changes to a variety of parking provisions.
Specifically, this bill:
1)Declares the intent of the Legislature that if a local
authority prohibits or restricts 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.
2)Deletes the sunset on provisions authorizing parking, up to
the posted time limit, at inoperable parking meters or in
operable parking payment centers (with kiosks), 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
designated passenger loading areas.
4)Prohibits a local authority, when using contracted private
parking enforcement services, from promoting incentives
AB 2586
Page 3
(monetary or otherwise) for issuing higher numbers of
violations or increasing fines to cover the costs of the
contracted enforcement services.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, increased non-reimbursable costs to local governments
for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine revenues.
COMMENTS: According to the author, every year cities issue
thousands of parking tickets to motorists for every imaginable
violation. He notes that in many cases these excessive
citations 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 and that 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.
Street Sweeping: Specifically, this bill declares the intent of
the Legislature that parking should resume on a street as soon
as street sweeping is performed in an effort to free up
available parking spaces that would otherwise unusable for
"blocks of time" regardless of whether or not street sweeping
activities have concluded. The author notes not allowing
drivers to resume parking immediately after street sweeping is
concluded, unnecessarily blocks access to parking but also
causes motorists to drive around searching for parking spaces
adding to congestion and air pollution problems.
Broken Parking Meters: In 2012, SB 1388 (DeSaulnier), Chapter
AB 2586
Page 4
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, in compliance with SB 1388.
To address this loophole, Assemblymember Gatto introduced AB 61
(Gatto), Chapter 71, Statutes of 2013 to prohibit local
jurisdictions from ticketing at inoperable meters. AB 61
included a sunset provision making it inoperable after January
1, 2017. The author contends that the intent of AB 61, to make
as many parking spaces available to motorists as possible, has
been achieved and it 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, allows motorists to park for
free. This bill would remove the sunset on provisions set forth
in AB 61.
Valet Parking: The author has also included in the bill a
prohibition regarding valet parking services on city streets.
Specifically, this bill would prohibit valet parking operators
from blocking metered spaces and loading zones from public use.
The author notes that while these valet operators provide a
useful service to restaurants and other small businesses, he
feels that, increasingly, valet operators keep lawful motorists
from utilizing available metered spaces thereby limiting parking
options for those that do not use valet services. 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.
AB 2586
Page 5
Private Parking Enforcement: The author points out that in the
face of limited manpower, many local governments have turned to
the privatization of parking enforcement operations. While the
author does not take issue with this method of performing this
much needed enforcement, he notes that some parking enforcement
contracts contain provisions that incentivize enforcement
contractors to issue citations. The author feels that these
practices results in overly harsh or unfair enforcement. While
it could be argued that these parties are simply enforcing
existing law, as the author points out, creating financial
incentives for these companies or other incentives, such as
improved prospects for renewed contracts, can lead to
overzealous enforcement resulting in costly fines to motorists
for what can be perceived as relatively minor offenses.
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of
this bill.
Analysis Prepared by:
Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN:
0003180