BILL ANALYSIS �
SB 1430
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB 1430 (Hill)
As Amended March 25, 2014
2/3 vote. Urgency
SENATE VOTE :28-4
TRANSPORTATION 11-0 APPROPRIATIONS 14-3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Ayes:|Lowenthal, Linder, |Ayes:|Gatto, Bigelow, |
| |Achadjian, Bonta, | |Bocanegra, Bradford, Ian |
| |Buchanan, Daly, Frazier, | |Calderon, Campos, Eggman, |
| |Gatto, Nazarian, | |Gomez, Holden, Linder, |
| |Quirk-Silva, Waldron | |Pan, Quirk, |
| | | |Ridley-Thomas, Weber |
| | | | |
|-----+--------------------------+-----+--------------------------|
| | |Nays:|Donnelly, Jones, Wagner |
| | | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, likely minor non-reimbursable costs for prosecution
of violations, which constitute a misdemeanor, offset to some
extent by fine revenues.
COMMENTS : Currently, two airports within the state are owned by
a county but are operated outside the county's jurisdiction.
SB 1430
Page 2
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 Charter Party Carriers (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 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 Transportation Network Companies (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 California Public
Utilities Commission (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
SB 1430
Page 3
the proper authorization, TNCs continue to conduct business on
SFO property. Recent SFO enforcement statistics report the
following:
From April 16, 2014 to June 2, 2014:
1) Two hundred and ninety-eight contacts resulting in
verbal admonishments for violating PUC decision;
2) Ten drivers with two admonishments, no citations yet;
3) Fifty-five percent able to present complete waybill
(with photo of driver, license plate of vehicle and proof
of TNC trip in progress);
4) Fifteen percent of drivers had complete, properly
displayed trade dress;
5) Eight percent of drivers had some trade dress displayed,
but not correctly;
6) Seventy-seven percent of drivers did not have any trade
dress displayed;
7) Twenty-one drivers cited for 28 Vehicle Code violations;
nine for no proof of insurance, five for improper display
of license plate, eight for no registration certificate,
two for unlicensed driver, two for no possession of
driver's license, one for expired registration, and one for
no PUC license number; and,
8) Twenty-five vehicles were being operated by persons
other than the registered owner.
Analysis Prepared by : Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
FN: 0004487