SUBJECT: Private parking facilities.
Current Status: 04/23/2014: From ASSEMBLY Committee on LOCAL GOVERNMENT: Do pass as amended
SUMMARY: Allows cities or counties to authorize, via ordinance or resolution, operators of privately owned and maintained off-street parking facilities to regulate unauthorized parking.
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.
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."
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
Analysis Prepared by: Angela Mapp / L. GOV. / (916) 319-3958 |