TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Erik Zandvliet, Traffic Engineer
Kendra Davis, Management Fellow
SUBJECT:Title
Letter of Opposition to Assembly Bill (AB 2586 - Gatto) Regarding Limitations on Local Government Authority to Regulate Parking (Traffic Engineer Zandvliet and Management Fellow Davis).
AUTHORIZE LETTER
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign and distribute a letter of opposition to AB 2586 (Gatto), which seeks to amend the California Vehicle Code (CVC) and restrict the ability of cities to establish and regulate local parking rules.
Bod
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications for this action.
BACKGROUND:
AB 2586 (Gatto) seeks to establish new state requirements and prohibitions to local parking guidelines by setting generic policies that apply to all California cities. In February 2016, AB 2586 was introduced on the floor of the California State Assembly by Assemblyman Gatto as a set of revisions to the existing CVC, and it was referred to the Committees on Transportation and Local Government. The Committee on Transportation amended and passed the bill 16-0 on April 5, 2016, and re-referred it to the Committee on Local Government. The Committee on Local Government passed the bill 6-3 on April 20, 2016 and re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations.
The City of Manhattan Beach is a coastal community with a beautiful public beach and limited land use opportunities, especially in the Downtown and beachfront areas. It is a year-round destination for beach-goers. The City itself has about 34,000 residents, who also enjoy the beach and the Downtown. In the City’s Downtown, parking is extremely limited and utilized by residents, beach-goers, shoppers, diners and employees. The City is continually trying to balance methods of reducing congestion along the streets in this district, while also leveraging the limited parking that exists to support the high demand. Through these efforts, the City has established valet parking as one of the potential ways to effectively mediate this need.
The League of California Cities, the South Bay Association of Chambers of Commerce and other California cities have come out in firm opposition to AB 2586 because they believe it limits the authority of cities to establish their own parking regulations, an authority that has existed at that level since 1959.
DISCUSSION:
The provisions in AB 2586 influence the way the City is able to regulate its parking. One of these additions eliminates the ability of local governments to create exclusive valet parking zones along metered spaces at any time. AB 2586 proposes adding Section 22508.6 to the CVC that reads:
“A person providing valet parking services in a business district is prohibited from doing either of the following:
a) Prohibiting a vehicle from parking in an otherwise available parking space regulated by a parking meter.
b) Prohibiting a vehicle from stopping or standing for the purpose of loading or unloading passengers in any space or area that has been designated for that purpose.”
The City currently reserves ten metered spaces in the Downtown area for public valet parking use in order to offer those seeking to enjoy the Downtown or the beach an opportunity to find quick, reasonably priced parking. This amendment to the CVC will effectively eliminate that option and prohibit the City from using this method in the future. There are several reasons that support the use of metered parking spaces or loading zones for valet parking in this district, including:
• Every valeted car opens up an additional public parking space, effectively adding 120 more low-cost parking spaces for public access.
• Valet parking makes hundreds of private spaces available to the public that would otherwise remain empty during non-business hours.
• Dedicated valet spaces represent only 4% of all on-street spaces and only 1% of all public spaces in Downtown.
• Valet service reduces congestion by reducing the need to search for open parking spaces.
• Loading zones are not posted or used all day and can be better utilized with other parking management techniques, including metered parking and valet parking.
Even more important than the actual influence of valet parking on congestion and access is the ability of this City to utilize it as a tool. If AB 2586 is passed, the City will no longer have the discretion to utilize streetside valet stations as a method of managing parking in a balanced way.
AB 2586 also seeks to extend the limitations introduced by Assembly Bill 61 (AB 61 Gatto, Chapter 71, Statutes of 2013) in 2013 that addressed broken parking meters. In Manhattan Beach, the City has a longstanding policy of not ticketing vehicles parked at broken parking meters, as long as posted time regulations are still upheld. However, AB 2586 removes the discretion of the City to respond to unique cases and set new policies that address the changing reality of parking enforcement in Manhattan Beach. Instead, it imposes a generic solution for all California communities.
It will also impose additional limitations on the City’s ability to regulate its own parking needs, such as street sweeping, parking enforcement contracts, arrangements with business districts and the type of parking technology that can be used, which includes variable parking meter rates and other smart meter features.
While some of the provisions of AB 2586 already align with current Manhattan Beach policy (not ticketing vehicles parked at broken meters or after street sweeping has already occurred), this bill will remove the ability of local authorities to be responsive to changes or challenges that arise within individual communities as they pertain to parking regulations. This is particularly impactful considering the ongoing discussion surrounding a Downtown Specific Plan that seeks to protect the future of Downtown Manhattan Beach and preserve its unique character. The provisions listed in this bill limit the City’s access to certain tools that could assist with addressing traffic congestion or parking needs in the future, both within the context of the Specific Plan and beyond.
Due to the implications listed above, staff recommends that the City Council authorize a letter of opposition be sent.
However, the City Council could choose not to take a stance on this bill at this time and wait for it to progress further through the State Assembly Committees. It should be noted that it has moved quickly through two committees since its introduction and may continue to move at the same pace. If the City Council chooses to postpone taking a position, the opportunity to provide influential feedback may not be available.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
ALTERNATIVE # 1:
The City Council chooses not to take a position on AB 2586 (Gatto) at this time.
PROS:
The City has an opportunity to reach out to neighboring cities and discuss the
potential implications of this bill, as well as conduct additional research regarding the impact this bill may have on Manhattan Beach.
CONS:
The City may lose its opportunity to provide feedback on this bill and its potential
impact on the community, if the bill is passed in its current form.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST:
Pending City Council direction, City Staff can conduct outreach to community stakeholders, such as the Manhattan Beach Downtown Business & Professionals Association, the Manhattan Beach Chamber of Commerce and others, to raise awareness of the potential impacts of this bill on the local community and seek feedback on the effect it may have on Manhattan Beach. Staff can also contact other cities to determine their position on AB 2586 and how they will respond.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a “Project” as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed AB 2586 and will work with City staff to evaluate the impact of this bill on the regulatory authority of the City.
Attachments:
1. Assembly Bill 2586 - Parking
2. Assembly Bill 2586 - Draft Opposition Letter