AB 1287: Vehicles: parking violations.
- Session Year: 2015-2016
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2015-10-04
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law subjects a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation, or a San Francisco ordinance, governing parking that is observed in the recordings to a civil penalty. Existing law requires San Francisco to provide to the transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature, no later than March 1, 2015, an evaluation of the effectiveness and impact on privacy of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes if San Francisco installs automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for that purpose.
This bill would delete obsolete provisions requiring the evaluation and would also delete the repeal date for San Franciscos authority to install the parking control devices, thereby extending the operation of those provisions indefinitely.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law subjects a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation, or a San Francisco ordinance, governing parking that is observed in the recordings to a civil penalty. Existing law requires San Francisco to provide to the transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature, no later than March 1, 2015, an evaluation of the effectiveness and impact on privacy of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes if San Francisco installs automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for that purpose.
This bill would delete obsolete provisions requiring the evaluation and would also delete the repeal date for San Franciscos authority to install the parking control devices, thereby extending the operation of those provisions indefinitely.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law subjects a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation, or a San Francisco ordinance, governing parking that is observed in the recordings to a civil penalty. Existing law requires San Francisco to provide to the transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature, no later than March 1, 2015, an evaluation of the effectiveness and impact on privacy of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes if San Francisco installs automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for that purpose.
This bill would delete obsolete provisions requiring the evaluation and would also delete the repeal date for San Franciscos authority to install the parking control devices, thereby extending the operation of those provisions indefinitely.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
This bill would instead authorize San Francisco to install forward-facing cameras to record parking violations and exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and intersection obstruction violations. The bill would require an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or intersection obstruction violation recorded pursuant to these provisions to be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100. The bill would delete the repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.
This bill would, among other things, authorize an issuing agency to assess late payment fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner or lessee has not paid the civil penalty and late payment fees, except if he or she pays at the time of application for renewal. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting administrative fees, to San Francisco.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or which was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would also include payments for penalties for exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses relating to exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law subjects a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation, or a San Francisco ordinance, governing parking that is observed in the recordings to a civil penalty.
This bill would instead authorize San Francisco to install forward-facing cameras to record parking violations and exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and intersection obstruction violations. The bill would require an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or intersection obstruction violation recorded pursuant to these provisions to be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100. The bill would delete the repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.
This bill would, among other things, authorize an issuing agency to assess late payment fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner or lessee has not paid the civil penalty and late payment fees, except if he or she pays at the time of application for renewal. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting administrative fees, to San Francisco.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or which was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would also include payments for penalties for exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses relating to exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law subjects a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation, or a San Francisco ordinance, governing parking that is observed in the recordings to a civil penalty.
This bill would instead authorize San Francisco to install forward-facing cameras to record parking violations and high-occupancy exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and intersection obstruction violations. The bill would require a high-occupancy an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or intersection obstruction violation recorded pursuant to these provisions to be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100. The bill would delete the repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.
This bill would, among other things, authorize an issuing agency to assess late payment fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner or lessee has not paid the civil penalty and late payment fees, except if he or she pays at the time of application for renewal. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting administrative fees, to San Francisco.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or which was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would also include payments for penalties for high-occupancy exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses relating to a high-occupancy exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions.
This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City and County of San Francisco.
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law subjects a violation of a federal or state statute or regulation, or a San Francisco ordinance, governing parking that is observed in the recordings to a civil penalty.
This bill would instead authorize San Francisco to install forward-facing cameras to record parking violations and high-occupancy lane and intersection obstruction violations. The bill would require a high-occupancy lane or intersection obstruction violation recorded pursuant to these provisions to be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $100. The bill would delete the repeal date, thereby extending the operation of these provisions indefinitely.
This bill would, among other things, authorize an issuing agency to assess late payment fees, as specified, if payment of the civil penalty is not received within a specified time. The bill would require the Department of Motor Vehicles to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if, among other things, the owner or lessee has not paid the civil penalty and late payment fees, except if he or she pays at the time of application for renewal. The bill would require the department to remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting administrative fees, to San Francisco.
Existing law provides that payments for specified penalties, including penalties for offenses relating to the parking of a vehicle, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which the payments are due or which was involved in the offenses, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle.
This bill would also include payments for penalties for high-occupancy lane and intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions as constituting a lien on the specified vehicles.
Existing law transfers the responsibility and authority for the collection of specified delinquent amounts, including penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle, from the department to the Franchise Tax Board.
This bill would also transfer to the board the responsibility and authority to collect penalties for offenses relating to a high-occupancy lane or intersection obstruction violations issued pursuant to the above-mentioned provisions.
The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances relating to parking violations recorded by cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles in the City and County of San Francisco.
The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances relating to parking violations recorded by cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles in the City and County of San Francisco.
If the City and County of San Francisco implements a parking enforcement pilot program pursuant to this article, no later than March 1, 2015, the City and County of San Francisco shall provide to the transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature an evaluation of the pilot programs effectiveness and impact on privacy in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
SEC. 2.Section 40243 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.40243.This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2016, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 3.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances relating to parking violations recorded by cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles in the City and County of San Francisco.
SECTION 1.Section 70615 of the Government Code is amended to read:70615.The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(b)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 of the Vehicle Code occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code pursuant to Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code.
(c)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
SEC. 2.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, on and after July 1, 1993, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 of the Vehicle Code occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 18837 or 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
SEC. 3.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or which was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, parking, or other penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
SEC. 4.The heading of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 40240) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:3.5.Procedure for Recording Parking Violations and Certain Moving ViolationsSEC. 5.Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40240.(a)The City and County of San Francisco may install forward-facing cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles that are part of a public transportation system, as defined by Section 99211 of the Public Utilities Code, for the purpose of recording parking violations and violations of Sections 21655.5 and 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and Section 22526. The cameras shall be angled and focused so as to record parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. The cameras shall record the date and time of the violation at the same time the violation is recorded.
(b)Prior to issuing notices of violation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40241 for violations other than a parking violation in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane, the City and County of San Francisco shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The City and County of San Francisco shall also make a public announcement of the program at least 30 days prior to commencement of issuing notices of violation for violations other than a parking violation in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane.
(c)(1)A designated employee of the City and County of San Francisco, who is qualified by the city and county to issue citations, shall review the camera recordings for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 occurred. A violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526, observed by the designated employee in the recordings is subject to a civil penalty.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 that is recorded pursuant to this section shall be subject to a civil penalty that shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100), which shall be remitted to the City and County of San Francisco.
(d)The registered owner, or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, shall be permitted to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost.
(e)(1)Except as it may be included in court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (2), the recorded evidence may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed.
(2)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, recorded evidence from forward-facing cameras that does not contain evidence of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 shall be destroyed within 15 days after the information was first obtained.
(f)Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other law, the camera recordings are confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article.
(g)For purposes of this article, local agency means the City and County of San Francisco.
SEC. 6.Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40241.(a)A designated employee of the local agency shall issue a notice of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall set forth the violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526, a statement indicating that payment is required within 21 calendar days from the date of citation issuance, and the procedure for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to deposit the penalty or contest the citation pursuant to Section 40215. The notice of violation shall also set forth the date, time, and location of the violation, the vehicle license number, registration expiration date if visible, the color of the vehicle, and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. The notice of violation, or copy of the notice, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and County of San Francisco and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice. The City and County of San Francisco shall send information regarding the process for requesting review of the recorded evidence along with the notice of violation.
(b)The notice of violation shall be served by depositing the notice in the United States mail to the registered owners last known address listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Proof of mailing demonstrating that the notice of violation was mailed to that address shall be maintained by the local agency. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency or contests the violation within either 21 calendar days from the date of mailing of the citation, or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original penalty.
(c)If, within 21 days after the notice of violation is issued, the local agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the notice of violation should be canceled, the local agency shall cancel the notice of violation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40215. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing.
(d)Following an initial review by the local agency, and an administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 40215, a contestant may seek court review by filing an appeal of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 following the procedures for appeals of parking violations set forth in Section 40230.
(e)The City and County of San Francisco may contract with a private vendor for the processing of notices of violations and notices of delinquent violations. The City and County of San Francisco shall maintain overall control and supervision of the program.
SEC. 7.Section 40242 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.SEC. 8.Section 40242 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40242.(a)If payment of the penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive a deposit of the penalty by the time and date fixed on the notice of violation under Section 40241, the issuing agency may assess late payment fees in an amount as determined by the issuing agency, and shall serve or mail to the registered owner a notice of delinquent violation.
(b)Delivery of a notice of delinquent violation under this section may be made by personal service or by first-class mail addressed to the registered owner.
(c)The notice of delinquent violation shall contain a notice to the registered owner that, unless the registered owner pays the penalty or contests the notice within 15 days after mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of delinquent violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the issuing agency within 15 days of the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist of the amount of the original penalty and any late payment fees.
SEC. 9.Section 40243 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.SEC. 10.Section 40243 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40243.(a)(1)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (d), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent violation, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid violation penalties, including late payment fees, and the owner or lessee has not paid the violation penalty and late payment fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and any administrative fee assessed by the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 40244, as shown by records of the department.
(2)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding violation penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees pursuant to paragraph (1), the department shall issue a receipt showing each penalty, late payment fee, and administrative fee that has been paid, the processing agency for those penalties and fees, and a description of the vehicle involved in the violations.
(b)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of violation issued pursuant to subdivision (c) for clearing all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(c)The court or designated processing agency shall issue an abstract or notice of disposition of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle issued a notice of delinquent violation if the registered owner provides the court or processing agency with the name, address, and drivers license number of the rentee or lessee at the time of occurrence of the violation, and adequate proof that the renter or lessee had possession of the vehicle at the date and time of the violation.
(d)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle.
SEC. 11.Section 40244 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40244.(a)The department shall remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting the administrative fee authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of delinquent violation for which penalties and late payment fees have been collected, to the City and County of San Francisco in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the City and County of San Francisco which of its notices of delinquent violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for recording the notice of delinquent violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to cover its actual administrative costs.
SEC. 12.Section 40244.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40244.5.(a)On or before January 1, 2019, the City and County of San Francisco shall provide to the Assembly Committee on Transportation and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing a report evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement of violations of Section 22526 in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
(b)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 13.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances relating to parking and moving violations recorded by cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles in the City and County of San Francisco.
The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(b)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 of the Vehicle Code occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code pursuant to Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code.
