BILL ANALYSIS SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: ab 101 SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: ma VERSION: 5/9/07 Analysis by: Mark Stivers FISCAL: no Hearing date: June 19, 2007 SUBJECT: Video enforcement of parking violations in San Francisco DESCRIPTION: This bill allows San Francisco 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 and during posted street sweeping hours. ANALYSIS: Current state law establishes various parking offenses and provides local governments with limited ability to adopt local ordinances establishing additional parking offenses. Parking offenses are civil rather than criminal violations, subject only to a civil penalty. A parking citation must include the violation, the date and time, the location, the penalty payment due date, and the procedure for the owner to pay the penalty or contest the citation. The citation must also include the license number and registration expiration date, the last four digits of the vehicle identification number (VIN), and the color and make of the vehicle. If a person wishes to contest a parking citation, he or she may request a free initial review by the issuing agency within 21 days. If the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, that the registered owner was not responsible for the violation, or that extenuating circumstances make dismissal of AB 101 (MA) Page 2 the citation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency cancels the citation. If the person is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, he or she may request an administrative hearing with the citation processing agency within 21 days following the mailing of the results of the initial review. Along with the request, the person must deposit the amount of the penalty with the processing agency unless he or she can demonstrate an inability to pay. The hearing must be conducted by a qualified examiner and provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of the contested parking violation. The officer or person who issued the citation is not required to participate in the hearing, and the ticket itself is prima facie evidence of the violation. Ultimately, a person may contest a negative hearing decision in superior court. This bill allows San Francisco 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 and during posted street sweeping hours. Specifically, the bill: Requires San Francisco to issue a public announcement 30 days prior to issuing citations and to issue only warnings during the 30-day period. Requires a designated city employee to review videotaped recordings and determine if a violation of parking restrictions has occurred. Requires a designated city employee to issue a citation within 15 days of the violation. Requires the citation to include the violation occurring in a transit-only traffic lane or during posted street sweeping hours, the payment due date, and the process of paying or contesting the citation, but not the date, time, or location. Requires the citation to also include the license number, registration expiration date, and the color and make of the vehicle, but not the last four digits of the VIN. Requires the city to serve the citation by mail to the registered owner's last known address listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV). Requires the city to send information on how to review the videotape along with the citation. Allows the registered owner of the vehicle to review the videotape of the alleged violation. AB 101 (MA) Page 3 Requires the city, consistent with current law, to cancel a citation if it determines that, in the interest of justice, the citation should be canceled. Allows an owner, consistent with current law, to request an initial review, to request an administrative hearing, and ultimately, to contest the citation in court. Allows the city, consistent with current law, to contract with a private vendor for processing citations and notice of delinquent violation. Allows the city to retain videotape evidence for six months or until final disposition of the citation and then requires the city to destroy the videotape. Requires the city, if it implements this authority, to report to the transportation committees of the Legislature by July 1, 2011 on the program's effectiveness. Sunsets this authority on January 1, 2012. COMMENTS: 1.Purpose of the bill . According to the author, San Francisco's 14.8 miles of transit-only lanes are essential to the timeliness of city's public transportation system (Muni). Parking in these lanes can significantly increase the time it takes to make even a short bus journey and inconvenience other road users. Only by reducing the amount of illegal parking in San Francisco's transit-only lanes can Muni service improve sufficiently to meet its on-time performance goals and encourage people to leave cars at home and take transit. In the case of street sweepers, parking control officers (PCOs) currently patrol ahead of street sweeper vehicles, ticketing vehicles parked illegally in designated zones. While assigned to this duty, approximately 51 PCOs are unavailable for enforcement of other violations that impede the efficiency of the multi-modal transit system and jeopardize public safety. Street sweeping violations consume a significant amount of resources, while transit-critical violations are under-enforced. By creating alternative enforcement options, this bill will help improve Muni performance and free up valuable resources for higher-priority parking violations and enforcement demands. 2.Significant cost savings . Allowing an individual to issue tickets based on videotape from an office will cost much less than employing PCOs to patrol city streets. The revenue generated per ticket, however, remains the same. If it chooses to implement this authority, San Francisco is likely AB 101 (MA) Page 4 to see a significant increase in revenue based both on the increased number of tickets issued and the increased surplus per ticket. 3.Other photo enforcement programs . California law has authorized the use of red light cameras since 1996. Because red light violations are criminal offenses, citations may only be issued by law enforcement personnel. According to the author, London has been effectively using cameras on buses since 1997 to cite parking violations. 4.Date, time, and location . In contrast with current law, this bill does not require parking citations issued with video evidence to include the date, time, or location of the violation. These pieces of information are helpful, or even critical, to a violator who wishes to recall or contest the citation. Given that consumer camcorders can date and time stamp video footage, city cameras could presumably capture this information at minimal cost. Location, however, would be difficult to verify without employing more expensive Global Positioning System technology and linking it to the cameras. The committee may wish to consider whether citations should include at least the date and time of the violation. 5.Ensuring proper delivery . With respect to issuing the citation, the bill requires only that the city deposit the notice in the U.S. mail addressed to the registered owner's last known address listed with the DMV. To the extent that DMV records are outdated or that the mail is simply not delivered correctly, there is no guarantee that the owner of the vehicle will receive this notice. The bill is silent on what happens in such a case. Presumably, the citation remains outstanding and begins to accrue late charges and penalties. In order to ensure that violators are actually aware of the violation, the committee may wish to consider requiring that the citations be sent return receipt requested and canceled if the city does not receive the return receipt. 6.Confidentiality of video evidence . The law related to red light cameras photos requires that the photos be confidential and made available only to the violator, governmental agencies, and law enforcement agencies for the purposes of the red light camera program. The committee may wish to consider a similar requirement for videotape of parking violations. 7.Double referral . The Senate Rules Committee has referred this AB 101 (MA) Page 5 bill both to the Transportation and Housing Committee and the Judiciary Committee. If the committee approves this bill, it will be re-referred to the Judiciary Committee. 8.Technical amendments : On page 4, line 7 strike "may" and insert "shall" On page 5, line 15 strike "July" and insert "March" Assembly Votes: Floor: 72-0 Trans: 14-0 POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on Wednesday, June 13, 2007) SUPPORT: San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom (sponsor) San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (sponsor) San Francisco Bicycle Coalition OPPOSED: None received.