HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05132014 - C.26RECOMMENDATION(S):
ADOPT a "Support" position on AB 2381, as introduced (Bonilla): Private parking facilities, a bill that allows cities
or counties to authorize, via ordinance or resolution, operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking
facilities to regulate unauthorized parking, as recommended by the Legislation Committee.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Unknown. However, AB 2381 is intended to facilitate the regulation of parking facilities, which may improve
business development and/or activity.
BACKGROUND:
At its May 1, 2014 meeting, the Legislation Committee voted unanimously to recommend a position of "Support" on
AB 2381 to the Board of Supervisors.
SUMMARY : AB 2381 allows cities or counties to authorize, via ordinance or resolution, operators of privately
owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking.
Current Status:
APPROVE OTHER
RECOMMENDATION OF CNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
Action of Board On: 05/13/2014 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
AYE:John Gioia, District I Supervisor
Candace Andersen, District II
Supervisor
Mary N. Piepho, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District IV
Supervisor
Federal D. Glover, District V
Supervisor
Contact: L. DeLaney,
925-335-1097
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 13, 2014
David Twa, County Administrator and Clerk of the Board of Supervisors
By: June McHuen, Deputy
cc:
C. 26
To:Board of Supervisors
From:LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Date:May 13, 2014
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Support Position on AB 2381, as introduced, Bonilla. Private parking facilities
BACKGROUND: (CONT'D)
05/01/2014: In ASSEMBLY. Read third time. Passed ASSEMBLY. *****To SENATE.
EXISTING LAW:
1) Allows any city or county, by ordinance or resolution, to find and declare that there are privately owned and
maintained offstreet parking facilities as described in the ordinance or resolution within the city or county that are
generally held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular parking, and that specified traffic laws apply to
such facilities, including those related to basic speed law, reckless driving, speed contests and exhibitions of speed.
2) Prohibits any ordinance or resolution described above from applying to any offstreet parking facility unless the
owner or operator posts specified notices that the parking facility is subject to public traffic regulations and
control.
3) Prohibits any ordinance or resolution described above from being enacted without a public hearing and 10 days
prior written notice to the owner and operator of the privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facility
involved.
4) Outlines the requirements for, and limitations on, the removal of vehicles parked on private property, as
specified (Vehicle Code section 22658).
COMMENTS:
1) Purpose of this bill. This bill clarifies that a city or a county may enact an ordinance that allows the owners or
operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to regulate parking in their facilities. This
bill is sponsored by the Walnut Creek Downtown Association.
2) Author's statement. According to the author, "Some cities and counties have ordinances authorizing private
parking lot operators to regulate private lots and enforce parking violations through the use of invoices. Parking
ordinances outline consumer protections and strict requirements of property owners. Ordinances specify signage,
penalty amount, dispute resolution, and compliance requirements, and are adopted only with a vote of the city
council or county board of supervisors. However, state law does not explicitly prescribe whether or not private
companies can enforce meter limits in private parking lots, even when local jurisdictions authorize a company's
ability to do so. Clarity is needed in state law to protect all parties."
3) Background. In December of 2011, the Attorney General issued an opinion that was sought to answer four
questions:
a) Does California Vehicle Code section 22658, or any other state law, authorize private property owners to issue
parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of vehicles parked on their property?
b) May private property owners acquire, by means of issuing a written warning or posting signage, the right to
issue parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of vehicles parked on their property?
c) May persons who tow and impound vehicles under Vehicle Code section 22658 require payment of parking
citations that have been issued by private property owners, in addition to the towing and storage charges?
d) What rights or remedies are available to the owners of vehicles that have received parking citations imposing
monetary sanctions issued by private property owners?
The opinion concluded that:
a) Neither California Vehicle Code section 22658, nor any other state law, authorizes private property owners to
issue parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of vehicles parked on their property.
b) Absent statutory authorization, private property owners may not acquire, by means of issuing a written
warning or posting signage, the right to issue parking citations imposing monetary sanctions to the owners of
vehicles parked on their property.
c) Persons who tow and impound vehicles under Vehicle Code section 22658 may not require payment of parking
citations that have been issued by private property owners.
d) Owners of vehicles who have received parking citations imposing monetary sanctions issued by private
property owners or their agents do not have rights or remedies per se, but the citations are unenforceable against
the vehicle owners.
Subsequent to this opinion, a class action case was filed in August of 2012 alleging that the opinion, together with
various provisions of the Vehicle Code, preclude local governments in California from enacting ordinances
allowing the private issuance of invoices for parking fees. The case involved a private parking operator, Regional
Parking Corporation, doing business pursuant to a Walnut Creek ordinance governing private parking lots.
In its order after hearing this case, the Contra Costa Superior Court noted that, "The Opinion is silent on the
question of whether a local government ordinance would be sufficient 'statutory authorization' to allow a private
property owner to issue parking citations. California courts interpret the term 'statute' to include municipal
ordinances...Thus, the Court reads the Opinion as including ordinances as potential statutory authorization for the
private issuance of citations."
