HomeMy WebLinkAbout12 LEGISLATIVE REPORTSAgenda Item 12
Reviewed:
AGENDA REPORT City Manager
Finance Director N A
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE REPORTS
Attached are two agenda reports for discussion by the City Council:
1. Opposition of SB 518
2. Adoption of Resolution No. 10-24 supporting the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety,
And Transportation Protection Act of 2010
~`4 ~
~:', A
~ ~~ GENDA REPORT
~ Agenda Item 12
Reviewed:
City Manager
\
"~
~~ ~;~'~' N/A
Finance Director
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: OPPOSITION OF SB 518
SUMMARY:
In June, 2009, the City Council sent a letter to State Senators Alan S. Lowenthal and Loni
Hancock, opposing State Senate Bill (SB) 518. SB 518 was amended further in January,
2010, incorporating changes to the requirements and programs it mandates. SB 518 would
implement various thresholds that cities and/or counties would be required to meet in order to
be eligible for consideration for various loans and grants for transportation related projects. In
addition, SB 518 would require parking costs to be listed as a separate line item when a city
or county enters into a lease on real property. This would ensure the actual cost of parking is
fully covered. A violation of these provisions would be a crime, therefore this bill would
impose astate-mandated local program.
Attached is a draft letter expressing opposition of this bill due to the potential of taking the
ability to set parking requirements away from local cities, the potential fiscal impact, and the
imposition of another state-mandated local program .
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council direct staff to transmit the attached letter of opposition to the authors of
the legislation and to the Governor if the bill is passed by the legislature.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The cost to local governments associated with the implementation of SB 518 could be
significant. Implementing the requirements could involve significant cost and staff time. In
addition, failure to meet the thresholds set forth by SB 518 could make the City ineligible for
various grants and loans.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION:
SB 518 is being packaged as a bill that would eliminate parking subsidies and decrease
traffic congestion and greenhouse gases. This would be accomplished through state-
City Council Report
SB 518
February 16, 2010
Page 2
mandated programs that would force cities to identify the cost of parking and choose from a
State approved list of programs that have the potential to reduce parking demand.
In summary, SB 518 includes the following:
• Require city and/or county leases to list parking as a separate line item, showing the
costs of construction, operation, and maintenance of parking, as well as noting the
cost of public transit. A violation of these provisions would be considered a crime;
therefore this bill would impose astate-mandated local program.
• Authorize cities and/or counties to reduce or eliminate parking subsidies by choosing
from a specified menu to ensure that actual cost of parking equals the full cost (sum of
annualized land cost, annualized construction costs, and annualized operation and
maintenance costs).
• Allow cities and/or counties to request alternate measures (other than those on the
specified menu), subject to State Air Resources Board (ARB) approval.
• Cities and/or counties that exceed 20 points, based on the menu, would be eligible to
receive carbon reduction credits through the ARB's cap and trade program.
• A score of 50 or more, based on the menu in the bill, would make a city and/or county
eligible to receive bonus points when considered for competitive loans or grant
programs.
• Permit cities and/or counties to set parking meter areas and rates and direct that
money to fund programs that reduce parking demand.
Though being advertised as an ecological effort to reduce greenhouse gases, the proposed
bill has the potential to take away from cities the authority to set required parking based on
local conditions and transportation situations. In addition, the bill could potentially place a
large fiscal burden on local residents, businesses, and property owners, along with imposing
potentially significant restrictions on property and personal rights. Many of the menu items
assume readily available access to convenient and reliable public transportation. While this
may be feasible in larger, urban areas of the state, smaller, suburban areas, such as the City
of Tustin, do not have access to the same level of service in public transportation to all parts
of the community 24 hours a day. By imposing parking regulations on a state-wide basis, this
bill would place local planning it in the hands of the state, which is not familiar with local
market conditions and cannot respond accordingly.
Attached for the Council's consideration is a copy of SB 518 along with a draft letter of
opposition. Staff will continue to monitor Senate Bill No. 518 and report back to the Council
as needed. Should this bill pass and move on to the Governor for signature, Council
concurrence with this matter would also include forwarding a letter of opposition to the
Governor.
