BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1430
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 23, 2014
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 1430 (Hill) - As Amended: March 25, 2014
SENATE VOTE : 28-4
SUBJECT : Malicious mischief: airport property: transportation
services
SUMMARY : Prohibits a person that is providing transportation
services from dropping off passengers at certain airports unless
they are authorized by the airport to provide transportation
services, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Clarifies that a person providing transportation services to
an airport that is owned by a city, county, or city and county
but located in another county is prohibited from transporting
passengers to the airport if they are not authorized by the
airport to provide transportation services.
2)Provides that a person conducting unauthorized transportation
services to the airport is guilty of a misdemeanor.
3)Includes an urgency provision.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Authorizes an airport to adopt and enforce rules and
regulations pertaining to access, use of streets and roads,
parking, passenger transfers, and use of buildings and
facilities on airport property.
2)Provides that a person who enters or remains on airport
property owned by a city, county, or city and county, but
located in another county, and sells, peddles, or offers for
sale any goods, merchandise, property, or services of any kind
whatsoever, including transportation services on or from, the
airport property, without express written consent of the
governing board of the airport property, is guilty of a
misdemeanor.
3)Establishes the "Passenger Charter-Party Carriers Act," which
directs the state Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to issue
SB 1430
Page 2
permits or certificates to charter-party carrier of passengers
(CPCs), investigate complaints against carriers, and cancel,
revoke, or suspend permits and certificates for specific
violations.
4)Defines "charter-party carrier of passengers" as every person
engaged in the transportation of persons by motor vehicle for
compensation, whether in common or contract carriage, over any
public highway in the state.
5)Requires CPCs to operate on a prearranged basis. Further
defines "prearranged basis" to mean that the transportation of
the prospective passenger was arranged with the carrier by the
passenger, or a representative of the passenger, either by
written contract or telephone.
6)At the regulatory level, defines a transportation network
company (TNCs) as an organization whether a corporation,
partnership, sole proprietor, or other form, operating within
the state that provides prearranged transportation services
for compensation using an online-enabled application or
platform to connect passengers with drivers using their
personal vehicles.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : Currently, two airports within the state are owned by
a county but are operated outside the county's jurisdiction.
Ontario Airport is owned and operated by Los Angeles World
Airports but is located in San Bernardino County. San Francisco
International Airport (SFO) is owned by the City and County of
San Francisco but is located in San Mateo County. As a result of
their respective locations, when crimes/violations occur at
these airports, the local county district attorney (DA)
prosecutes these crimes - e.g. the San Mateo County DA
prosecutes crimes committed on SFO property.
AB 1885 (Hill) Chapter 584, Statutes of 2010, allows the San
Mateo DA to prosecute persons illegally conducting business at
SFO to clarify that transportation service providers not
authorized by SFO and CPCs illegally soliciting business from
airport patrons are subject to prosecution. At that time, SFO
was experiencing a significant problem with CPCs illegally
soliciting customers "off the curb" rather than on a prearranged
basis. This clarification provided by AB 1885 allowed the San
SB 1430
Page 3
Mateo DA to prosecute these types of violations on SFO property.
Similarly, the author introduced this bill on behalf of SFO and
the San Mateo DA in order to provide additional clarification in
existing law. While existing law prohibits unauthorized
businesses, including transportation services, from operating on
or from SFO, it is unclear for transportation services that take
passengers "to" SFO. As a result, since existing law does not
explicitly state this prohibition, the San Mateo DA has declined
to prosecute unauthorized transportation service providers -
such as TNCs - that drop off passengers at SFO. This bill will
provide the additional clarification to allow the San Mateo DA
to prosecute persons and businesses not authorized to provide
transportation services to SFO.
While this bill will provide clarification that any unauthorized
transportation service provider transporting passengers to SFO
property is prohibited, this clarification will have the
greatest impact on TNCs. Currently, no TNC is authorized to
provide transportation services to and/or from SFO. SFO does
have an application process that allows PUC-permitted TNCs to
obtain authorization; however, only two TNCs have applied and
did not meet authorization criteria (e.g. commercial insurance,
real-time tracking on SFO property, etc). Despite not having
the proper authorization, TNCs continue to conduct business on
SFO property. Recent SFO enforcement statistics report the
following:
From April 16 to June 2:
1) 298 contacts resulting in verbal admonishments for
violating CPUC decision;
2) 10 drivers with 2 admonishments, no citations yet;
3) 55% able to present complete waybill (with photo of
driver, license plate of vehicle and proof of TNC trip in
progress);
4) 15% of drivers had complete, properly displayed trade
dress;
5) 8% of drivers had some trade dress displayed, but not
correctly;
SB 1430
Page 4
6) 77% of drivers did not have any trade dress displayed;
7) 21 drivers cited for 28 Vehicle Code violations; 9 for
no proof of insurance, 5 for improper display of license
plate, 8 for no registration certificate, 2 for unlicensed
driver, 2 for no possession of driver's license, 1 for
expired registration and 1 for no CPUC license number; and,
8) 25 vehicles were being operated by persons other than
the registered owner.
Moreover, the number of TNC drivers providing unauthorized
transportation to and from airports throughout the state has
been steadily increasing and widely reported. In response to
this issue, the PUC has sent a letter to TNCs requesting
unauthorized transport of passengers to airports ceases by June
24, 2014, or be subject to PUC fines and revocation of CPC
permits.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
San Francisco International Airport
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093