AB 1735: Transit districts: prohibition orders.
- Session Year: 2023-2024
- House: Assembly
- Latest Version Date: 2023-07-13
Current Status:
Passed
(2023-07-13: Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 69, Statutes of 2023.)
Introduced
In Committee
First Chamber
In Committee
Second Chamber
Enacted
What does this bill do?
The bill adds the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) to the list of transit agencies that can issue prohibition orders barring people from VTA property or vehicles for certain repeated infractions, violent or drug-related arrests or convictions, or similar offenses. It also requires the VTA to create an advisory committee, train staff who issue or enforce orders, give public notice about the bans, and provide annual reports on issued orders and appeals.
The summary is provided by generative AI which can make mistakes. For original language, please view the details in the table below.
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would provide that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would provide that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.
Existing law prohibits certain acts by a person with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district. A violation is generally an infraction punishable by a fine not exceeding $75 on a first offense, or on a subsequent offense by a fine not exceeding $250 or by community service.
Existing law authorizes the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, and the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District to issue a prohibition order to any person cited for committing one or more of certain prohibited acts in specified transit facilities. Existing law prohibits a person subject to the prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for specified periods of time. Existing law establishes notice requirements in that regard and provides for initial and administrative review of the order.
This bill would provide that the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority is a transit district for purposes of these provisions regarding prohibition orders.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation shall be made at least five calendar days before the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Before exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts internet website, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel before or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation shall be made at least five calendar days before the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Before exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts internet website, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel before or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
(a)(1)A transit district may issue a prohibition order to any person to whom either of the following applies:
(A)On at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, the person is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for an act that is a violation of paragraph (2) or (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 99170 of this code or paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 640 or Section 640.5 of the Penal Code.
(B)The person is arrested or convicted for a misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
(C)The person is convicted of a violation of Section 11532 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2)A person subject to a prohibition order may not enter the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district or the property, facilities, or vehicles upon which the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to an operations and maintenance agreement or similar interagency agreement for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of a prohibition order shall not exceed the following, as applicable:
(A)Thirty days if issued pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (1), provided that a second prohibition order within one year may not exceed 90 days, and a third or subsequent prohibition order within one year may not exceed 180 days.
(B)Thirty days if issued pursuant to an arrest pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1). Upon conviction of a misdemeanor offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed 180 days. Upon conviction of a felony offense, the duration of the prohibition order for the conviction, when added to the duration of the prohibition order for the initial arrest, if any, may not exceed one year.
(3)A prohibition order issued pursuant to this subdivision shall not be effective unless the transit district first affords the person an opportunity to contest the transit districts proposed action in accordance with procedures adopted by the transit district for this purpose. A transit districts procedures shall provide, at a minimum, for the notice and other protections set forth in subdivisions (b) and (c), and the transit district shall provide reasonable notification to the public of the availability of those procedures.
(b)(1)A notice of a prohibition order issued under subdivision (a) shall set forth a description of the conduct underlying the violation or violations giving rise to the prohibition order, including reference to the applicable statutory provision, ordinance, or transit district rule violated, the date of the violation, the approximate time of the violation, the location where the violation occurred, the period of the proposed prohibition, and the scope of the prohibition. The notice shall include a clear and conspicuous statement indicating the procedure for contesting the prohibition order. The notice of prohibition order shall be personally served upon the violator. The notice of prohibition order, or a copy, shall be considered a record kept in the ordinary course of business of the transit district and shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained in the notice establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. For purposes of this paragraph, clear and conspicuous means in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks that call attention to the language.
(2)For purposes of this section, personal service means any of the following:
(A)In-person delivery.
(B)Delivery by any form of mail providing for delivery confirmation, postage prepaid, to at least one address provided by the person being served, including, but not limited to, the address set forth in any citation or in court records.
(C)Any alternate method approved in writing by the transit district and the person being served.