~~~~~ ~ ~
~~ ~~1~ l ~ -~~~Cs~~-
Cari Meyer -~~ Elizabeth A. Binsack
Assistant Planner Community Development Director
Attachments: Senate Bill 518
Letter dated June 8, 2009 sent to Senators Lowenthal and Hancock
Draft Letter to Senators Lowenthal and Hancock
AMENDED IN SENATE JANUARY 21, 2010
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 28, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 6, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 22, 2009
AMENDED IN SENATE APRIL 13, 2009
SENATE BILL
No. 518
Introduced by Senator Lowenthal
(Coauthor: Senator Hancock)
February 26, 2009
+~'~ ~a"~~`~~-~ r-..a,., An act to add Section 2117.5 to the Streets and
Highways Code, and to amend Section 22508 of, and to add Division
19 (commencing with Section 43000) to, the Vehicle Code, relating to
vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 518, as amended, Lowenthal. Vehicles: parking services and fees.
94
SB 518 - 2 -
TT.;,. 1..;11. ..1,7 .. ,. +T, 1' '+ +' - +l- T T7' 7] 1+ -,7
i iua
> >
!/1~l~ o
l~J
(1) Under existing law, the State Building Construction Act of 1955,
state funds may be used to fund the construction or operations of parking
facilities in California. Under existing law, acity-a~ county, or city and
county is authorized to provide for the parking of motor vehicles,
including the construction and operation of parking facilities, and the
acquisition of land, property, and rights-of--way necessary or convenient
for use as public parking places.
This bill would-~raki~i~ require, on and after January 1, 2011,~e
with respect to any lease
of real property that a state entity enters into, that the lease list the full
cost of any parking spaces as a separate line item, and, for this purpose,
the bill would define the construction and operating costs of parking,
the current cost of a monthly transit pass, the full cost of a parking
space, and transit intensive areas,
r~~+~eri~emer~. Because a violation of these provisions
would be a crime, this bill would impose astate-mandated local
program.
The bill would authorize, , a city-e~
county, or a city and county
to adopt and implement
,measures to reduce or eliminate
subsidies for parking from a specified menu *'~°` ~~'~=~--~ ~ `~`~' ~~~~~
associated with that menu to
ensure that a city county, or a city and county manages its parking
so that the actual cost of a parking space equals its full cost, as specified.
The bill also would authorize acity-er, county, or a city and county
to request the State Air Resources Board (board) to approve and award
points for other alternate measures to reduce or eliminate subsidies that
fail to charge users for the full cost of a parking space, as specified. The
94
- 3 - SB 518
bill also would require the board to consider making cities or counties
that adopt and implement measures that exceed a total score of 20 points
from the specified menu eligible to receive carbon reduction credits
through the board's cap-and-trade program, as specified, and if a total
score of at least 50 points from the specified menu is achieved, the city
er, county, or a city and county, with respect to any application for
competitive loan or grant programs funded by a general obligation bond
approved by the voters on or after January 1, 2010, would receive bonus
points equal to 5% of the total available points.
(2) This bill would also authorize the expenditure of any moneys
apportioned to cities or counties from the Highway Users Tax Account
in the Transportation Tax Fund for the adoption or implementation of
transportation demand management measures, including measures
adopted pursuant to these provisions.
f`~
(3) Existing law prohibits a local authority from establishing parking
meter zones or fixing the rate for those zones except by ordinance.
This bill would permit a local authority to specify by ordinance a
performance target and allow the rate of fees to be set administratively
to achieve the performance target.
This bill would authorize a local authority to dedicate any portion of
revenues collected from parking meter zones to benefit parking benefit
districts or to fund programs that reduce parking demand, including,
but not limited to, public transit, transportation demand management,
or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and promotion.
(4) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local
agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state.
Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act
for a specified reason.
Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.
State-mandated local program: yes.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the
2 following:
94
ss sis
-4-
1 (a) The transportation sector contributes over 40 percent of the
2 greenhouse gas emissions in the State of California; automobiles
3 and light trucks alone contribute almost 30 percent. The
4 transportation sector is the state's single largest contributor of
S greenhouse gases.