(c)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
SEC. 2.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, on and after July 1, 1993, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 of the Vehicle Code occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 18837 or 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
SEC. 3.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or which was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, parking, or other penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
SEC. 4.The heading of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 40240) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:3.5.Procedure for Recording Parking Violations and Certain Moving ViolationsSEC. 5.Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40240.(a)The City and County of San Francisco may install forward-facing cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles that are part of a public transportation system, as defined by Section 99211 of the Public Utilities Code, for the purpose of recording parking violations and violations of Sections 21655.5 and 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and Section 22526. The cameras shall be angled and focused so as to record parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. The cameras shall record the date and time of the violation at the same time the violation is recorded.
(b)Prior to issuing notices of violation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40241 for violations other than a parking violation in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane, the City and County of San Francisco shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The City and County of San Francisco shall also make a public announcement of the program at least 30 days prior to commencement of issuing notices of violation for violations other than a parking violation in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane.
(b)
(c)(1)A designated employee of the City and County of San Francisco, who is qualified by the city and county to issue citations, shall review the camera recordings for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 occurred. A violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526, observed by the designated employee in the recordings is subject to a civil penalty.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 that is recorded pursuant to this section shall be subject to a civil penalty that shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100), which shall be remitted to the City and County of San Francisco.
(c)
(d)The registered owner, or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, shall be permitted to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost.
(d)
(e)(1)Except as it may be included in court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (2), the recorded evidence may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed.
(2)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, recorded evidence from forward-facing cameras that does not contain evidence of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 shall be destroyed within 15 days after the information was first obtained.
(e)
(f)Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other law, the camera recordings are confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article.
(f)
(g)For purposes of this article, local agency means the City and County of San Francisco.
SEC. 6.Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40241.(a)A designated employee of the local agency shall issue a notice of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall set forth the violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526, a statement indicating that payment is required within 21 calendar days from the date of citation issuance, and the procedure for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to deposit the penalty or contest the citation pursuant to Section 40215. The notice of violation shall also set forth the date, time, and location of the violation, the vehicle license number, registration expiration date if visible, the color of the vehicle, and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. The notice of violation, or copy of the notice, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and County of San Francisco and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice. The City and County of San Francisco shall send information regarding the process for requesting review of the recorded evidence along with the notice of violation.
(b)The notice of violation shall be served by depositing the notice in the United States mail to the registered owners last known address listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Proof of mailing demonstrating that the notice of violation was mailed to that address shall be maintained by the local agency. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency or contests the violation within either 21 calendar days from the date of mailing of the citation, or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original penalty.
(c)If, within 21 days after the notice of violation is issued, the local agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the notice of violation should be canceled, the local agency shall cancel the notice of violation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40215. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing.
(d)Following an initial review by the local agency, and an administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 40215, a contestant may seek court review by filing an appeal of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 following the procedures for appeals of parking violations set forth in Section 40230.
(e)The City and County of San Francisco may contract with a private vendor for the processing of notices of violations and notices of delinquent violations. The City and County of San Francisco shall maintain overall control and supervision of the program.
SEC. 7.Section 40242 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.SEC. 8.Section 40242 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40242.(a)If payment of the penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive a deposit of the penalty by the time and date fixed on the notice of violation under Section 40241, the issuing agency may assess late payment fees in an amount as determined by the issuing agency, and shall serve or mail to the registered owner a notice of delinquent violation.
(b)Delivery of a notice of delinquent violation under this section may be made by personal service or by first-class mail addressed to the registered owner.
(c)The notice of delinquent violation shall contain a notice to the registered owner that, unless the registered owner pays the penalty or contests the notice within 15 days after mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of delinquent violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the issuing agency within 15 days of the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist of the amount of the original penalty and any late payment fees.
SEC. 9.Section 40243 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.SEC. 10.Section 40243 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40243.(a)(1)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (d), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent violation, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid violation penalties, including late payment fees, and the owner or lessee has not paid the violation penalty and late payment fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and any administrative fee assessed by the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 40244, as shown by records of the department.
(2)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding violation penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees pursuant to paragraph (1), the department shall issue a receipt showing each penalty, late payment fee, and administrative fee that has been paid, the processing agency for those penalties and fees, and a description of the vehicle involved in the violations.
(b)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of violation issued pursuant to subdivision (c) for clearing all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(c)The court or designated processing agency shall issue an abstract or notice of disposition of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle issued a notice of delinquent violation if the registered owner provides the court or processing agency with the name, address, and drivers license number of the rentee or lessee at the time of occurrence of the violation, and adequate proof that the renter or lessee had possession of the vehicle at the date and time of the violation.
(d)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle.
SEC. 11.Section 40244 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40244.(a)The department shall remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting the administrative fee authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of delinquent violation for which penalties and late payment fees have been collected, to the City and County of San Francisco in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the City and County of San Francisco which of its notices of delinquent violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for recording the notice of delinquent violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to cover its actual administrative costs.
SEC. 12.Section 40244.5 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40244.5.(a)On or before January 1, 2019, the City and County of San Francisco shall provide to the Assembly Committee on Transportation and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing a report evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement of violations of Section 22526 in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
(b)This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 12.SEC. 13.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances relating to parking and moving violations recorded by cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles in the City and County of San Francisco.
The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(b)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 of the Vehicle Code occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code pursuant to Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code.
(c)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
SEC. 2.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, on and after July 1, 1993, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 of the Vehicle Code occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 18837 or 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
SEC. 3.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or which was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 of the Vehicle Code for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, parking, or other penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
SEC. 4.The heading of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 40240) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:3.5.Procedure for Recording Parking Violations and Certain Moving ViolationsSEC. 5.Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40240.(a)The City and County of San Francisco may install forward-facing cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles that are part of a public transportation system, as defined by Section 99211 of the Public Utilities Code, for the purpose of recording parking violations and violations of Sections 21655.5, 21655.8, and Sections 21655.5 and 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane and Section 22526. The cameras shall be angled and focused so as to record parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. The cameras shall record the date and time of the violation at the same time the violation is recorded.
(b)(1)A designated employee of the City and County of San Francisco, who is qualified by the city and county to issue citations, shall review the camera recordings for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 occurred. A violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526, observed by the designated employee in the recordings is subject to a civil penalty.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 that is recorded pursuant to this section shall be subject to a civil penalty that shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100), which shall be remitted to the City and County of San Francisco.
(c)The registered owner, or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, shall be permitted to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost.
(d)(1)Except as it may be included in court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (2), the recorded evidence may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed.
(2)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, recorded evidence from forward-facing cameras that does not contain evidence of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 shall be destroyed within 15 days after the information was first obtained.
(e)Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other law, the camera recordings are confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article.
(f)For purposes of this article, local agency means the City and County of San Francisco.
SEC. 6.Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40241.(a)A designated employee of the local agency shall issue a notice of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall set forth the violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526, a statement indicating that payment is required within 21 calendar days from the date of citation issuance, and the procedure for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to deposit the penalty or contest the citation pursuant to Section 40215. The notice of violation shall also set forth the date, time, and location of the violation, the vehicle license number, registration expiration date if visible, the color of the vehicle, and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. The notice of violation, or copy of the notice, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and County of San Francisco and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice. The City and County of San Francisco shall send information regarding the process for requesting review of the recorded evidence along with the notice of violation.
(b)The notice of violation shall be served by depositing the notice in the United States mail to the registered owners last known address listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Proof of mailing demonstrating that the notice of violation was mailed to that address shall be maintained by the local agency. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency or contests the violation within either 21 calendar days from the date of mailing of the citation, or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original penalty.
(c)If, within 21 days after the notice of violation is issued, the local agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the notice of violation should be canceled, the local agency shall cancel the notice of violation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40215. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing.
(d)Following an initial review by the local agency, and an administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 40215, a contestant may seek court review by filing an appeal of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 21655.5 or 21655.8 occurring in an exclusive or preferential transit-only lane or Section 22526 following the procedures for appeals of parking violations set forth in Section 40230.
(e)The City and County of San Francisco may contract with a private vendor for the processing of notices of violations and notices of delinquent violations. The City and County of San Francisco shall maintain overall control and supervision of the program.
SEC. 7.Section 40242 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.SEC. 8.Section 40242 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40242.(a)If payment of the penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive a deposit of the penalty by the time and date fixed on the notice of violation under Section 40241, the issuing agency may assess late payment fees in an amount as determined by the issuing agency, and shall serve or mail to the registered owner a notice of delinquent violation.
(b)Delivery of a notice of delinquent violation under this section may be made by personal service or by first-class mail addressed to the registered owner.
(c)The notice of delinquent violation shall contain a notice to the registered owner that, unless the registered owner pays the penalty or contests the notice within 15 days after mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of delinquent violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the issuing agency within 15 days of the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist of the amount of the original penalty and any late payment fees.
SEC. 9.Section 40243 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.SEC. 10.Section 40243 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40243.(a)(1)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (d), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent violation, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid violation penalties, including late payment fees, and the owner or lessee has not paid the violation penalty and late payment fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and any administrative fee assessed by the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 40244, as shown by records of the department.
(2)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding violation penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees pursuant to paragraph (1), the department shall issue a receipt showing each penalty, late payment fee, and administrative fee that has been paid, the processing agency for those penalties and fees, and a description of the vehicle involved in the violations.
(b)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of violation issued pursuant to subdivision (c) for clearing all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(c)The court or designated processing agency shall issue an abstract or notice of disposition of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle issued a notice of delinquent violation if the registered owner provides the court or processing agency with the name, address, and drivers license number of the rentee or lessee at the time of occurrence of the violation, and adequate proof that the renter or lessee had possession of the vehicle at the date and time of the violation.
(d)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle.
SEC. 11.Section 40244 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40244.(a)The department shall remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting the administrative fee authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of delinquent violation for which penalties and late payment fees have been collected, to the City and County of San Francisco in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the City and County of San Francisco which of its notices of delinquent violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for recording the notice of delinquent violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to cover its actual administrative costs.
SEC. 12.The Legislature finds and declares that a special law is necessary and that a general law cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances relating to parking and moving violations recorded by cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles in the City and County of San Francisco.
The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a)An appeal of a local agencys decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4.
(b)An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agencys decision regarding a parking violation. violation or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 of the Vehicle Code pursuant to Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code.
(c)An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officers determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation.
