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.