6 (b) In 2006, the Legislature passed and the Governor signed
7 Assembly Bill 32 (Chapter 488 of the Statutes of 2006; hereafter
8 AB 32), which requires the State of California to reduce its
9 greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels no later than 2020.
10 According to the State Air Resources Board, in 1990 greenhouse
11 gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks were 108 million
12 metric tons, but by 2004 these emissions had increased to 13S
13 million metric tons.
14 (c) Greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles and light trucks
1 S can be substantially reduced by new vehicle technology and by
16 the increased use of low carbon fuel. However, even taking these
17 measures into account, it will be necessary to achieve significant
18 additional greenhouse gas reductions by reducing vehicle miles
19 traveled. Without those reductions, California will not be able to
20 achieve the goals of AB 32.
21 (d) In addition, automobiles and light trucks account for SO
22 percent of air pollution in California and 70 percent of the state's
23 consumption of petroleum. Reducing vehicle trips will also help
24 reduce criteria pollutant emissions that are regulated by the state
2S and federal clean air acts and reduce the state's dependence on
26 petroleum.
27 (e) California has five of the top 13 most traffic congested
28 metropolitan areas in the United States. Pricing strategies, such as
29 parking pricing, are the most effective way to achieve lasting
30 reductions in traffic congestion by permanently reducing roadway
31 demand. On a congested street, eliminating just 10 percent of
32 vehicles can result in free-flowing traffic.
33 (f) The existence of "free°' parking is a significant factor that
34 encourages vehicle trips. At employment sites, employer-paid
3S parking increases rates of driving by as much as 22 percent.
36 Conversely, employee-paid parking reduces rates of driving by
37 the same amount.
3 8 (g) Excessive governmental parking requirements greatly expand
39 the built footprint and increase travel distances, thereby increasing
40 vehicle miles traveled and reducing the viability of alternate
94
- 5 - SB 518
1 transportation modes that help to achieve the state's greenhouse
2 gas reduction targets, including walking, bicycling, and public
3 transportation.
4 (h) Parking is costly to build and maintain. Building a structured
5 parking space in 2008 costs between $17,000 and $30,000, with
6 underground spaces costing significantly more. Annual operations
7 and maintenance costs vary from $100 and $500 per space per
8 year. The high cost of land, construction, and maintenance to
9 provide free parking adds significantly to the cost of economic
10 development, making many housing and commercial developments,
11 especially those on infill or transit-oriented sites, financially
12 infeasible and hindering economic development strategies.
13 Moreover, when parking is provided free to the user, these costs
14 are hidden elsewhere in the cost of doing business. Free parking
15 at stores is paid for by all customers in higher prices for goods,
16 including those customers who do not drive. Free parking in
17 housing developments is paid for by all residents, even those who
18 do not drive. Free employer-provided parking is paid for by lower
19 wages for all workers, including those who do not drive. Free
20 onstreet parking is paid for by the entire community in the form
21 of taxes.
22 (i) Eliminating subsidies for parking has enormous potential to
23 reduce traffic congestion and greenhouse gas and other vehicle
24 emissions by reducing vehicle miles traveled. If drivers must pay
25 the true cost of parking, it will affect their choices on whether or
26 not to drive. In the short term, changes to parking policy can reduce
27 traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions more than all
28 other strategies combined, and they are usually the most
29 cost-effective approach. Eliminating parking subsidies can also
30 improve social equity by lowering prices for those who do not
31 drive, that are often lower-income households.
32
33 ~£~£-~--~e~en--~63~~a~tl~uea~ie-~-~e~le-is-amt~ed to
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
94
SB 518 - 6 -
1
2
3 ~
4
5 e~ea~ }e~ ,
6
7 ,
8
9
10 ~
11 ,
12 ,
13
14
15 ,
16
17 ,
18
19
20
21 ,
22
23
24 ,
25
26 ~
27 ,
28
29
30
31
,
32
~
33 ,
34
35
36
37 ,
38
39 ,
40
,
94
- 7 - SB 518
1
2
3 ,
4 .