(3)If a person served with a notice of prohibition order is not able, or refuses, to provide a mailing address, the notice of prohibition order shall set forth the procedure for obtaining any letters, notices, or orders related to the prohibition order from the administrative offices of the transit district. For purposes of this section, delivery shall be deemed to have been made on the following date, as applicable:
(A)On the date of delivery, if delivered in person.
(B)On the date of confirmed delivery, for any delivery by mail.
(C)For any alternate method of service, as provided in the writing specifying the alternate method.
(4)Proof of service of the notice shall be filed with the transit district.
(5)If a person contests a notice of prohibition order, the transit district shall proceed in accordance with subdivision (c). If the notice of prohibition order is not contested within 10 calendar days after delivery by personal service, the prohibition order shall be deemed final and shall go into effect, without further action by the transit district, for the period of time set forth in the order.
(6)All prohibition orders shall be subject to an automatic stay and shall not take effect until the latest of the following:
(A)Eleven calendar days after delivery of the prohibition order by personal service.
(B)If an initial review is timely requested under paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), 11 calendar days after delivery by personal service of the results of the review.
(C)If an administrative hearing is timely requested under paragraph (3) of subdivision (c), the date the hearing officers decision is delivered by personal service.
(c)(1)For a period of 10 calendar days from the delivery of the prohibition order by personal service, the person may request an initial review of the prohibition order by the transit district. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. In conducting its review and reaching a determination, the transit district shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order is not adequately supported or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of the prohibition order appropriate in the interest of justice, the transit district shall cancel the notice. If, following the initial review, based on these findings, the transit district determines that the prohibition order should be upheld in whole or in part, the transit district shall issue a written statement to that effect, including any modification to the period or scope of the prohibition order. The transit district shall serve the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice by personal service.
(2)The transit district may modify or cancel a prohibition order in the interest of justice. The transit district shall cancel a prohibition order if it determines that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(3)If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may request an administrative hearing of the prohibition order no later than 10 calendar days after the results of the initial review are delivered by personal service. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. An administrative hearing shall be held within 30 calendar days after the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed seven calendar days.
(4)The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
(A)The person requesting the hearing shall have the choice of a hearing by mail or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the transit district.
(B)The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the transit district and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the transit district. The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the prohibition order.
(C)The administrative review shall be conducted before a hearing officer designated to conduct the review by the transit districts governing body or chief executive officer. In addition to any other requirements, a hearing officer shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity prescribed by the transit agencys governing body or chief executive officer as are necessary to fulfill and that are consistent with the duties and responsibilities set forth in this subdivision. The hearing officers continued service, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits, as applicable, shall not be directly or indirectly linked to the number of prohibition orders upheld by the hearing officer.
(D)The person who issued the notice of prohibition order shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing, unless participation is requested by the person requesting the hearing. The request for participation shall be made at least five calendar days before the date of the hearing and may be made by telephone, in writing, or in person. The notice of prohibition order, in proper form, shall be prima facie evidence of the violation or violations pursuant to subdivision (a) establishing a rebuttable presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence.
(E)In issuing a decision, the hearing officer shall determine whether the prohibition order meets the requirements of subdivision (a) and, unless the person has been convicted of the offense or offenses, whether the offense or offenses for which the person was cited or arrested are proven by a preponderance of the evidence. Based upon these findings, the hearing officer may uphold the prohibition order in whole, determine that the prohibition order is not adequately supported, or cancel or modify the prohibition order in the interest of justice. The hearing officer shall cancel a prohibition order if they determine that the person did not understand the nature and extent of their actions or did not have the ability to control their actions. If the person is dependent upon the transit system for trips of necessity, including, but not limited to, travel to or from medical or legal appointments, school or training classes, places of employment, or obtaining food, clothing, and necessary household items, the transit district shall modify a prohibition order to allow for those trips. A person requesting a cancellation or modification in the interest of justice shall have the burden of establishing the qualifying circumstances by a preponderance of the evidence.
(F)The hearing officers decision following the administrative hearing shall be delivered by personal service.