SEC. 2.Section 10878 of the Revenue and Taxation Code is amended to read:10878.(a)Notwithstanding Sections 10877 and 10951, on and after July 1, 1993, the responsibility and authority for the collection of the following delinquent amounts, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, shall be transferred from the department to the Franchise Tax Board:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 of the Vehicle Code for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, that is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Any reference in this part to the department in connection with the duty to collect these amounts shall be deemed a reference to the Franchise Tax Board.
(c)The amounts collected under subdivision (a) may be collected in any manner authorized under the law as though they were a tax imposed under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) that is final, including, but not limited to, issuance of an order and levy under Article 4 (commencing with Section 706.070) of Chapter 5 of Division 2 of Title 9 of Part 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the manner provided for earnings withholding order for taxes. Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), 10.2 (commencing with Section 18401), or 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), or any other applicable law shall apply for this purpose in the same manner and with the same force and effect as if the language of Part 10, 10.2, or 10.7, or the other applicable law is incorporated in full into this authority to collect these amounts, except to the extent that the provision is either inconsistent with the collection of these amounts or is not relevant to the collection of these amounts.
(d)Even though the amounts authorized by this section are collected as though they are taxes, amounts so received by the Franchise Tax Board shall be deposited into an appropriate fund or account upon agreement between the Franchise Tax Board and the department. The amounts shall be distributed by the department from the appropriate fund or account in accordance with the laws providing for the deposits and distributions as though the moneys were received by the department.
(e)For any collection action under this section, the Franchise Tax Board may utilize the contract authorization, procedures, and mechanisms available either with respect to the collection of taxes, interest, additions to tax, and penalties pursuant to Section 18837 or 19376, or with respect to the collection of the delinquencies by the department immediately prior to the time this section takes effect.
(f)The Legislature finds that it is essential for fiscal purposes that the program authorized by this section be expeditiously implemented. Accordingly, Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code shall not apply to any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline established or issued by the Franchise Tax Board in implementing and administering the program required by this section.
(g)Any standard, criteria, procedure, determination, rule, notice, or guideline, that is not subject to the provisions of Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code pursuant to subdivision (f), shall be approved by the Franchise Tax Board, itself.
(h)The Franchise Tax Board may enter into any agreements or contracts necessary to implement and administer the provisions of this section. The Franchise Tax Board in administering this section may delegate collection activities to the department. Any contracts may provide for payment of the contract on the basis of a percentage of the amount of revenue realized as a result of the contractors services under that contract. However, the Franchise Tax Board, in administering this part, may not enter into contracts with private collection agencies as authorized under Section 19377.
SEC. 3.Section 9800 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:9800.(a)Payments for any of the following, and any interest, penalties, or service fees added thereto, required to register or transfer the registration of a vehicle, constitute a lien on the vehicle on which they are due or which was involved in the offense, and on any other vehicle owned by the owner of that vehicle:
(1)Registration fees.
(2)Transfer fees.
(3)License fees.
(4)Use taxes.
(5)Penalties for offenses relating to the standing or parking of a vehicle for which a notice of parking violation, or for a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 of the Vehicle Code for which a notice issued pursuant to Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code, has been served on the owner, and any administrative service fee added to the penalty.
(6)Any court-imposed fine or penalty assessment, and any administrative service fee added thereto, which is subject to collection by the department.
(b)Notwithstanding subdivision (a), if a person is cited for a foreign registered auxiliary dolly, semitrailer, or trailer having been operated without current year registration or valid California permits or registration, an amount equal to the minimum registration fees or transfer fees, and any penalty added thereto, from the date they became due, shall, by election of the power unit operator, constitute a lien upon the California registered power unit which that was pulling the dolly, semitrailer, or trailer. However, this subdivision is not applicable if the citation is issued at a scale operated by the Department of the California Highway Patrol and registration for the vehicle can be issued there immediately upon payment of the fees due.
(c)Every lien arising under this section expires three years from the date the fee, tax, or parking, or other penalty first became due unless the lien is perfected pursuant to subdivision (d).
(d)A lien is perfected when a notice is mailed to the registered and legal owners at the addresses shown in the departments records and the lien is recorded on the electronic vehicle registration records of the department. A perfected lien shall expire five years from the date of perfection.
(e)Employees and members of the Department of the California Highway Patrol assigned to commercial vehicle scale facilities may possess and sell trip permits approved by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
SEC. 4.The heading of Article 3.5 (commencing with Section 40240) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:3.5.Procedure on Video Imaging of for Recording Parking Violations Occurring in Transit-Only Lanes and Certain Moving ViolationsSEC. 5.Section 40240 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40240.(a)The City and County of San Francisco may install automated forward facing parking control devices forward-facing cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles, vehicles that are part of a public transportation system, as defined by Section 99211 of the Public Utilities Code, for the purpose of video imaging of recording parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Citations shall be issued only for violations captured during the posted hours of operation for a transit-only traffic lane. and violations of Sections 21655.5, 21655.8, and 22526. The devices cameras shall be angled and focused so as to capture video images of record parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. The devices cameras shall record the date and time of the violation at the same time as the video images are captured. the violation is recorded.
(b)Prior to issuing notices of parking violations pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40241, the City and County of San Francisco shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The City and County of San Francisco shall also make a public announcement of the program at least 30 days prior to commencement of issuing notices of parking violations.
(c)
(b)(1)A designated employee of the City and County of San Francisco, who is qualified by the city and county to issue parking citations, shall review video image the camera recordings for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only traffic lane. or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 occurred. A violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco occurring in a transit-only traffic lane Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526, observed by the designated employee in the recordings is subject to a civil penalty.
(2)Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 that is recorded pursuant to this section shall be subject to a civil penalty that shall not exceed one hundred dollars ($100), which shall be remitted to the City and County of San Francisco.
(d)
(c)The registered owner owner, or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation, shall be permitted to review the video image recorded evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost.
(e)
(d)(1)Except as it may be included in court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (2), the video image recorded evidence may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed.
(2)Notwithstanding Section 26202.6 of the Government Code, video image recorded evidence from forward facing automated enforcement devices forward-facing cameras that does not contain evidence of a parking violation occurring in a transit-only traffic lane or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 shall be destroyed within 15 days after the information was first obtained.
(f)
(e)Notwithstanding Section 6253 of the Government Code, or any other provision of law, the video image records camera recordings are confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article.
(g)
(f)For purposes of this article, local agency means the City and County of San Francisco.
(h)For purposes of this article, transit-only traffic lane means any designated transit-only lane on which use is restricted to mass transit vehicles, or other designated vehicles including taxis and vanpools, during posted times.
SEC. 6.Section 40241 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:40241.(a)A designated employee of the local agency shall issue a notice of a parking violation to the registered owner of a vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall set forth the violation of a statute, regulation, or ordinance governing vehicle parking under this code, under a federal or state statute or regulation, or under an ordinance enacted by the City and County of San Francisco occurring in a transit-only traffic lane, Francisco, or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526, a statement indicating that payment is required within 21 calendar days from the date of citation issuance, and the procedure for the registered owner, lessee, or rentee to deposit the parking penalty or contest the citation pursuant to Section 40215. The notice of a parking violation shall also set forth the date, time, and location of the violation, the vehicle license number, registration expiration date if visible, the color of the vehicle, and, if possible, the make of the vehicle. The notice of parking violation, or copy of the notice, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the City and County of San Francisco and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice. The City and County of San Francisco shall send information regarding the process for requesting review of the video image recorded evidence along with the notice of parking violation.
(b)The notice of parking violation shall be served by depositing the notice in the United States mail to the registered owners last known address listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles. Proof of mailing demonstrating that the notice of parking violation was mailed to that address shall be maintained by the local agency. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the processing agency or contests the violation within either 21 calendar days from the date of mailing of the citation, or 14 calendar days after the mailing of the notice of delinquent parking violation, the parking penalty shall consist solely of the amount of the original penalty.
(c)If, within 21 days after the notice of parking violation is issued, the local agency determines that, in the interest of justice, the notice of parking violation should be canceled, the local agency shall cancel the notice of parking violation pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 40215. The reason for the cancellation shall be set forth in writing.
(d)Following an initial review by the local agency, and an administrative hearing, pursuant to Section 40215, a contestant may seek court review by filing an appeal pursuant to of a parking violation or a violation of Section 21655.5, 21655.8, or 22526 following the procedures for appeals of parking violations set forth in Section 40230.
(e)The City and County of San Francisco may contract with a private vendor for the processing of notices of parking violations and notices of delinquent violations. The City and County of San Francisco shall maintain overall control and supervision of the program.
SEC. 7.Section 40242 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.40242.If the City and County of San Francisco implements a parking enforcement pilot program pursuant to this article, no later than March 1, 2015, the City and County of San Francisco shall provide to the transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature an evaluation of the pilot programs effectiveness and impact on privacy in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
SEC. 8.Section 40242 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40242.(a)If payment of the penalty is not received by the person authorized to receive a deposit of the penalty by the time and date fixed on the notice of violation under Section 40241, the issuing agency may assess late payment fees in an amount as determined by the issuing agency, and shall serve or mail to the registered owner a notice of delinquent violation.
(b)Delivery of a notice of delinquent violation under this section may be made by personal service or by first-class mail addressed to the registered owner.
(c)The notice of delinquent violation shall contain a notice to the registered owner that, unless the registered owner pays the penalty or contests the notice within 15 days after mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the renewal of the vehicle registration shall be contingent upon compliance with the notice of delinquent violation. If the registered owner, by appearance or by mail, makes payment to the issuing agency within 15 days of the mailing of the notice of delinquent violation, the penalty shall consist of the amount of the original penalty and any late payment fees.
SEC. 9.Section 40243 of the Vehicle Code is repealed.40243.This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2016, and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that is enacted before January 1, 2016, deletes or extends that date.
SEC. 10.Section 40243 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40243.(a)(1)Except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (d), the department shall refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has been mailed a notice of delinquent violation, the processing agency has filed or electronically transmitted to the department an itemization of unpaid violation penalties, including late payment fees, and the owner or lessee has not paid the violation penalty and late payment fees, unless he or she pays to the department, at the time of application for renewal, the full amount of all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and any administrative fee assessed by the department pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 40244, as shown by records of the department.
(2)When the department receives the full amount of all outstanding violation penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees pursuant to paragraph (1), the department shall issue a receipt showing each penalty, late payment fee, and administrative fee that has been paid, the processing agency for those penalties and fees, and a description of the vehicle involved in the violations.