5
6
7
8
9 ,
10
11
12
13
14 ,
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 ~ ,
25
26
27 ,
28 ,
29
30 ,
31 ,
32
33
34 SE-~4.
35 SEC. 2. Section 2117.5 is added to the Streets and Highways
36 Code, to read:
37 2117.5. Any of the moneys apportioned to cities or counties
38 from the Highway Users Tax Account in the Transportation Tax
39 Fund may be expended for the adoption ar implementation of
94
SB 518
-8-
1 transportation demand management measures, including measures
2 adopted pursuant to Section 43002 of the Vehicle Code.
3 ~~-:
4 SEC. 3. Section 22508 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
5 22508. (a) A local authority shall not establish parking meter
6 zones except by ordinance. An ordinance establishing a parking
7 meter zone shall describe the area that would be included within
8 the zone.
9 (b) A local authority shall either fix the rate of fees for parking
10 meter zones by ordinance or specify by ordinance a performance
11 target and allow the rate of the fees to be set administratively to
12 achieve the performance target.
13 (c) A local authority may by ordinance cause streets and
14 highways to be marked with white lines designating parking spaces
15 and require vehicles to park within the parking spaces.
16 (d) An ordinance adopted by a local authority pursuant to this
17 section with respect to any state highway shall not become effective
18 until the proposed ordinance has been submitted to and approved
19 in writing by the Department of Transportation. The proposed
20 ordinance shall be submitted to the department only by action of
21 the local legislative body and the proposed ordinance shall be
22 submitted in complete draft form.
23 (e) An ordinance adopted pursuant to this section establishing
24 a parking meter zone or fixing rates of fees for that zone shall be
25 subject to local referendum processes in the same manner as if the
26 ordinance dealt with a matter of purely local concern.
27 (f) A local authority may dedicate any portion of revenues
28 collected from parking meter zones to benefit parking benefit
29 districts or to fund programs that reduce parking demand,
30 including, but not limited to, public transit, transportation demand
31 management, or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements
32 and promotion.
3 3 ~6-:
34 SEC. 4. Division 19 (commencing with Section 43000) is added
35 to the Vehicle Code, to read:
36
37 DIVISION 19. PARKING REQUIREMENTS
38
39 43000. For the purposes of this division, the following terms
40 have the following meaning:
94
9 - SB 518
1 (a) "Current cost of a monthly transit pass" means the most
2 recent adopted rate of a monthly transit pass for an adult by the
3 local transit operator serving the jurisdiction in which the residence
4 or employer is located. If no monthly pass exists, the amount shall
5 be the sum of a return fare fora 20-day period. In a jurisdiction in
6 which there are multiple transit operators, the amount shall be the
7 average of the monthly pass of two or more of the largest operators
8 serving the jurisdiction, but no more than four operators. This
9 amount shall be calculated by the regional transportation planning
10 agency by June 31 of each year and shall be made available to the
11 public on the agency's Internet Web site. If no transit operator
12 serves the jurisdiction, the amount shall be forty dollars ($40).
13 (b) "Full cost of a parking space" means the sum of all of the
14 following:
15 (1) Annualized land cost. For surface parking or for structured
16 parking uncovered by occupiable space, the land cost shall be equal
17 to the full value of the land area of the parking facility. For entirely
18 underground parking, the land cost shall be zero. For above-ground
19 parking wholly or partially covered by occupiable space, assume
20 a fractional land cost based upon the above-ground volume of the
21 parking facility compared to the volume of the parking facility and
22 other occupiable building space combined. To annualize the cost,
23 divide actual or fractional land cost by 10. For leased land, use the
24 annual lease rate.
25 (2) Annualized construction cost. Include full project cost
26 divided by the useful life of the facility. If actual costs are not
27 available, use aper-space cost from a current relevant parking
28 construction cost index, published by the parking, transportation,
29 or construction industries and assume a 40-year useful life.