(G)A person aggrieved by the final decision of the hearing officer may seek judicial review of the decision within 90 days of the date of delivery of the decision by personal service, as provided by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(d)A person issued a prohibition order under subdivision (a) may, within 10 calendar days of the date the order goes into effect under paragraph (6) of subdivision (b), request a refund for any prepaid fare media rendered unusable in whole or in part by the prohibition order, including, but not limited to, monthly passes. If the fare media remain usable for one or more days outside the period of the prohibition order, the refund shall be prorated based on the number of days the fare media will be unusable. The issuance of a refund may be made contingent on surrender of the fare media.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
SEC. 2.Section 99172 of the Public Utilities Code is amended to read:99172.(a)Prior to Before exercising the authority given in subdivision (a) of Section 99171 to issue prohibition orders, a transit district shall do all of the following:
(1)Establish an advisory committee for the purpose of evaluating the procedures for and issuance of prohibition orders and recommending a course of training for personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders.
(2)Ensure that personnel to be charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders have received training as recommended by the advisory committee.
(3)Provide reasonable notification to transit district riders that persons who engage in disorderly conduct may be subject to a prohibition order barring the person from the transit districts property, facilities, or vehicles for a period of up to one year. Reasonable notification may include, but is not limited to, information on the transit districts Internet Web site, internet website, in written materials, at transit stations, and on citations issued by the transit district of the types of conduct that may result in issuance of a prohibition order.
(b)The advisory committee shall be composed of at least five members appointed by the legislative body of the transit district. At least one of the members of the advisory committee shall have experience working with individuals with psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities, at least one member shall be a youth advocate, and at least one member shall have law enforcement experience.
(c)The advisory committee shall be tasked, at a minimum, with all of the following:
(1)Providing recommendations, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, regarding the type and extent of training that should be undertaken by individuals with responsibility for issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders, with particular emphasis on training designed to assist those individuals in identifying and interacting with persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities.
(2)Identifying, in consultation with the county mental health director within the service area of the transit district, services and programs to which persons who are homeless or who have psychiatric, developmental, or other disabilities may be referred by transit district enforcement personnel prior to before or in conjunction with issuance of a prohibition order.
(3)Monitoring the issuance of prohibition orders to assist the transit district in ensuring compliance with Section 51 of the Civil Code.
(4)Providing the governing board of the transit district and the Legislature with an annual report summarizing the number of prohibition orders that were issued by the transit district during the preceding year, including, but not limited to, the types and numbers of citations by category, and the number of exclusion orders appealed, the appeals granted, the reasons granted, and other relevant information directly related to those orders.
(d)The transit district may use an existing advisory committee to fulfill the requirements of this section, provided that the composition and purpose of the existing advisory committee meet or are modified to meet the requirements of this section.
(e)For purposes of this section, transit district means the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. District, or the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Jul 13, 2023 | Chaptered by Secretary of State - Chapter 69, Statutes of 2023. |
| Jul 13, 2023 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Jul 3, 2023 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m. |
| Jun 22, 2023 | In Assembly. Ordered to Engrossing and Enrolling. |
| Jun 22, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Assembly. (Ayes 39. Noes 0. Page 1681.). |
| Jun 15, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Jun 14, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 16. Noes 0.) (June 13). |
| May 10, 2023 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| May 2, 2023 | In Senate. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. |
| May 1, 2023 | Read third time. Passed. Ordered to the Senate. (Ayes 78. Noes 0. Page 1412.) |
| Apr 26, 2023 | Read second time. Ordered to Consent Calendar. |
| Apr 25, 2023 | From committee: Do pass. To Consent Calendar. (Ayes 15. Noes 0.) (April 24). |
| Mar 9, 2023 | Referred to Com. on TRANS. |
| Feb 18, 2023 | From printer. May be heard in committee March 20. |
| Feb 17, 2023 | Read first time. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 22, 2023 | Consent Calendar AB1735 Low | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Jun 13, 2023 | Do pass and be ordered to the Consent Calendar | Senate Standing Committee on Transportation |
Passed |
|
| May 1, 2023 | AB 1735 Low Consent Calendar Second Day | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Apr 24, 2023 | Do pass. To Consent Calendar. | 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
|
|---|---|---|
| American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees | ** Support | |
| California Conference Board Of The Amalgamated Transit Union | ** Support | |
| Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, Ifpte, Afl-Cio | ** Support | |
| Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority | ** Support |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | AB 1735 |
CONSENT
Bill No: AB 1735
Author: Low (D)
Introduced: 2/17/23
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE: 16-0, 6/13/23
AYES: Gonzalez, Niello, Allen, Archuleta, Becker, Blakespear, Cortese, Dahle, Dodd, Limón, McGuire, Newman, Nguyen, Seyarto, Umberg, Wahab
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/1/23 (Consent) - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Transit districts: prohibition orders
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) the authority currently provided to specified transit districts to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express (FAX), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district, or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which BART owes policing responsibilities, as specified, for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Extending any portion of the body through a window opening of a transit vehicle in a manner that may cause harm or injury;
- Throwing an object from a transit vehicle;
- Committing an act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses.