(b)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the applicant provides the department with the abstract or notice of disposition of violation issued pursuant to subdivision (c) for clearing all outstanding penalties, late payment fees, and administrative fees as shown by the records of the department.
(c)The court or designated processing agency shall issue an abstract or notice of disposition of violation to the registered owner of a vehicle issued a notice of delinquent violation if the registered owner provides the court or processing agency with the name, address, and drivers license number of the rentee or lessee at the time of occurrence of the violation, and adequate proof that the renter or lessee had possession of the vehicle at the date and time of the violation.
(d)The department shall not refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the violation was issued prior to the registered owner taking possession of the vehicle.
SEC. 11.Section 40244 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:40244.(a)The department shall remit all penalties and late payment fees collected, after deducting the administrative fee authorized in subdivision (b), for each notice of delinquent violation for which penalties and late payment fees have been collected, to the City and County of San Francisco in the amount due. Within 45 days from the time penalties are recorded by the department, the department shall inform the City and County of San Francisco which of its notices of delinquent violation have been discharged.
(b)The department shall assess a fee for recording the notice of delinquent violation in an amount, as determined by the department, that is no more than the amount sufficient to cover its actual administrative costs.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2015 | Assembly Rule 77 suspended. |
| Jun 18, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to committee. Read second time, amended, and re-referred to Com. on T. & H. |
| Jun 18, 2015 | Referred to Coms. on T. & H. and JUD. |
| Jul 1, 2015 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 10. Noes 0.) (June 30). Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jul 15, 2015 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 7. Noes 0.) (July 14). |
| Jul 16, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Sep 8, 2015 | In Assembly. Concurrence in Senate amendments pending. May be considered on or after September 10 pursuant to Assembly Rule 77. |
| Sep 8, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. |
| Sep 8, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 40. Noes 0. Page 2566.). |
| Jun 4, 2015 | Reconsideration granted. (Page 1903.) |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Assembly Rule 77 suspended. (Page 2990.) |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 69. Noes 9. Page 3006.). |
| Sep 9, 2015 | Senate amendments concurred in. To Engrossing and Enrolling. (Ayes 69. Noes 9.). |
| Sep 17, 2015 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m. |
| Oct 4, 2015 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Oct 4, 2015 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 485, Statutes of 2015. |
| May 13, 2015 | In committee: Set, first hearing. Referred to APPR. suspense file. |
| Mar 1, 2015 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 31. |
| Mar 2, 2015 | Read first time. |
| Mar 23, 2015 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 22, 2015 | From committee chair, with author's amendments: Amend, and re-refer to Com. on TRANS. Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 23, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Apr 28, 2015 | From committee: Amend, and do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 10. Noes 4.) (April 27). |
| Apr 29, 2015 | Read second time and amended. |
| Apr 30, 2015 | Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Feb 27, 2015 | Introduced. To print. |
| May 28, 2015 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 12. Noes 5.) (May 28). |
| Jun 1, 2015 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| Jun 2, 2015 | Motion to reconsider made by Assembly Member Chiu. |
| Jun 2, 2015 | Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 29. Noes 36. Page 1816.). |
| Jun 2, 2015 | Read third time. Refused passage. (Ayes 29. Noes 36.). |
| Jun 4, 2015 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| Jun 4, 2015 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 49. Noes 29. Page 1909.) |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 9, 2015 | AB 1287 CHIU Concurrence in Senate Amendments | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 8, 2015 | Assembly 3rd Reading AB1287 Chiu By Leno | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jul 14, 2015 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| Jun 30, 2015 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing |
Passed |
|
| Jun 4, 2015 | AB 1287 CHIU Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 2, 2015 | AB 1287 CHIU Assembly Third Reading | Assembly Floor |
Failed |
|
| May 28, 2015 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 27, 2015 | Do pass as amended and be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah | ** Against | Jun 2, 2015 |
| Automobile Club of Southern California | ** Against | Jun 2, 2015 |
| California Public Parking Association | * Indeterminate | Jul 14, 2015 |
| City and County of San Francisco | * Support | Apr 27, 2015 |
| County of San Francisco | * Indeterminate | Jul 14, 2015 |
| Mayor Ed Lee | * Indeterminate | Jul 14, 2015 |
| Mayor of San Francisco | ** Support | Sep 8, 2015 |
| National Motorists Association | ** Against | Jun 2, 2015 |
| Riverside County Transportation Commission | * Support | Apr 27, 2015 |
| Safer Streets L.A. | ** Against | Apr 27, 2015 |
| San Francisco County Transportation Authority | ** Support | Sep 8, 2015 |
| San Francisco County Transportation Commission | ** Support | Jun 2, 2015 |
| San Francisco MTA | * Indeterminate | Jul 14, 2015 |
| San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency | ** Support | Sep 8, 2015 |
| San Francisco Transit Riders | ** Support | Sep 8, 2015 |
| Walk San Francisco | ** Support | Sep 8, 2015 |
| Water Center, Clean Water Action | * Indeterminate | Jul 14, 2015 |
AB 1287
Page 2
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1287
(Chiu)
As Amended June 18, 2015
Majority vote
ASSEMBLY: |
49-29 |
(June 4, 2015) |
SENATE: |
40-0 |
(September 8, 2015) |
Original Committee Reference: TRANS.
SUMMARY: Deletes the sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes, otherwise known as the Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program.
The Senate amendments strike out provisions in this bill that expanded the authority of the TOLE program to capture other vehicle code violations.
AS PASSED BY THE ASSEMBLY, this bill:
Deleted the January 1, 2016, sunset date on San Francisco's authority to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes with cameras attached to the front of transit vehicles.
Expanded the city's authority to use forward-facing cameras on transit vehicles to record all parking violations, violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing.
Required the city to make a public announcement of the expansion of the program at least 30 days prior to starting to issue notices of violation for all violations that were not previously subject to automated enforcement, and to issue only warning notices for 30 days for those violations.
Subjected recorded violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing, to a civil penalty of no more than $100.
Authorized an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation.
Required the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has received a notice of delinquent violation and the owner has not paid the violation penalty and any late payment fees.
Required the city, on or before January 1, 2019, to provide a report to Assembly Transportation Committee and the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement of violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
FISCAL EFFECT: None
COMMENTS: San Francisco considers its 26-mile network of transit-only lanes essential to the timeliness of the city's public transportation system, which is operated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Illegal parking and driving in these lanes can significantly impact the ability of SFMTA to meet its on-time performance goals. The City of San Francisco also has established a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024 and is planning an ambitious expansion of transit service over the next decade.
AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized SFMTA to initiate a pilot program, referred to as TOLE, to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence. AB 101 required SFMTA to evaluate the pilot program and submit a report to the Legislature by March 1, 2011, which it did. AB 101 also included a sunset date of January 1, 2012. Based on the results of the initial pilot and the subsequent report to the Legislature, AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report to the Legislature by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy. SFMTA submitted the report as required, which indicated that the program has had success, particularly in terms of reducing the number of repeat violators.
This bill removes the sunset date of January 1, 2016, and effectively extends SFMTA's TOLE program indefinitely.
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Manny Leon / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0001282
AB 1287
Page 5
|
Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1287
Amended: 6/18/15 in Senate
SENATE TRANS. & HOUSING COMMITTEE: 10-0, 6/30/15
AYES: Beall, Cannella, Allen, Bates, Galgiani, Leyva, McGuire, Mendoza, Roth, Wieckowski
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gaines
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 7-0, 7/14/15
AYES: Jackson, Moorlach, Anderson, Hertzberg, Leno, Monning, Wieckowski
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 29-36, 6/2/15 (FAIL) - See last page for vote
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-29, 6/4/15 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Vehicles: parking violations
DIGEST: This bill removes the sunset on San Francisco’s Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program.
Existing law:
Authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Citations can only be issued for violations captured during the posted hours of operation for a transit-only traffic lane.
Requires a qualified, designated employee of the City and County of San Francisco to review video images or recordings and determine whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only lane. If a violation of statute, regulation, or ordinance is observed in the recordings by the designated employee, the violation is subject to a civil penalty.
Places regulations on the retention time of video data depending on whether or not the video contains evidence of a violation.
This bill removes the sunset date of January 1, 2016, and effectively extends the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) TOLE program indefinitely. This bill also repeals obsolete provisions relating to the lapsed reporting requirement.
Comments
Purpose. The author states that TOLE-equipped vehicles help improve transit service and safety by discouraging illegal parking along San Francisco’s 26 miles of transit-only lanes. According to SFMTA, transit vehicles on these routes carry more than 160,000 passengers per day.
Establishment of the TOLE program. In 2007, the Legislature approved and the Governor signed AB 101 (Ma, Chapter 377) establishing the initial TOLE pilot through 2011. In this program, the SFMTA uses cameras on board buses to enforce transit-only lane parking violations. The program’s goal is to improve transit service by discouraging vehicles from parking or stopping and therefore obstructing transit-only lanes. With this program, vehicles illegally parked or stopped within a dedicated transit lane have their license plates captured by a video camera on a passing bus and the registered owners receive a citation in the mail. AB 1041 (Ma, Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011) reauthorized the pilot program through 2015.
San Francisco has 26 miles of transit-only lanes and another 22 miles planned over the next decade. The TOLE program is part of a multi-tiered approach to keep these lanes moving for buses. In addition, SFMTA is painting the lanes red to provide a strong visual reminder to road users to avoid using the transit-only lanes and has invested in transit signal priority technology to reduce the amount of time buses spend waiting at traffic lights.
Evaluation of the TOLE program. AB 1041 instructed SFMTA to submit to the Legislature an evaluation of the pilot program’s effectiveness and impact on privacy. The findings in the report can help to address the fundamental question: At what point is this pilot program allowed to end and become a fully authorized program?
In evaluating the TOLE program, SFMTA reviewed the following key metrics (discussed in more detail below):
Bus running times and running time variability on transit-only lanes
Citations issued to repeat offenders
Program costs and revenues
Privacy complaints
Impact of TOLE on bus reliability. A review of travel-time information indicates that the TOLE program can help reduce the instances of major SFMTA delays and improve running times. According to the report, two routes show running time improvements while two other routes show no improvement in travel time. However, the report argues these latter routes did not degrade as much as they may have without the TOLE program in light of increased construction activity, traffic delays, and increasing ridership.
Changing motorist behavior? Over the life of the program, the proportion of tickets issued to high-frequency offenders (motorists who already received at least three citations for parking illegally in a transit-only lane) has declined from 17% of all citations in 2011 to 1% of all citations in 2014. According to the report, this reduction shows that the program can alter the behavior of the most frequent violators.
