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.