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee. Tasks the advisory committee with responsibilities, as specified. Authorizes existing advisory committees to be used if appropriate.
- Defines “transit district” to mean the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
This bill authorizes VTA to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
Comments
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “By adding VTA to the list of agencies afforded authority to issue prohibition orders under state law, AB 1735 provides VTA with a tool to enhance the safety of public transit workers and passengers, improve the rider experience, and promote public transit ridership.”
- VTA. VTA provides bus, light rail, and paratransit services throughout Santa Clara County, as well as participates as a funding partner in regional rail service including Caltrain, Capital Corridor, and the Altamont Corridor Express. VTA also serves as Santa Clara County’s congestion management agency responsible for countywide transportation planning, including congestion management, design and construction of specific highway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement projects, as well as promotion of transit oriented development.
VTA’s service area includes the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.
- Transit Prohibition Orders. Public transit systems in the state and across the country experience complaints from riders and employees regarding safety and security. AB 716 (Dickinson, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011), authorized the creation of a three-year pilot program to allow BART to issue prohibition orders, which allow BART to deny passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities for a specified amount of time. In 2013, BART initiated its AB 716 program, which also required BART to provide the Legislature with annual reports on the program. The program was made permanent with the passage of AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017).
The California Legislature has extended the authority to issue prohibition orders to SacRT, LA Metro, FAX, and authorized BART to issue prohibition orders on VTA property shared with BART. This bill would extend to VTA the authority to issue prohibition orders on other VTA property.
- Protection of VTA workers is paramount. According to VTA, the sponsors of the bill, “VTA is seeking this authority to ensure it can support employees that have been assaulted by passengers by taking steps to keep assailants from victims. When a transit worker is facing potential threats from a violent rider today, they must seek restraining orders through the court system to prevent future harassment and assault. This authority would allow VTA to move proactively to keep violent persons from interacting with VTA employees without the need for such lengthy court proceedings.
“Assaults on operators increased during the pandemic, exacerbating an already challenging problem of the recruitment and retention of transit workers. According to a Transit Center report, Bus Operators in Crisis, “Operators are increasingly assaulted on the job, which has decreased the desirability of the profession. Many potential employees are wary of, if not opposed to, taking a job that could involve hostile interactions with the public. According to the Federal Transit Administration, data shows that operator assaults per unlinked passenger trip increased fourfold from 2009 to 2020. Operators have a legitimate fear that their job could put them in harm’s way. Though most of their interactions with the public are friendly, the job requires operators to intervene in potentially dangerous situations. Fare enforcement and intervening in onboard incidents can escalate and put operators in harm’s way. Traffic incidents can also put operators in harm’s way and subject them to abuse from angry drivers in cars and trucks. On the road, operators are often on their own should something occur. This is especially true during overnight runs on routes that serve less populated areas.”
Related/Prior Legislation
AB 1337 (Lee, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2021) extended the authority of specified transit district entities to issue prohibition orders to include the property, facilities and vehicles on which it owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to agreement, and expands current law to make entering or remaining on those properties without permission a misdemeanor.
AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017) repealed the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors, making BART’s authority to do so permanent.
AB 468 (Santiago, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017) added the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
SB 1154 (Hancock, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2014) extended the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities, until January 1, 2018.
AB 716 (Dickinson, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011) authorized the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, until January 1, 2015, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. AB 716 also removed the sunset provisions for Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, making their related authority permanent.
SB 1561 (Steinberg, Chapter 528, Statutes of 2008) authorized the Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, until January 1, 2012, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. SB 1561 also described the kinds of behaviors according to their potential severity and prescribes the progressive penalties based upon the severity and frequency of violations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
SUPPORT: (Verified 6/14/23)
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (source)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, IFPTE, AFL-CIO
OPPOSITION: (Verified 6/14/23)
None received
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT: According to the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), “When a VTA worker is assaulted and wants to prevent future attacks from the assailant, they must go through the courts to obtain a restraining order. Assembly Bill 1735 would allow VTA the authority to keep violent riders away from victims without burdening employees with lengthy court processes.
“The safety of public workers is our top priority, and we strive to make sure that VTA workers are protected from violence. Assembly Bill 1735 will ensure that this is realized.”
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 78-0, 5/1/23
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Alanis, Alvarez, Arambula, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bonta, Bryan, Calderon, Juan Carrillo, Wendy Carrillo, Cervantes, Chen, Connolly, Megan Dahle, Davies, Dixon, Essayli, Flora, Mike Fong, Vince Fong, Friedman, Gabriel, Gallagher, Garcia, Gipson, Grayson, Haney, Hart, Holden, Hoover, Irwin, Jackson, Jones-Sawyer, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Low, Lowenthal, Maienschein, Mathis, McCarty, Muratsuchi, Stephanie Nguyen, Ortega, Pacheco, Papan, Jim Patterson, Joe Patterson, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Reyes, Luz Rivas, Robert Rivas, Rodriguez, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Santiago, Schiavo, Ta, Ting, Valencia, Villapudua, Waldron, Wallis, Ward, Weber, Wicks, Wilson, Wood, Zbur, Rendon
NO VOTE RECORDED: McKinnor, Soria
Prepared by: Melissa White / TRANS. / (916) 651-4121
6/16/23 13:16:56
**** END ****
SENATE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Senator Lena Gonzalez, Chair
2023 - 2024 Regular
Bill No: Hearing Date: 6/13/2023
Author: | Low | ||
Version: | 2/17/2023 Introduced | ||
Urgency: | No | Fiscal: | No |
Consultant: | Melissa White | ||
SUBJECT:
DIGEST: This bill authorizes the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) the authority currently provided to specified transit districts to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express (FAX), Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or train or light rail station of the transit district, or a property, facility, or vehicle upon which BART owes policing responsibilities, as specified, for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Extending any portion of the body through a window opening of a transit vehicle in a manner that may cause harm or injury;
- Throwing an object from a transit vehicle;
- Committing an act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or,
- Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance.
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses.
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony.
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures.
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee. Tasks the advisory committee with responsibilities, as specified. Authorizes existing advisory committees to be used if appropriate.
- Defines “transit district” to mean the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.
This bill:
- Authorizes VTA to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
COMMENTS:
- Purpose of the bill. According to the author, “By adding VTA to the list of agencies afforded authority to issue prohibition orders under state law, AB 1735 provides VTA with a tool to enhance the safety of public transit workers and passengers, improve the rider experience, and promote public transit ridership.”
- VTA. VTA provides bus, light rail, and paratransit services throughout Santa Clara County, as well as participates as a funding partner in regional rail service including Caltrain, Capital Corridor, and the Altamont Corridor Express. VTA also serves as Santa Clara County’s congestion management agency responsible for countywide transportation planning, including congestion management, design and construction of specific highway, pedestrian, and bicycle improvement projects, as well as promotion of transit oriented development.
VTA’s service area includes the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale.