Is this just a revenue generator? Between 2010 and 2014, the combined cost of the enforcement and video maintenance averaged approximately $334,000 per year. This number represents the ongoing annual operating cost and does not include initial capital investments which totaled $6.3 million. During the same time period, the TOLE program fines generated on average $256,000 per year in paid fine revenue. These numbers support the program’s stated intent to reduce transit delays and improve transit service, not generate revenue, as the operation of the program actually costs more than the revenue it raises.
Privacy concerns. The TOLE images and recordings are dedicated to the TOLE program and can only be used for the TOLE program. SFMTA maintains that the images and footage are not used for general surveillance. Video for the TOLE program is recorded onto a special, dedicated hard drive for professional parking control officers to review for violations. After reviewing footage, hard drives are installed back onto the buses where they are overwritten with new data. Importantly, according to SFMTA there have been no recorded privacy complaints related to the TOLE program since the program began.
Supporters. Supporters believe that the existing TOLE program has successfully enhanced driver compliance in dedicated transit rights-of-way without resulting in points on the drivers’ licenses. They state that the program enhances safety by reducing the number of instances that bus operators have to stop or maneuver into the auto lane to get around parked cars. SFMTA argues that it has made significant investments in this program, and it would like to ensure the program’s continuation to improve the safety and reliability of the transportation system.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
Mayor of San Francisco
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco Transit Riders
Walk San Francisco
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 29-36, 6/2/15
AYES: Bloom, Bonta, Burke, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Dodd, Eggman, Eduardo Garcia, Gomez, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Medina, Mullin, Nazarian, Ridley-Thomas, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Bonilla, Brough, Chang, Dababneh, Dahle, Daly, Frazier, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Irwin, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Levine, Linder, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Quirk, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Achadjian, Alejo, Brown, Calderon, Chávez, Cooper, Cristina Garcia, Gipson, Gonzalez, Gordon, Roger Hernández, O'Donnell, Perea, Rendon, Rodriguez
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-29, 6/4/15
AYES: Achadjian, Alejo, Bloom, Bonilla, Bonta, Brown, Burke, Calderon, Campos, Chau, Chiu, Chu, Cooley, Cooper, Dababneh, Daly, Dodd, Eggman, Frazier, Cristina Garcia, Eduardo Garcia, Gipson, Gomez, Gonzalez, Roger Hernández, Holden, Irwin, Jones-Sawyer, Levine, Linder, Lopez, Low, McCarty, Mullin, Nazarian, O'Donnell, Perea, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Santiago, Mark Stone, Thurmond, Ting, Weber, Williams, Wood, Atkins
NOES: Travis Allen, Baker, Bigelow, Brough, Chang, Chávez, Dahle, Beth Gaines, Gallagher, Gatto, Gray, Grove, Hadley, Harper, Jones, Kim, Lackey, Maienschein, Mathis, Mayes, Melendez, Obernolte, Olsen, Patterson, Salas, Steinorth, Wagner, Waldron, Wilk
NO VOTE RECORDED: Gordon, Medina
Prepared by: Christine Hochmuth / T. & H. / (916) 651-4121
8/13/15 13:13:42
**** END ****
AB 1287 (Chiu)
Page 8 of 8
Senator Hannah-Beth Jackson, Chair
2015-2016 Regular Session
AB 1287 (Chiu)
Version: June 18, 2015
Hearing Date: July 14, 2015
Fiscal: No
Urgency: No
TH
SUBJECT
Vehicles: Parking Violations
DESCRIPTION
Existing law, until January 1, 2016, authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes.
This bill would repeal the sunset date for San Francisco’s authority to install these parking control devices, thereby extending the operation of that authority indefinitely.
BACKGROUND
While some counties may have installed automated traffic enforcement systems at an earlier date, legislative authorization for automated enforcement procedures relating to traffic violations began in 1994 with SB 1802 (Rosenthal, Ch. 1216, Stats. 1994). That bill authorized the use of “automated rail crossing enforcement systems” to enforce prohibitions on drivers from passing around or under rail crossings while the gates are closed. (Veh. Code Sec. 22451.) Those systems functioned by photographing the front license plate and the driver of vehicles who proceeded around closed rail crossing gates in violation of the Vehicle Code provisions. The drivers of photographed vehicles, in turn, received citations for their violations.
In 1995, the Legislature authorized a three-year trial red light camera enforcement system program. (SB 833, Kopp, Ch. 922, Stats. 1995.) Using similar technology, that program used sensors connected to cameras to take photographs of the front license plate and driver upon entering an intersection on a red light. That program was permanently extended in 1998 by SB 1136 (Kopp, Ch. 54, Stats. 1998).
In 2007, the Legislature authorized a four-year pilot project where the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) was authorized to install video cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. (AB 101, Ma, Ch. 377, Stats. 2007.) Three years later, the Legislature authorized a five-year statewide pilot project to allow local public agencies to use automated parking enforcement systems for street sweeping-related violations. (AB 2567, Bradford, Ch. 471, Stats. 2010.) In 2011, the legislature extended San Francisco’s automated transit-only lane enforcement program for an additional year, and required the City and County to provide a report to the Transportation and Judiciary Committees of the Legislature no later than March 1, 2015, describing the effectiveness of the pilot program and its impact on privacy. (AB 1041, Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011.)
This bill would repeal the January 1, 2016, sunset on San Francisco’s automated transit-only lane enforcement program, thus extending the operation of that program indefinitely. This bill would also repeal obsolete provisions relating to the lapsed reporting requirement.
CHANGES TO EXISTING LAW
Existing law authorizes the use of an automated enforcement system for enforcement of red light violations by a governmental agency, subject to specific requirements and limitations. (Veh. Code Sec. 21455.5.) Existing law provides that a violation of any regulation governing the standing or parking of a vehicle under the Vehicle Code, federal statute or regulation, or local ordinance, is subject to a civil penalty. (Veh. Code Sec. 40200.)
Existing law provides that notice of a delinquent parking violation must contain various information, including a notice that unless the parking penalty is paid or contested within 21 calendar days from the issuance of a citation, or 14 calendar days from the mailing of a delinquent parking violation, as specified, the renewal of the vehicle registration is contingent upon compliance with the notice. (Veh. Code Sec. 40207.)
Existing law authorizes the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) to install automated forward facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Existing law defines a “transit-only traffic lane” to mean any designated transit-only lane on which use is restricted to mass transit vehicles, or other designated vehicles including taxis and vanpools, during posted times. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(a), (h).)
Existing law states that citations shall only be issued for violations captured during the posted hours of operation for a transit-only traffic lane. Existing law requires designated employees to review video image recordings for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only traffic lane, and permits alleged violators to review the video image evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(a), (c), (d).)
Existing law requires automated forward facing parking control devices to be angled and focused so as to capture video images of parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. Existing law requires the devices to record the date and time of the violation at the same time video images are captured, and provides that video image records are confidential and shall not be used or accessed for any purposes not related to the enforcement of parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(a), (f).)
Existing law authorizes the retention of video image evidence obtained from an automated forward facing parking control device for up to six months from the date the information was obtained, or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, and provides that after such time the information shall be destroyed. Existing law requires video image evidence from forward facing automated enforcement devices that does not contain evidence of a parking violation occurring in a transit-only traffic lane to be destroyed within 15 days after the information was first obtained. (Veh. Code Sec. 40240(e).)
Existing law repeals the authority for San Francisco to install automated forward facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes on January 1, 2016, and requires San Francisco to provide to the transportation and judiciary committees of the Legislature an evaluation of the pilot program’s effectiveness and impact on privacy no later than March 1, 2015. (Veh. Code Secs. 40242, 40243.)
This bill would strike the above sunset, thus indefinitely extending San Francisco’s authority to install automated forward facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes.
COMMENT
Stated need for the bill
According to the author:
AB 1287 (Chiu) will reauthorize San Francisco’s Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program by removing the sunset on the 6-year pilot program that allows San Francisco to issue parking citations to vehicles illegally parked in designated Transit Only Lanes.
In 2008, pursuant to [AB 101 (Ma, Ch. 377, Stats. 2007)], the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) initiated a pilot TOLE program to use forward-facing cameras on board buses to protect the City’s transit-only lanes and ensure transit priority. The pilot program was reauthorized in 2011 by [AB 1041 (Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011)]. The goal of the program is to improve transit safety and reliability by discouraging vehicles from obstructing transit-only lanes. With this program, vehicles illegally parked or stopped within a dedicated transit lane have their license plate captured by a video camera on a passing bus and the registered owner receives a citation in the mail. This enforcement prevents buses from having to stop or unsafely maneuver around parked cars.
The TOLE program initially began with cameras on 30 buses; it has been expanded over the last six years with TOLE-compatible video cameras installed on all Muni buses (over 800 vehicles). The TOLE equipped vehicles help improve transit service and safety by discouraging illegal parking along San Francisco’s 26 miles of transit-only lanes on routes carrying more than 160,000 passengers per day. SFMTA plans to expand transit service by 10 percent over the next two years and implement an additional 22 miles of transit-only lanes within the next 10 years. The TOLE program is a key tool to ensure these lanes work to achieve their intended purpose of supporting safe and reliable transit service.
The TOLE program also supports the San Francisco-wide Vision Zero program, which aims to eliminate all traffic related fatalities by 2024. The City and County of San Francisco adopted Vision Zero as a policy in 2014, committing to build better and safer streets, educate the public on traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that save lives. The goal is to create a culture that prioritizes traffic safety and to ensure that mistakes on the city’s roadways do not result in serious injuries or death. The result of this collaborative, citywide effort will be safer, more livable streets protecting the one million people who move about the city every day.
Privacy Protection: The TOLE images and recordings are dedicated to the TOLE program and can only be used for the issuance of TOLE citations. The images and footage are not used for general surveillance. Video for the TOLE program is recorded onto a special, dedicated hard drive for professional parking control officers to review for violations. After footage is reviewed, hard drives are installed back onto Muni buses where they are overwritten with new data. Each hard drive holds approximately 72 hours of video footage. There have been no recorded privacy complaints related to the TOLE program since its initiation in 2008.