30 (3) Annualized operations and maintenance costs. Include
31 lighting, landscape, irrigation, security, insurance, equipment,
32 pavement maintenance, collections, enforcement, and related costs.
33 If actual costs are not available, use current applicable estimates
34 published by the parking, transportation, or construction industries.
35 (c) "Transit intensive area" means central business districts,
36 areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in
37 subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code,
3 8 and areas within one-quarter mile of ahigh-quality transit corridor,
39 as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public
40 Resources Code.
94
SB 518 - l0
1
2
3 ,
4 ,
5
6 ,
7 ,
g ,',~:..`'..~..
..,.
-
~
"
ii
l ,
iuuuiwuau
9
t.v i
,
u3u
iuiTCC
, ~@c rii
cZii; ~6
ccir0 i33~s ~Y
i ~3;
10 , ,
11
12
13
14 ~' '-~
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.
24
25
26
27
28 ,
29 ea~eelers
30 -
3l
32
33
34
35
.
36
37
38 ,
39 ~
40 :- ,
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
-11-
SB 518
43001. With respect to any lease of real property that a state
entity enters into on or after January 1, 2011, the lease shall list
the full cost of any parking spaces as a separate line item.
43002. A city, county, or city and county may adopt and
implement measures to reduce or eliminate subsidies for parking,
including, but not limited to, measures from the following menu:
MEASURE POINTS
PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND ZONING
Eliminate minimum parking requirements citywide or within the
unincorporated county. 20
Reduce average minimum parking requirements for all general
office, general retail, general commercial, and similar development
citywide ar within the unincorparated county to:
Less than 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet 2
Less than 2 spaces per 1,000 square feet 5
Less than 1 space per 1,000 square feet 10
Reduce minimum parking requirements for residential uses to:
1 uncovered space per zero- or one-bedroom unit
1.5 uncovered spaces per two-bedroom unit
2 uncovered spaces per three-bedroom or larger unit 5
Reduce minimum parking requirements for all sizes of residential
units below 1 uncovered space per unit. 10
Eliminate minimum parking requirements for projects in transit
intensive areas. 10
Establish maximum parking restrictions for all general office,
general retail, general commercial, and similar development at or
below the following:
3 spaces per 1,000 square feet 10
2 spaces per 1,000 square feet 15
1 space per 1,000 square feet 20
Establish commercial parking maximums of 2 or fewer spaces per
1,000 sq. feet citywide or within the unincorporated county. IO
Establish commercial parking maximums of 2 or fewer spaces per
1,000 sq. feet in transit intensive areas. 5
Establish residential parking maximums of 1 or fewer spaces per
unit in transit intensive areas. 5
Remove restrictions against residential tandem parking, including
eliminating requirements that parking must be independently 2
94
ss sis -1z -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
accessible to count toward minimum residential parking
requirement, if any.
Remove restrictions against mechanized and mechanical "lift"
parking, including counting mechanized spaces toward minimum
requirement, if any. 2
Establish a shared parking ordinance and requirements for
interconnection of parking in all commercial areas. 2
Remove or increase by 50% allowable density limits and floor
area ratios (FAR), allowing infill development on existing parking
lots. 10
PARKING AND TRANSPORTATION DEMAND
MANAGEMENT
Adopt an ordinance to require, with respect to the initial sale of a
separate interest within a common interest development of five or
more units, that access to parking be sold separately at a price that
reflects the full cost of the parking space or spaces. 5
Adopt an ordinance to require that any lease for commercial space
in a complex of five or more commercial tenants include a separate
unbundled charge for the parking space or spaces that reflects the
full cost of the parking space or spaces but is not less than the
number of leased parking spaces multiplied by the current cost of
a monthly transit pass within the city or county and grant the lessee
the ability to opt out of the parking charge by foregoing use of the
parking space or spaces. 5
Adopt an ordinance to require that any new employment contract
under which the employer provides a parking space within the
city, county, or city and county include a nonreimbursable charge
to the employee that reflects the full cost of the parking space but
is not less than the cost of a monthly transit pass within the city, 5
94
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
- 13
SB 518
county, or city and county and that the employee may opt out of
by foregoing use of the parking space.