- Transit Prohibition Orders. Public transit systems in the state and across the country experience complaints from riders and employees regarding safety and security. AB 716 (Dickinson, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011), authorized the creation of a three-year pilot program to allow BART to issue prohibition orders, which allow BART to deny passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities for a specified amount of time. In 2013, BART initiated its AB 716 program, which also required BART to provide the Legislature with annual reports on the program. The program was made permanent with the passage of AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, statutes of 2017).
The California Legislature has extended the authority to issue prohibition orders to SacRT, LA Metro, FAX, and authorized BART to issue prohibition orders on VTA property shared with BART. This bill would extend to VTA the authority to issue prohibition orders on other VTA property.
- Protection of VTA workers is paramount. According to VTA, the sponsors of the bill, “VTA is seeking this authority to ensure it can support employees that have been assaulted by passengers by taking steps to keep assailants from victims. When a transit worker is facing potential threats from a violent rider today, they must seek restraining orders through the court system to prevent future harassment and assault. This authority would allow VTA to move proactively to keep violent persons from interacting with VTA employees without the need for such lengthy court proceedings.”
Assaults on operators increased during the pandemic, exacerbating an already challenging problem of the recruitment and retention of transit workers. According to a Transit Center report, Bus Operators in Crisis, “Operators are increasingly assaulted on the job, which has decreased the desirability of the profession. Many potential employees are wary of, if not opposed to, taking a job that could involve hostile interactions with the public. According to the Federal Transit Administration, data shows that operator assaults per unlinked passenger trip increased fourfold from 2009 to 2020. Operators have a legitimate fear that their job could put them in harm’s way. Though most of their interactions with the public are friendly, the job requires operators to intervene in potentially dangerous situations. Fare enforcement and intervening in onboard incidents can escalate and put operators in harm’s way. Traffic incidents can also put operators in harm’s way and subject them to abuse from angry drivers in cars and trucks. On the road, operators are often on their own should something occur. This is especially true during overnight runs on routes that serve less populated areas.”
Related/PREVIOUS Legislation:
AB 1337 (Lee, Chapter 534, Statues of 2021) -- Extended the authority of specified transit district entities to issue prohibition orders to include the property, facilities and vehicles on which it owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to agreement, and expands current law to make entering or remaining on those properties without permission a misdemeanor.
AB 730 (Quirk, Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017) -- Repealed the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors, making BART’s authority to do so permanent.
AB 468 (Santiago, Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017) -- Added the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
SB 1154 (Hancock, Chapter 559, Statutes of 2014) -- Extended the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities, until January 1, 2018.
AB 716 (Dickinson, Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011) -- Authorized the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, until January 1, 2015, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. AB 716 also removed the sunset provisions for Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, making their related authority permanent.
SB 1561 (Steinberg, Chapter 528, Statutes of 2008) -- Authorized the Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, until January 1, 2012, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. SB 1561 also described the kinds of behaviors according to their potential severity and prescribes the progressive penalties based upon the severity and frequency of violations.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the committee before noon on Wednesday,
Wednesday, June 7, 2023.)
SUPPORT:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (sponsor)
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, IFPTE, AFL-CIO
OPPOSITION:
None received
-- END --
Date of Hearing: April 24, 2023
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Laura Friedman, Chair
ABPCA Bill Id:AB 1735 (
Author:Low) – As Introduced Ver:February 17, 2023
SUBJECT: Transit districts: prohibition orders
SUMMARY: Grants Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) the authority currently provided to specified transit districts to issue prohibition orders to any person cited for committing a specified act.
EXISTING LAW:
- Provides that any person who enters or remains upon the property of any railroad without the permission of the owner of the land, the owner’s agent, or the person in lawful possession and whose entry, presence, or conduct upon the property interferes with, interrupts, or hinders, or which, if allowed to continue, would interfere with, interrupt, or hinder the safe and efficient operation of any locomotive, railway car, or train is guilty of a misdemeanor. (Penal Code section (PEN) 369).