The Court then considered a question not addressed in the opinion: whether a local government can enact an
ordinance allowing for private property owners to issue citations, or whether any such ordinance would
necessarily be preempted by state law. The Court found that, "Because the Vehicle Code for the most part does
not address the regulation of private parking, the Court also finds that there is no implied preemption of the
Ordinance. What little state law there is on the topic of private parking expressly provides for the possibility of
local regulation thereof...There is no statutory scheme fully occupying the field so as to impliedly preempt local
regulation.
"Nor is the plaintiff persuasive in arguing that because the City of Walnut Creek cannot contract with private
parties to issue citations for public parking violations, it cannot authorize private parties to impose fees for
unauthorized parking on their own property...Although local governments are restricted from contracting out the
performance of their public functions - such as the enforcement of public parking laws - the issuance of invoices
for unauthorized parking on private property is not such a public function."
This bill will clarify, in state statute, that cities and counties have the authority to enact ordinances allowing
operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking in their
facilities.
4) Committee amendments. The Committee may wish to consider the following amendments to clarify the scope
of the bill, ensure due process procedures, and prevent private parking citations from affecting a violator's driving
record:
a) On page 2, in line 13, after "parking" insert "in that facility"
b) Require operators of a privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facility to include in any notice of
parking violation instructions on obtaining information on the procedures to contest the notice of parking violation.
c) Prohibit information regarding parking violations from being forwarded to the Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) for purposes of going on the driver's record or for purposes of a DMV Hold.
5) Arguments in support. The Walnut Creek Downtown Association, sponsor of this bill, states, "(T)he validity of
the Walnut Creek ordinance has been put into question by an Attorney General legal opinion which states that
California statute must authorize such an ordinance. This opinion, while not binding, has had the unfortunate
consequence of discouraging other cities from adopting ordinances that would benefit their downtown business
associations, local merchants and customers. AB 2381 will provide clarity to the matter by addressing the
Attorney General opinion and clearly stating that such ordinances are valid."
6) Arguments in opposition. None on file.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
Walnut Creek Downtown Association [SPONSOR]
AvalonBay Communities, Inc.
California Business Properties Association
California Restaurant Association
California Retailers Association
City of Walnut Creek
International Council of Shopping Centers
League of California Cities
Mayor Timothy M. Flaherty, City of Pleasant Hill
National Federation of Independent Business
Regional Parking, Inc.
Opposition
None on file
ATTACHMENTS
Bill Text 2381
california legislature—2013–14 regular session
ASSEMBLY BILL No. 2381
Introduced by Assembly Member Bonilla
(Coauthor: Assembly Member Skinner)
February 21, 2014
An act to amend Section 21107.8 of the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 2381, as introduced, Bonilla. Private parking facilities.
Existing law authorizes a city or county, by ordinance or resolution,
to find and declare that there are privately owned and maintained
offstreet parking facilities within the city or county that are generally
held open for use of the public for purposes of vehicular parking and
requires, upon enactment of the ordinance or resolution, that specified
traffic laws apply, including those related to basic speed law, reckless
driving, and speed contests and exhibitions of speed, except as specified.
This bill would authorize a city or county to include in that ordinance
or resolution authorization for the operator of privately owned and
maintained offstreet parking facility to regulate unauthorized parking.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no.
State-mandated local program: no.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
line 1 SECTION 1. Section 21107.8 of the Vehicle Code is amended
line 2 to read:
line 3 21107.8. (a) (1) Any city or county may, by ordinance or
line 4 resolution, find and declare that there are privately owned and
99
line 1 maintained offstreet parking facilities as described in the ordinance
line 2 or resolution within the city or county that are generally held open
line 3 for use of the public for purposes of vehicular parking. Upon
line 4 enactment by a city or county of the ordinance or resolution,
line 5 Sections 22350, 23103, and 23109 and the provisions of Division
line 6 16.5 (commencing with Section 38000) shall apply to privately
line 7 owned and maintained offstreet parking facilities, except as
line 8 provided in subdivision (b).
line 9 (2) If a city or county enacts an ordinance or resolution
line 10 authorized by paragraph (1), a city or county may include in that
line 11 ordinance or resolution authorization for the operator of a
line 12 privately owned and maintained offstreet parking facility to
line 13 regulate unauthorized parking.
line 14 (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (a), no
line 15 ordinance or resolution enacted thereunder shall apply to any
line 16 offstreet parking facility described therein unless the owner or
line 17 operator has caused to be posted in a conspicuous place at each
line 18 entrance to that offstreet parking facility a notice not less than 17
line 19 by 22 inches in size with lettering not less than one inch in height,
line 20 to the effect that the offstreet parking facility is subject to public
line 21 traffic regulations and control.
line 22 (c) No ordinance or resolution shall be enacted under subdivision
line 23 (a) without a public hearing thereon and 10 days prior written
line 24 notice to the owner and operator of the privately owned and
line 25 maintained offstreet parking facility involved.
line 26 (d) Section 22507.8 may be enforced without enactment of an
line 27 ordinance or resolution as required under subdivision (a) or the
line 28 posting of a notice at each entrance to the offstreet parking facility
line 29 as required under subdivision (b).
line 30 (e) The department shall not be required to provide patrol or
line 31 enforce any provisions of this code on any privately owned and
line 32 maintained offstreet parking facility subject to the provisions of
line 33 this code under this section except those provisions applicable to
line 34 private property other than by action under this section.
O
99
— 2 —AB 2381