Adopt an ordinance to require employers to offer transit passes to
all employees, including full-time, part-time, and seasonal
employees, on a pretax basis and certify compliance upon
application for a new or renewal business license. 2
PARKING MANAGEMENT
Adopt an ordinance to set on-street parking meter and public
parking lot and garage rates to achieve an 85% target occupancy
rate during hours when adjacent businesses are open or employ
demand-responsive rates that vary throughout the day to achieve
an 85% target occupancy rate. 10
Establish a Parking Benefit District, whereby all or a portion of
new public parking revenues are directed toward improvements
within the district where the revenue was raised. 5
Establish a Residential Parking Benefit District, whereby a limited
number of parkers may pay to park in an otherwise restricted
Residential Parking Permit area, with the net revenue directed
toward improvements within the district where the revenue was
raised. 5
Install parking meters in areas with parking occupancy rates of
greater than 85% and establish meter rates such that parking
availability improves to 85% or better. 2
PARKING REVENUE
Adopt an ordinance to direct some portion of net public parking 6
revenues to programs that reduce parking demand, including, but multiplied
not limited to, public transit, transportation demand management, by the
or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements and of net
promotion. revenue
directed
Adopt a parking sales tax, a property assessment upon parking 6
owners, or a use fee upon parkers, with some portion of resulting multiplied
net revenue directed at programs that reduce parking demand, by the
including, but not limited to, public transit, transportation demand of net
management, or bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure improvements revenue
and promotion. directed
(b) Upon request by a city-er, county, or city and county, the
State Air Resources Board may approve and award points for other
94
SB 518
-14-
1 alternate measures to reduce or eliminate subsidies that fail to
2 charge users for the full cost of a parking space,-~an~s-tee
3 provided
4 that points are awarded in proportion to their estimated impact
5 on vehicle miles traveled, consistent with the weighting for
6 measures described in subdivision (a).
7 (c) The State Air Resources Board shall consider making a city
8 er, county, or a city and county that adopts and implements
9 measures that exceed a total score of 20 points from the menu
10 described in subdivision (a) eligible to receive carbon reduction
11 credits through the board's cap-and-trade program for those
12 measures that exceed the 20-point threshold-~ if the granting of
13 those credits does not result in increasing the overall cap on
14 emissions.
15 (d) If a city-~, county, or a city and county adopts and
16 implements measures to achieve a total score of at least 50 points
17 from the menu described in subdivision (a), with respect to any
18 application submitted by the city or county for competitive state
19 loan or grant programs related to housing, transportation, or
20 economic development or funded by a general obligation bond
21 approved by the voters on or after January 1, 2010, the city; county,
22 or city and county shall receive bonus points equal to 5 percent of
23 the total available points.
24 (e) Cities and counties are encouraged to address any parking
25 spillover from new development through the use of residential
26 parking permits or other parking management strategies and to
27 provide residents who resided in the parking permit zone prior to
28 adoption of the parking permit zone a parking permit for free.
29
30
31
32
33 ,
34
35
36 ~~
37 SEC. S. The changes to Section 22508 of the Vehicle Code
38 enacted by this act are declaratory of existing law.
94
15 - SB 518
1 ~$:
2 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
3 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
4 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
5 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
6 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
7 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of
8 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within
9 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
10 Constitution.
O
9a
Office of the City C,uuncil
June 8, 2009
State Senator Alan S. Lowenthal State Senator Loni Hancock
State Capitol Building, Room 2032 State Capital Building, Room 3092
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: SB 518 (LOWENTHAL) -LETTER OF OPPOSITION
Dear Senators Lowenthal and Hancock:
TUSTIN
HISIUR~r
BUILDING OUR FUTURE
HONORING OUR PAST
On behalf of the City of Tustin, I wish to express our opposition to Senate Bill 518.
Current law allows individual cities to set their own amount of required parking based on local
conditions and transportation situations. Local parking requirements can be reviewed and updated
periodically in response to changing market conditions within the local environment.