Results of Pilot Program
This bill would conclude a pilot program authorizing the City and County of San Francisco to use video cameras on public transit vehicles to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes, and allow this automated enforcement program to continue indefinitely. Prior reports submitted by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) evaluating the efficacy of this automated enforcement program revealed “no statistically significant change in run-time” of transit vehicles for routes included within the plot program, leading this Committee to question whether the risks attendant with automating traffic enforcement outweighed potential benefits to traffic throughput and roadway user safety. However, the latest report from SFMTA indicates that this pilot program (denominated as the “TOLE program”) has measurably improved transit vehicle travel time and reliability. According to SFMTA:
This program is a strong success and has improved safety and reliability for Muni customers and other roadway users. A review of travel time information indicates that the TOLE program has helped to reduce Muni delays and has improved running time reliability. Results on Sutter Street, for example, show travel time variability improvements of up to 15 percent . . . Travel time reliability has improved on several transit corridors as a result of the TOLE pilot, including Sutter and Geary. Additionally, the impacts of construction have been reduced for other corridors including Post and Mission Streets.
SFMTA reports that the TOLE program is also having a beneficial impact on modifying motorist behavior in designated transit-only corridors. The agency states that the automated enforcement program “is a deterrent to obstructing San Francisco’s transit-only lanes. Over the last five years of the program, the proportion of tickets issued to high frequency offenders (vehicles receiving three or more TOLE citations for parking illegally in a transit-only lane) has declined from 17 [percent] in 2011 to 1 [percent] in 2014.”
Additionally, the Legislature has previously expressed concern over the use of automated traffic enforcement programs not as means to promote roadway safety but as a mechanism for revenue generation. However, it appears that San Francisco’s automated enforcement program for transit-only lanes actually operates at a sustained loss. According to SFMTA,
The purpose of the TOLE program is to protect transit priority and ensure safety. Over time, we expect revenues to continue to decline as motorists continue to learn not to obstruct transit-only lanes. As a result, the program costs and revenues are relatively low. The two main cost drivers of the program are staff time to review TOLE videos and to maintain the TOLE equipment on the vehicles. Between 2010 and 2014, the combined cost of the enforcement and video maintenance averaged approximately $334,000 per year. During the same time period, the TOLE program fines generated on average $256,000 per year in paid fine revenue. These results emphasize the program goal – to protect transit priority in San Francisco, not generate revenue.
If transit-only parking violations continue to decline in targeted corridors, it is likely that San Francisco’s automated enforcement program will continue to operate at a loss. However, as noted in Comment 1, San Francisco intends to almost double the length of transit-only corridors in the city over the next ten years. It is unclear whether this increase will have a positive impact on the TOLE program’s ability to generate revenue.
Right to Privacy
The California Constitution provides that all people have inalienable rights, including the right to pursue and obtain privacy. (Cal. Const., art. I, Sec. 1.) This “right of privacy is vitally important. It derives, in this state, not only from the protections against unreasonable searches and seizures guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment and article I, section 13, but also from article I, section 1, of our State Constitution. Homage to personhood is the foundation for individual rights protected by our state and national Constitutions.” (In re William G. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 550, 563.) This Committee has previously expressed concern about the privacy implications of equipping large numbers of transit vehicles with forward-facing video cameras that record not only other vehicles, but individuals on sidewalks and commercial and residential property adjacent to the roadway. When this pilot program was reauthorized in 2011, the Legislature directed San Francisco to evaluate the privacy impacts of this program as part of a larger report on the automated traffic enforcement program. Responding to that direction, SFMTA’s report on the program states:
The TOLE images and recordings are dedicated to the TOLE program and can only be used for the TOLE program. The images and footage are not used for general surveillance. Video for the TOLE program is recorded onto a special, dedicated hard drive for professional parking control officers to review for violations. After reviewing footage, hard drives are installed back onto Muni buses where they are overwritten with new data. Each hard drive can hold approximately 72 hours of video footage. There have been no recorded privacy complaints related to the TOLE program since the program began.
The lack of privacy-related complaints concerning this program may be attributable to specific requirements built in to the statute authorizing San Francisco’s automation of transit-only lane parking enforcement. Pursuant to this statute, San Francisco’s automated forward facing parking control devices must be angled and focused so as to capture video images of parking violations and not unnecessarily capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians. Existing law specifies that these video records are confidential and may not be used or accessed for any purposes not related to the enforcement of parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Video recordings collected by the automated enforcement system must be destroyed no later than six months after the date of collection, or 60 days after the final disposition of a citation issued on the basis of a recorded image, whichever is later. Video recordings not containing evidence of a parking violation in a transit-only traffic lane must destroyed within 15 days after collection.
Together, these statutory restrictions and the experience gained through the pilot program suggest that this automated enforcement program is not having a negative impact on Californian’s fundamental right to privacy. However, as with future revenue performance described in Comment 2, it is unclear whether the proposed expansion of transit-only corridors to other areas of the city over the next ten years will have a negative impact on privacy interests, particularly if this expansion reaches into residential districts or other areas where individuals have a heightened expectation of privacy.
Support: California Public Parking Association
Opposition: None Known
HISTORY
Source: San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
Related Pending Legislation: None Known
Prior Legislation:
AB 1041 (Ma, Ch. 325, Stats. 2011) See Background.
AB 2567 (Bradford, Ch. 471, Stats. 2010) See Background.
AB 101 (Ma, Ch. 377, Stats. 2007) See Background.
SB 1136 (Kopp, Ch. 54, Stats. 1998) See Background.
SB 833 (Kopp, Ch. 922, Stats. 1995) See Background.
SB 1802 (Rosenthal, Ch. 1216, Stats. 1994) See Background.
Prior Vote:
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 0)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 49, Noes 29)
Assembly Floor (Ayes 29, Noes 36)
Assembly Appropriations Committee (Ayes 12, Noes 5)
Assembly Transportation Committee (Ayes 10, Noes 4)
**************
AB 1287 (Chiu) Page 4 of 4
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING
Senator Jim Beall, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: AB 1287 Hearing Date: 6/30/2015
Author: |
Chiu |
||
Version: |
6/18/2015 |
||
Urgency: |
No |
Fiscal: |
No |
Consultant: |
Christine Hochmuth |
||
SUBJECT: Vehicles: parking violations
DIGEST: This bill removes the sunset on San Francisco’s Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
Authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to install automated forward-facing parking control devices on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of video imaging violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes. Citations can only be issued for violations captured during the posted hours of operation for a transit-only traffic lane.
Requires a qualified, designated employee of the City and County of San Francisco to review video images or recordings and determine whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only lane. If a violation of statute, regulation, or ordinance is observed in the recordings by the designated employee, the violation is subject to a civil penalty.
Places regulations on the retention time of video data depending on whether or not the video contains evidence of a violation.
This bill removes the sunset date of January 1, 2016, and effectively extends the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) TOLE program indefinitely.
COMMENTS:
Purpose. The author states that TOLE-equipped vehicles help improve transit service and safety by discouraging illegal parking along San Francisco’s 26 miles of transit-only lanes. According to SFMTA, transit vehicles on these routes carry more than 160,000 passengers per day.
Background. In 2007, the legislature approved and the Governor signed AB 101 (Ma, Chapter 377) establishing the initial Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) pilot through 2011. In this program, the SFMTA uses cameras on board buses to enforce transit-only lane parking violations. The program’s goal is to improve transit service by discouraging vehicles from parking or stopping and therefore obstructing transit-only lanes. With this program, vehicles illegally parked or stopped within a dedicated transit lane have their license plates captured by a video camera on a passing bus and the registered owners receive a citation in the mail. AB 1041 (Ma, Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011) reauthorized the pilot program through 2015.
San Francisco has 26 miles of transit-only lanes and another 22 miles planned over the next decade. The TOLE program is part of a multi-tiered approach to keep these lanes moving for buses. In addition, SFMTA is painting the lanes red to provide a strong visual reminder to road users to avoid using the transit-only lanes and has invested in transit signal priority technology to reduce the amount of time buses spend waiting at traffic lights.
Evaluation of the TOLE program. AB 1041 instructed SFMTA to submit to the legislature an evaluation of the pilot program’s effectiveness and impact on privacy. The findings in the report can help to address the fundamental question: At what point is this pilot program allowed to end and become a fully authorized program?
In evaluating the TOLE program, SFMTA reviewed the following key metrics (discussed in more detail below):
Bus running times and running time variability on transit-only lanes
Citations issued to repeat offenders
Program costs and revenues
Privacy complaints
Impact of TOLE on bus reliability. A review of travel-time information indicates that the TOLE program can help reduce the instances of major SFMTA delays and improve running times. According to the report, two routes show running time improvements while two other routes show no improvement in travel time. However, the report argues these latter routes did not degrade as much as they may have without the TOLE program in light of increased construction activity, traffic delays, and increasing ridership.
Changing motorist behavior? Over the life of the program, the proportion of tickets issued to high-frequency offenders (motorists who already received at least three citations for parking illegally in a transit-only lane) has declined from 17% of all citations in 2011 to 1% of all citations in 2014. According to the report, this reduction shows that the program can alter the behavior of the most frequent violators.
Is this just a revenue generator? Between 2010 and 2014, the combined cost of the enforcement and video maintenance averaged approximately $334,000 per year. This number represents the ongoing annual operating cost and does not include initial capital investments which totaled $6.3 million. During the same time period, the TOLE program fines generated on average $256,000 per year in paid fine revenue. These numbers support the program’s stated intent to reduce transit delays and improve transit service, not generate revenue, as the operation of the program actually costs more than the revenue it raises.
Privacy concerns. The TOLE images and recordings are dedicated to the TOLE program and can only be used for the TOLE program. SFMTA maintains that the images and footage are not used for general surveillance. Video for the TOLE program is recorded onto a special, dedicated hard drive for professional parking control officers to review for violations. After reviewing footage, hard drives are installed back onto the buses where they are overwritten with new data. Importantly, according to SFMTA there have been no recorded privacy complaints related to the TOLE program since the program began.
Supporters. Supporters believe that the existing TOLE program has successfully enhanced driver compliance in dedicated transit rights-of-way without resulting in points on the drivers’ licenses. They state that the program enhances safety by reducing the number of instances that bus operators have to stop or maneuver into the auto lane to get around parked cars. SFMTA argues that it has made significant investments in this program, and it would like to ensure the program’s continuation to improve the safety and reliability of the transportation system.
Double-referred. This bill has also been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Related Legislation:
AB 1041 (Ma, Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011) — extended the sunset date on SFMTA’s authority to employ video enforcement of transit lane parking violations and expanded the program to any designated transit lane within the city.