- Defines “property of any railroad” as any land owned, leased, or possessed by a railroad upon which is placed a railroad track and the land immediately adjacent thereto, to the distance of 20 feet on either side of the track, which that is owned, leased, or possessed by a railroad. (PEN369i)
- Provides that any person who enters or remains upon any transit-related property without permission or whose entry, presence, or conduct upon the property interferes with, interrupts, or hinders the safe and efficient operation of the transit-related facility is guilty of a misdemeanor. (PEN 369i)
- Defines “transit-related property” as any land, facilities, or vehicles owned, leased, or possessed by a county transportation commission, transportation authority, or transit district, as specified, that are used to provide public transportation by rail or passenger bus or are directly related to that use. (PEN 369i)
- Specifies that these provisions do not prohibit picketing in the immediately adjacent area of the property of any railroad or transit-related property or any lawful activity by which the public is informed of the existence of an alleged labor dispute. (PEN 369i)
- Authorizes Sacramento Regional Transit District (SacRT), the Fresno Area Express, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) to issue a prohibition order to any person who, on at least three separate occasions within a period of 90 consecutive days, is cited for an infraction committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district for any of the following acts:
- Interfering with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impeding the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Committing any act or engaging in any behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Willfully disturbing others on or in a transit facility or vehicle by engaging in boisterous or unruly behavior;
- Carrying an explosive, acid, or flammable liquid in a public transit facility or vehicle;
- Urinating or defecating in a transit facility or vehicle, except in a lavatory;
- Willfully blocking the free movement of another person in a transit facility or vehicle; or, Defacing with graffiti the interior or exterior of the facilities or vehicles of a public transportation system. (Public utilities code section (PUC) 99171)
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person arrested or convicted for any misdemeanor or felony committed in or on a vehicle, bus stop, or light rail station of the transit district, for acts involving violence, threats of violence, lewd or lascivious behavior, or possession for sale or sale of a controlled substance. (PUC 99171)
- Authorizes a prohibition order to be issued to a person convicted of loitering with the intent to commit specified drug offenses or loitering with intent to commit prostitution. (PUC 99171)
- Prohibits a person subject to a prohibition order from entering the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district for a period of time deemed appropriate by the transit district, provided that the duration of the prohibition order does not exceed the following specified time limits:
- 30 days for a first order, 90 days for a second order within one year, and 180 days for a third order within one year related to infractions; or,
- 30 days if issued pursuant to an arrest for a misdemeanor or felony offense. Upon conviction for the offense, the order may be extended to a total of 180 days for a misdemeanor and one year for a felony. (PUC 99171)
- Specifies prohibition processes, notification procedures, and hearing and appeal procedures. (PUC 99171)
- Requires the transit district to establish an advisory committee and to ensure that personnel charged with issuance and enforcement of prohibition orders receive training as emphasized and as recommended by the advisory committee. Tasks the advisory committee with responsibilities, as specified. Authorizes existing advisory committees to be used if appropriate. (PUC 99172.)
- Defines “transit district” to mean the Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express, or the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. (PUC 99171).
- Establishes categories of peace officers with varying powers and authority to make arrests and carry firearms. (PEN 830.33.)
- Provides that a member of the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Police Department is a peace officer whose authority extends to any place in the state for the purpose of enforcing the law in or about the properties owned, operated, and administered by the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, when performing necessary duties with respect to patrons, employees, and properties of the district, or when making an arrest if there is immediate danger to a person or property or of an escape of the perpetrator of an offense. (PEN 830.33.)