The proposed bill would take this authority out of the hands of local cities, removing their authority
to determine local parking needs. While this bill is being packaged as an ecological effort to reduce
greenhouse gases, it could potentially place a large fiscal burden on local residents, businesses, and
property owners, along with imposing potentially significant restrictions on property and personal
rights. Many of the measures contained in this bill assume readily available access to convenient
and reliable public transportation. While this may be feasible in larger, urban areas of the state,
smaller, suburban areas, such as the City of Tustin, do not have access to the same level of service in
public transportation. By imposing parking regulations on a state-wide basis, this bill would be
removing an important power from local jurisdictions and placing it in the hands of the state, which
is not familiar with local market conditions and cannot respond accordingly.
The Tustin City Council has considered the proposed legislation and believes that SB 518 will place
an unacceptable burden on local residents, businesses, and property owners. As proposed, the City
of Tustin cannot support SB 518.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me or Elizabeth Binsack,
Community Development Director, at (714) 573-3031.
c: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Senate Education Committee
Senate Appropriations Committee
Fiscal Committee
Apartment Association of Orange County
Bill Higgins, League of California Cities
Tustin City Council
William A. Huston
Lisa Woolery
Elizabeth Binsack
Mayor Doug Davert Mayor Pro Tcm Jerry Amante • _Iim Palmer • Deborah Gavello • John Nielsen
300 Centennial Way, Tustin, CA 92780 • (714) 573-3010 • www.tustinca.org
February 16, 2010
State Senator Alan S. Lowenthal
State Capitol Building, Room 2032
Sacramento, CA 95814
State Senator Loni Hancock
State Capitol Building, Room 3092
Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: SB 518 (LOWENTHAL) -LETTER OF OPPOSITION
Dear Senators Lowenthal and Hancock:
On behalf of the City of Tustin, I wish to express our continued opposition to Senate Bill 518
Current law allows each city to establish required parking based on local conditions and
transportation situations. Local parking requirements can be reviewed and updated periodically
in response to changing market conditions within the local environment.
The proposed bill would take this authority out of the hands of local cities, removing their
authority to determine local parking needs. While this bill is being packaged as an ecological
effort to reduce greenhouse gases, it could potentially place a large fiscal burden on local
residents, businesses, and property owners, along with imposing potentially significant
restrictions on property and personal rights. Many of the measures contained in this bill assume
readily available access to convenient and public transportation to all areas of the community 24
hours a day. While this may be feasible in larger, urban areas of the state, smaller, suburban
areas, such as the City of Tustin, do not have access to the same public transportation. By
imposing parking regulations on a state-wide basis, this bill would be removing an important
power from local jurisdictions and placing it in the hands of the state, which is not familiar with
local market conditions and cannot respond accordingly.
The Tustin City Council has considered the proposed legislation and believes that SB 518 will
place an unacceptable burden on local residents, businesses, and property owners. As
proposed, the City of Tustin cannot support SB 518.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact me or Elizabeth Binsack,
Community Development Director, at (714) 573-3031.
Sincerely,
Jerry Amante
Mayor
SB 518 Opposition
February 16, 2010
Page 2
cc: Senate Transportation and Housing Committee
Senate Education Committee
Senate Appropriations Committee
Fiscal Committee
Apartment Association of Orange County
Bill Higgins, League of California Cities
Tustin City Council
William A. Huston
Lisa Woolery
Elizabeth Binsack
S:\Cdd\Cari\Legislation\SB 518 Opposition 2-2010.docx
Agenda Item ~ 2
Reviewed:
AGENDA REPORT City Manager
Finance Director N/A
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 16, 2010
TO: WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
FROM: CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 10-24 SUPPORTING THE LOCAL
TAXPAYER, PUBLIC SAFETY, AND TRANSPORTATION PROTECTION
ACT OF 2010
SUMMARY:
In an effort to protect locally designated taxpayer funds, a coalition of local government
transportation and transit advocates recently filed a constitutional amendment with the
California Attorney General called the Local Taxpayer Public Safety and Transportation
Protection Act of 2010 for potential placement on California November 2010 statewide
ballot.