AB 101 (Ma, Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007) — allowed SFMTA to install video cameras on city-owned public transit and city-owned street sweepers for the purpose of videotaping parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes, named specifically in this bill, and during posted street sweeping hours.
Assembly Votes:
Floor: 49-29
Floor: 29-36
Appr: 12-5
Trans: 10-4
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
June 24, 2015.)
SUPPORT:
Mayor of San Francisco
San Francisco County Transportation Authority
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
San Francisco Transit Riders
Walk San Francisco
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
AB 1287
Page 2
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB 1287
(Chiu)
As Amended April 29, 2015
Majority vote
Committee |
Votes |
Ayes |
Noes |
Transportation |
10-4 |
Frazier, Bloom, Chu, Daly, Dodd, Eduardo Garcia, Gomez, Medina, O'Donnell, Santiago |
Baker, Kim, Linder, Melendez |
Appropriations |
12-5 |
Gomez, Bonta, Calderon, Daly, Eggman, Eduardo Garcia, Gordon, Holden, Quirk, Rendon, Weber, Wood |
Bigelow, Chang, Gallagher, Jones, Wagner |
SUMMARY: Deletes the sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes and expands the authority to allow automated enforcement of other violations. Specifically, this bill:
Deletes the January 1, 2016, sunset date on San Francisco's authority to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes with cameras attached to the front of transit vehicles.
Expands the city’s authority to use forward-facing cameras on transit vehicles to record all parking violations, violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing.
Requires the city to make a public announcement of the expansion of the program at least 30 days prior to starting to issue notices of violation for all violations that were not previously subject to automated enforcement, and to issue only warning notices for 30 days for those violations.
Subjects recorded violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing, to a civil penalty of no more than $100.
Authorizes an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation.
Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has received a notice of delinquent violation and the owner has not paid the violation penalty and any late payment fees.
Requires the city, on or before January 1, 2019, to provide a report to Assembly Transportation Committee and the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement of violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, one-time special fund costs of around $200,000 to DMV for programming modifications.
COMMENTS: San Francisco considers its 26-mile network of transit-only lanes essential to the timeliness of the city's public transportation system, which is operated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Illegal parking and driving in these lanes can significantly impact the ability of SFMTA to meet its on-time performance goals. The city also has established a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024 and is planning an ambitious expansion of transit service over the next decade.
AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized SFMTA to initiate a pilot program, referred to as Muni's Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE), to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence. AB 101 required SFMTA to evaluate the pilot program and submit a report to the Legislature by March 1, 2011, which it did. AB 101 also included a sunset date of January 1, 2012. Based on the results of the initial pilot and the subsequent report to the Legislature, AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report to the Legislature by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy. SFMTA submitted the report as required, which indicated that the program has had success, particularly in terms of reducing the number of repeat violators.
Arguments in support: Writing in support, SFMTA, the sponsor of AB 1287, argues: "The TOLE program is a key component of two comprehensive initiatives in San Francisco to make transit more reliable and our streets safer for all users - Muni Forward and Vision Zero. Under Muni Forward, the SFMTA plans to expand transit service by 10% over the next 2 years and implement an additional 22 miles of transit-only lanes within the next 10 years. Under Vision Zero, adopted as citywide policy in 2014, San Francisco has a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024, committing to build better and safer streets, educate the public on traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that save lives."
Arguments in opposition: Writing in opposition, the Automobile Club of Southern California and the American Automobile Association of Northern California, Nevada and Utah argue: "Under AB 1287, the violation for 'blocking the box' would no longer be an infraction (crime), but rather a civil violation subject to a civil penalty. This is an important distinction since crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden under this newly established administrative hearing will be preponderance of the evidence, a significantly lower standard. In addition, enforcement by camera/video may not capture the full nature of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. We can envision circumstances where a live officer would forego enforcement of this section even though a driver technically violated the section because a vehicle on the other side of the intersection stopped unexpectedly, perhaps to back into a parking space or because a person opened their door to enter/exit their vehicle. A camera may not capture this on tape, whereas a live officer would be able to visualize the entire scene when making their decision whether to cite the driver or not."
Please see the policy committee analysis for full discussion of this bill.
Analysis Prepared by: Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0000624
AB 1287
Page 2
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB 1287
(Chiu) – As Amended April 29, 2015
Policy Committee: |
Transportation |
Vote: |
10 - 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program: No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY:
This bill deletes the January 1, 2016, sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's transit authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes and expands the authority to allow automated enforcement of other violations. Specifically, this bill:
Expands the city’s existing authority to use forward-facing cameras on transit vehicles for recording all parking violations in transit-only lanes to include violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing.
Requires the city to make a public announcement of the expansion of the program at least 30 days prior to starting to issue notices of violation for all violations that were not previously subject to automated enforcement, and to issue only warning notices for 30 days for those violations.
Subjects recorded violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing, to a civil penalty of no more than $100.
Requires the DMV to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has received a notice of delinquent violation and the owner has not paid the violation penalty and any late payment fees.
Requires the city, by January 1, 2019, to report to legislative policy committees on transportation on the effectiveness, in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities, of automated enforcement of violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection.
FISCAL EFFECT:
One-time special fund costs of around $200,000 to DMV for programming modifications.
COMMENTS:
Background. AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA or Muni), until January 1, 2012, to initiate a pilot program to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence. The program was designed to improve the safety, reliability, and performance of SFMTA transit vehicles using San Francisco's 26 miles of transit-only lanes.
Based on the results of the initial pilot and an evaluation report to the Legislature, AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy. SFMTA submitted the report as required, which indicated that the program has had success, particularly in terms of reducing the number of repeat violators.
Purpose. AB 1287 eliminates the sunset on Muni's Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program and expands the program to allow for automated enforcement of all parking violations, not just those occurring in transit-only lanes. AB 1287 additionally allows cameras on Muni vehicles to be used to enforce violations related to driving in a transit-only lane or crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane and "blocking the box" violations.
According to the author, the intent of AB 1287 is to "permanently establish and enhance the existing San Francisco-only pilot program to improve transit service, safety, and reliability. The TOLE program initially began with cameras on 30 buses; it has been expanded over the last six years with TOLE-compatible video cameras installed on all Muni buses (over 800 vehicles)." The author further states that AB 1287 will allow an effective program to continue and also "enable strategic evolution of the program using proven technology."
Opposition. The Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah argue: "Under AB 1287, the violation for 'blocking the box' would no longer be an infraction (crime), but rather a civil violation subject to a civil penalty. This is an important distinction since crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden under this newly established administrative hearing will be preponderance of the evidence, a significantly lower standard. In addition, enforcement by camera/video may not capture the full nature of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. We can envision circumstances where a live officer would forego enforcement of this section even though a driver technically violated the section because a vehicle on the other side of the intersection stopped unexpectedly, perhaps to back into a parking space or because a person opened their door to enter/exit their vehicle. A camera may not capture this on tape, whereas a live officer would be able to visualize the entire scene when making their decision whether to cite the driver or not."
Analysis Prepared by: Chuck Nicol / APPR. / (916) 319-2081
AB 1287
Page 4
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1287
(Chiu) – As Amended April 29, 2015
SUBJECT: Vehicles: parking and moving violations: cameras
SUMMARY: Deletes the sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes and expands the authority to allow automated enforcement of other violations. Specifically, this bill:
Deletes the January 1, 2016, sunset date on San Francisco's authority to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes with cameras attached to the front of transit vehicles.
Expands the city’s authority to use forward-facing cameras on transit vehicles to record all parking violations, violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing.
Requires the city to make a public announcement of the expansion of the program at least 30 days prior to starting to issue notices of violation for all violations that were not previously subject to automated enforcement, and to issue only warning notices for 30 days for those violations.
Subjects recorded violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing, to a civil penalty of no more than $100.
Authorizes an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation.
Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has received a notice of delinquent violation and the owner has not paid the violation penalty and any late payment fees.
Requires the city, on or before January 1, 2019, to provide a report to this committee and the Senate Committee on Transportation and Housing evaluating the effectiveness of automated enforcement of violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
EXISTING LAW:
Authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to install automated cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of recording parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes.
Prohibits the city from issuing citations for violations captured outside the posted hours of operation for a transit-only traffic lane.
Requires the cameras to be angled and focused so as to capture images of parking violations and not unnecessarily identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians.
Requires the cameras to record the date and time of the violation at the same time as the images are captured.
Requires an employee of the city who is qualified to issue parking citations to review recorded images for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only traffic lane.
Subjects parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes observed in the recordings to a civil penalty.
Requires the city to allow the registered owner of the vehicle to review the video image evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost.
Requires the city to destroy video image evidence after six months from the date the information was first obtained or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later.
Requires the city to destroy video images that do not contain evidence of a parking violation occurring in a transit-only traffic lane within 15 days after the information was first obtained.
Makes the video images confidential and specifies that public agencies can use or allow access to them only for the purposes described above.
Defines “transit-only traffic lane” as any designated transit-only lane on which use is restricted to mass transit vehicles or other designated vehicles, including taxis and vanpools, during posted times.
Requires the city to provide the Legislature an evaluation of the automated enforcement program's effectiveness and impact on privacy no later than March 1, 2015.
Sunsets the authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only lanes on January 1, 2016.
Specifies that obstructing an intersection (often called "blocking the box") or a railroad or rail transit crossing is not a violation of the law relating to the safe operation of vehicles and is the following:
A stopping violation when a notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer.
A parking violation when a notice of violation is issued by a person, other than a peace officer, who is authorized to enforce parking statutes and regulations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: San Francisco considers its 26-mile network of transit-only lanes essential to the timeliness of the city's public transportation system, which is operated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Illegal parking and driving in these lanes can significantly impact the ability of Muni to meet its on-time performance goals. The city also has established a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024 and is planning an ambitious expansion of transit service over the next decade.
AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized SFMTA to initiate a pilot program to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence. The program was designed to improve the safety, reliability, and performance of SFMTA transit vehicles using San Francisco's transit-only lanes. AB 101 required SFMTA to evaluate the pilot program and submit a report to the Legislature by March 1, 2011, which it did. AB 101 also included a sunset date of January 1, 2012.
Based on the results of the initial pilot and the subsequent report to the Legislature, AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report to the Legislature by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy. SFMTA submitted the report as required, which indicated that the program has had success, particularly in terms of reducing the number of repeat violators.
AB 1287 eliminates the sunset on Muni's Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program and expands the program to allow for automated enforcement of all parking violations, not just those occurring in transit-only lanes. AB 1287 would additionally allow cameras on Muni vehicles to be used to enforce violations related to driving in a transit-only lane or crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane and "blocking the box" violations.