- Makes it an infraction for a person to do any of the following with respect to the property, facilities, or vehicles of a transit district;
- Operate, interfere with, enter into, or climb on or in the property, facilities, or vehicles of the transit district without permission;
- Interfere with the operator or operation of a transit vehicle, or impede the safe boarding or alighting of passengers;
- Extend any portion of the body through a window opening of a transit vehicle in a manner that may cause harm or injury;
- Throw an object from a transit vehicle;
- Commit an act or engage in a behavior that may, with reasonable foreseeability, cause harm or injury to any person or property;
- Violate a notice, prohibition, instruction, or direction on a sign that is intended to provide for the safety and security of transit passengers, or the safe and secure operation of the transit system;
- Knowingly give false information to a district employee, or contracted security officer, engaged in the enforcement of a district ordinance or a state law, or otherwise obstruct the issuance of a citation for the violation of a district ordinance or a state law; or,
- Violate any of the conditions established by a transit district ordinance under which a passenger may board a transit vehicle with a bicycle and where that bicycle may be stowed on the transit vehicle. (PUC 99170)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
AB 716 (Dickinson), Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011 authorized the creation of a three-year pilot program to allow BART to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. In 2013, BART initiated its AB 716 program, which also required BART to provide the Legislature with annual reports on the program. The program was made permanent with the passage of AB 730 (Quirk), Chapter 46, statutes of 2017.
Since then, the California Legislature has extended the authority to issue prohibition orders to Sacramento Regional Transit District, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Fresno Area Express and authorized BART to issue prohibition orders on Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) property shared with BART. This bill would extend to VTA the authority to issue prohibition orders on other VTA property.
According to the author, “By adding VTA to the list of agencies afforded authority to issue prohibition orders under state law, AB 1735 provides VTA with a tool to enhance the safety of public transit workers and passengers, improve the rider experience, and promote public transit ridership.”
According to a Transit Center report, Bus Operators in Crisis, “Operators are increasingly assaulted on the job, which has decreased the desirability of the profession. Many potential employees are wary of, if not opposed to, taking a job that could involve hostile interactions with the public. According to The Federal Transit Administration, data shows that operator assaults per unlinked passenger trip increased fourfold from 2009 to 2020. Operators have a legitimate fear that their job could put them in harm’s way. Though most of their interactions with the public are friendly, the job requires operators to intervene in potentially dangerous situations. Fare enforcement and intervening in onboard incidents can escalate and put operators in harm’s way. Traffic incidents can also put operators in harm’s way and subject them to abuse from angry drivers in cars and trucks. On the road, operators are often on their own should something occur. This is especially true during overnight runs on routes that serve less populated areas.”
VTA, the sponsor of this bill, argues “VTA is seeking this authority to ensure it can support employees that have been assaulted by passengers by taking steps to keep assailants from victims. When a transit worker is facing potential threats from a violent rider today, they must seek restraining orders through the court system to prevent future harassment and assault. This authority would allow VTA to move proactively to keep violent persons from interacting with VTA employees without the need for such lengthy court proceedings.”
Previous legislation:
AB 1337 (Lee), Chapter 534, Statues of 2021 extended the authority of specified transit district entities to issue prohibition orders to include the property, facilities and vehicles on which it owes policing responsibilities to a local government pursuant to agreement, and expands current law to make entering or remaining on those properties without permission a misdemeanor.
AB 730 (Quirk), Chapter 46, Statutes of 2017 repealed the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors, making BART’s authority to do so permanent.
AB 468 (Santiago), Chapter 192, Statutes of 2017 added the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) to the transit districts authorized to issue prohibition orders to passengers committing certain illegal behaviors.
SB 1154 (Hancock), Chapter 559, Statutes of 2014, in part, extended the sunset on the law that allows BART to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities, until January 1, 2018.
AB 716 (Dickinson), Chapter 534, Statutes of 2011 in part, authorized the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District, until January 1, 2015, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. AB 716 also removed the sunset provisions for Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, making their related authority permanent.
SB 1561 (Steinberg), Chapter 528, Statutes of 2008 authorized the Sacramento Regional Transit District and the Fresno Area Express, until January 1, 2012, to issue prohibition orders denying passengers committing certain illegal behaviors entry onto transit vehicles and facilities. SB 1561 also described the kinds of behaviors according to their potential severity and prescribes the progressive penalties based upon the severity and frequency of violations.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
Professional & Technical Engineers, Local 21, IFPTE, AFL-CIO
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: David Sforza / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093
Bill Author
Bill Co-Author(s):