RECOMMENDATION: Pleasure of the Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
BACKGROUND:
California voters have repeatedly passed separate ballot measures to stop State raids
of local government funds and to dedicate the taxes on gasoline to fund local and State
transportation improvement projects. With the State facing deficits in the tens of billions
of dollars each year, however, the Legislature has increasingly turned to local
governments to balance its budget.
This measure, supported by League of California Cities, closes loopholes to prevent the
State from taking, diverting or borrowing local government, transportation, and public
transit funds. If passed, the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation
Protection Act of 2010 would:
• Prohibit the State from borrowing local government property tax funds which are
vital for public safety and other local services;
• Prohibit the State from borrowing or taking gasoline taxes which are dedicated to
transportation and transit improvements and services, including the State sales
tax on gasoline (Proposition 42 funds), and the Highway User Tax Act on
gasoline (HUTA);
• Prevent the taking of locally levied taxes, including parcel taxes, sales taxes, and
other locally imposed taxes that are currently dedicated to cities, counties and
special districts;
• Prohibit the State from taking, borrowing or redirecting existing funding for public
transit, including existing taxes on gas and "spillover" funds dedicated to the
Public Transportation Account;
• Add additional constitutional protections to prevent the State from raiding
redevelopment funds or shifting redevelopment funds to other State purposes.
Adoption of Resolution 10-24 will provide for an endorsement of the Local Taxpayer,
Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010 by the City Council and
authorize the listing of the City of Tustin in support of this ballot initiative.
atricia Estrella
City Clerk Services Supervisor
RESOLUTION NO. 10-24
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, IN SUPPORT OF THE LOCAL
TAXPAYER, PUBLIC SAFETY AND TRANSPORTATION
PROTECTION ACT OF 2010
WHEREAS, California voters have repeatedly and overwhelmingly passed
separate ballot measures to stop State raids of local government funds, and to dedicate
the taxes on gasoline to fund local and state transportation improvement projects; and
WHEREAS, these local government funds are critical to provide the police and
fire, emergency response, parks, libraries, and other vital local services that residents
rely upon every day, and gas tax funds are vital to maintain and improve local streets
and roads, to make road safety improvements, relieve traffic congestion, and provide
mass transit; and
WHEREAS, despite the fact that voters have repeatedly passed measures to
prevent the State from taking these revenues dedicated to funding local government
services and transportation improvement projects, the State Legislature has seized and
borrowed billions of dollars in local government and transportation funds in the past few
years; and
WHEREAS, this year's borrowing and raids of local government, redevelopment
and transit funds, as well as previous, ongoing raids of local government and
transportation funds have led to severe consequences, such as layoffs of police, fire
and paramedic first responders, fire station closures, stalled economic development,
healthcare cutbacks, delays in road safety improvements, public transit fare increases
and cutbacks in public transit services; and
WHEREAS, State politicians in Sacramento have continued to ignore the will of
the voters, and current law provides no penalties when state politicians take or borrow
these locally-dedicated funds; and
WHEREAS, a coalition of local government, transportation and transit advocates
recently filed a constitutional amendment with the California Attorney General, called
the Local Taxpayer, Public Safety, and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, for
potential placement on California's November 2010 statewide ballot; and
WHEREAS, approval of this ballot initiative would close loopholes and change
the constitution to further prevent State politicians in Sacramento from seizing, diverting,
shifting, borrowing, transferring, suspending or otherwise taking or interfering with tax
revenues dedicated to funding local government services, including redevelopment, or
dedicated to transportation improvement projects and mass transit.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Tustin formally endorses the
Local Taxpayer, Public Safety and Transportation Protection Act of 2010, a proposed
constitutional amendment.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council held on
the 16th day of February, 2010.
JERRY AMANTE
Mayor
ATTEST:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
I, Pamela Stoker, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Tustin,
California, do hereby certify that the whole number of the members of the City Council of
the City of Tustin is five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 10-24 was duly
passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Tustin City Council, held on the16th day of
February, 2010 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES:
COUNCILMEMBER NOES:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED:
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT:
PAMELA STOKER
City Clerk