According to the author, the intent of AB 1287 is to "permanently establish and enhance the existing San Francisco-only pilot program to improve transit service, safety, and reliability. The TOLE program initially began with cameras on 30 buses; it has been expanded over the last six years with TOLE-compatible video cameras installed on all Muni buses (over 800 vehicles)." The author further states that AB 1287 will allow an effective program to continue and also "enable strategic evolution of the program using proven technology."
Opponents of AB 1287 do not object to the removal of the sunset and the expansion of the program to address parking violations outside of transit only lanes. What they do object to is expanding the program to allow for automated enforcement of offenses that would normally be cited criminally as moving violations. Under the TOLE program, these offenses would be cited as parking violations. It is important to note that the law already allows for "block the box" violations to be cited as parking violations. San Francisco has already made "block the box" enforcement a priority for its parking enforcement officers because these violations can create particularly hazardous conditions for pedestrians and the city is aggressively working to reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
Arguments in support: Writing in support, SFMTA, the sponsor of AB 1287, argues: "The TOLE program is a key component of two comprehensive initiatives in San Francisco to make transit more reliable and our streets safer for all users - Muni Forward and Vision Zero. Under Muni Forward, the SFMTA plans to expand transit service by 10 percent over the next 2 years and implement an additional 22 miles of transit-only lanes within the next 10 years. Under Vision Zero, adopted as citywide policy in 2014, San Francisco has a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024, committing to build better and safer streets, educate the public on traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that save lives. The TOLE program is an important safety and enforcement tool for both of these initiatives."
Arguments in opposition: Writing in opposition, the Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah argue: "Under AB 1287, the violation for 'blocking the box' would no longer be an infraction (crime), but rather a civil violation subject to a civil penalty. This is an important distinction since crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden under this newly established administrative hearing will be preponderance of the evidence, a significantly lower standard. In addition, enforcement by camera/video may not capture the full nature of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. We can envision circumstances where a live officer would forego enforcement of this section even though a driver technically violated the section because a vehicle on the other side of the intersection stopped unexpectedly, perhaps to back into a parking space or because a person opened their door to enter/exit their vehicle. A camera may not capture this on tape, whereas a live officer would be able to visualize the entire scene when making their decision whether to cite the driver or not."
Prior legislation: AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized SFMTA to initiate a pilot program to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence.
AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report to the Legislature by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (sponsor)
California Public Parking Association
San Francisco County Transportation Commission
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah
Automobile Club of Southern California
National Motorists Association
Safer Streets L.A.
Analysis Prepared by: Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
AB 1287
Page 4
Date of Hearing: April 27, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1287
(Chiu) – As Amended April 22, 2015
SUBJECT: Vehicles: parking violations: cameras
SUMMARY: Deletes the sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes and expands the authority to allow automated enforcement of other violations. Specifically, this bill:
Deletes the January 1, 2016, sunset date on San Francisco's authority to enforce parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes with cameras attached to the front of transit vehicles.
Expands the city’s authority to use forward-facing cameras on transit vehicles to record all parking violations, violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing.
Subjects recorded violations related to driving in a transit-only lane and crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane, and violations related to blocking or obstructing an intersection or a railroad or rail transit crossing, to a civil penalty of no more than $100.
Authorizes an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation to review the recorded evidence of the alleged violation.
Requires the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to refuse to renew the registration of a vehicle if the registered owner or lessee has received a notice of delinquent violation and the owner has not paid the violation penalty and any late payment fees.
EXISTING LAW:
Authorizes the City and County of San Francisco to install automated cameras on city-owned public transit vehicles for the purpose of recording parking violations occurring in transit-only traffic lanes.
Prohibits the city from issuing citations for violations captured outside the posted hours of operation for a transit-only traffic lane.
Requires the cameras to be angled and focused so as to capture images of parking violations and not unnecessarily identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, and pedestrians.
Requires the cameras to record the date and time of the violation at the same time as the images are captured.
Requires an employee of the city who is qualified to issue parking citations to review recorded images for the purpose of determining whether a parking violation occurred in a transit-only traffic lane.
Subjects parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes observed in the recordings to a civil penalty.
Requires the city to allow the registered owner of the vehicle to review the video image evidence of the alleged violation during normal business hours at no cost.
Requires the city to destroy video image evidence after six months from the date the information was first obtained or 60 days after final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later.
Requires the city to destroy video images that do not contain evidence of a parking violation occurring in a transit-only traffic lane within 15 days after the information was first obtained.
Makes the video images confidential and specifies that public agencies can use or allow access to them only for the purposes described above.
Defines “transit-only traffic lane” as any designated transit-only lane on which use is restricted to mass transit vehicles or other designated vehicles, including taxis and vanpools, during posted times.
Requires the city to provide the Legislature an evaluation of the automated enforcement program's effectiveness and impact on privacy no later than March 1, 2015.
Sunsets the authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only lanes on January 1, 2016.
Specifies that obstructing an intersection (often called "blocking the box") or a railroad or rail transit crossing is not a violation of the law relating to the safe operation of vehicles and is the following:
A stopping violation when a notice to appear has been issued by a peace officer.
A parking violation when a notice of violation is issued by a person, other than a peace officer, who is authorized to enforce parking statutes and regulations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: San Francisco considers its 26-mile network of transit-only lanes essential to the timeliness of the city's public transportation system, which is operated by the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA). Illegal parking and driving in these lanes can significantly impact the ability of Muni to meet its on-time performance goals. The city also has established a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024 and is planning an ambitious expansion of transit service over the next decade.
AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized SFMTA to initiate a pilot program to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence. The program was designed to improve the safety, reliability, and performance of SFMTA transit vehicles using San Francisco's transit-only lanes. AB 101 required SFMTA to evaluate the pilot program and submit a report to the Legislature by March 1, 2011, which it did. AB 101 also included a sunset date of January 1, 2012.
Based on the results of the initial pilot and the subsequent report to the Legislature, AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report to the Legislature by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy. SFMTA submitted the report as required, which indicated that the program has had success, particularly in terms of reducing the number of repeat violators.
AB 1287 eliminates the sunset on Muni's Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program and expands the program to allow for automated enforcement of all parking violations, not just those occurring in transit-only lanes. AB 1287 would additionally allow cameras on Muni vehicles to be used to enforce violations related to driving in a transit-only lane or crossing a double-yellow line to enter or exit a transit-only lane and "blocking the box" violations.
According to the author, the intent of AB 1287 is to "permanently establish and enhance the existing San Francisco-only pilot program to improve transit service, safety, and reliability. The TOLE program initially began with cameras on 30 buses; it has been expanded over the last six years with TOLE-compatible video cameras installed on all Muni buses (over 800 vehicles)." The author further states that AB 1287 will allow an effective program to continue and also "enable strategic evolution of the program using proven technology."
Opponents of AB 1287 do not object to the removal of the sunset and the expansion of the program to address parking violations outside of transit only lanes. What they do object to is expanding the program to allow for automated enforcement of offenses that would normally be cited criminally as moving violations. Under the TOLE program, these offenses would be cited as parking violations. It is important to note that the law already allows for "block the box" violations to be cited as parking violations. San Francisco has already made "block the box" enforcement a priority for its parking enforcement officers because these violations can create particularly hazardous conditions for pedestrians and the city is aggressively working to reduce pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
Arguments in support: Writing in support, SFMTA, the sponsor of AB 1287, argues: "The TOLE program is a key component of two comprehensive initiatives in San Francisco to make transit more reliable and our streets safer for all users - Muni Forward and Vision Zero. Under Muni Forward, the SFMTA plans to expand transit service by 10 percent over the next 2 years and implement an additional 22 miles of transit-only lanes within the next 10 years. Under Vision Zero, adopted as citywide policy in 2014, San Francisco has a goal of eliminating all traffic-related fatalities by 2024, committing to build better and safer streets, educate the public on traffic safety, enforce traffic laws, and adopt policy changes that save lives. The TOLE program is an important safety and enforcement tool for both of these initiatives."
Arguments in opposition: Writing in opposition, the Automobile Club of Southern California and AAA of Northern California, Nevada and Utah argue: "Under AB 1287, the violation for 'blocking the box' would no longer be an infraction (crime), but rather a civil violation subject to a civil penalty. This is an important distinction since crimes must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden under this newly established administrative hearing will be preponderance of the evidence, a significantly lower standard. In addition, enforcement by camera/video may not capture the full nature of the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation. We can envision circumstances where a live officer would forego enforcement of this section even though a driver technically violated the section because a vehicle on the other side of the intersection stopped unexpectedly, perhaps to back into a parking space or because a person opened their door to enter/exit their vehicle. A camera may not capture this on tape, whereas a live officer would be able to visualize the entire scene when making their decision whether to cite the driver or not."
Proposed amendments: The committee may wish to consider asking the author to accept the following amendments. The first two amendments are consistent with requirements that were imposed upon the initial TOLE pilot program to ensure public notice. The third amendment will provide information on whether or not automated enforcement of "block the box" violations is helping with the city's goal of enhancing pedestrian safety.
Require SFMTA to make a public announcement about the changes to the program and the new offenses that will be cited via automated enforcement at least 30 days prior to starting to issue citations for those offenses.
Require SFMTA to issue only warning notices for 30 days for violations that have not previously been cited under the TOLE program,
Require SFMTA to report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019, on the effectiveness of automated enforcement of "block the box" violations in reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
Prior legislation: AB 101 (Ma) Chapter 377, Statutes of 2007, authorized SFMTA to initiate a pilot program to equip transit vehicles with forward-facing parking control devices to record images of vehicles parked in transit-only lanes and issue parking citations based on that video evidence.
AB 1041 (Ma), Chapter 325, Statutes of 2011, extended the sunset on the program through January 1, 2016, and required SFMTA to submit another report to the Legislature by March 1, 2015, on the effectiveness of the program and its impacts on privacy.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (sponsor)
California Public Parking Association
San Francisco County Transportation Commission
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
AAA Northern California, Nevada & Utah
Automobile Club of Southern California
National Motorists Association
Safer Streets L.A.
Analysis Prepared by: Anya Lawler / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Discussed in Hearing
1MIN
Assembly Floor
3MIN
Senate Floor
5MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
4MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Transportation and Housing
1MIN
Assembly Floor
2MIN
Assembly Floor
13MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Transportation
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):