BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES AND WATER
Senator Fran Pavley, Chair
2015 - 2016 Regular
Bill No: SB 218 Hearing Date: January 12,
2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Author: |Huff | | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Version: |May 6, 2015 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Urgency: |No |Fiscal: |No |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|Consultant:|William Craven |
| | |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Vehicles: local authorities
Comments on Reconsideration:
The following seven points have been added to the bill analysis
and the support and opposition has been updated since the last
hearing. The bill analysis from May, 2015, is otherwise included
in its entirety at the end of the seven new points.
This bill failed in this committee on May 12, 2015, by a vote of
2-2. To summarize the committee's deliberations, subsequent
actions by Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
(MRCA), and other pertinent developments, the following points
are offered:
1. Several senators had questions or concerns about the
MRCA photo enforcement program. MRCA agreed at the hearing,
following these expressions of concern, to undertake an
evaluation of its program, including the placement of stop
signs, alternatives to the stop signs, and additional ways
to improve and protect public safety. The results of that
evaluation are included in #5-7, below.
2. There was also a concern that the current version of SB
218, as amended in the Senate last year, includes all park
districts and joint powers authorities in the state, with
unknown but potential consequences on various local traffic
ordinances. In other words, the bill may have effects on
local park districts other than MRCA. Based on that
amendment, late opposition to the bill was received by the
SB 218 (Huff) Page 2
of ?
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts
that is now reflected in this analysis.
3. In the meantime, the Second District Court of Appeal
issued a published decision in Everett v. Mountains
Recreation and Conservation Authority , a class action
challenge to the MRCA photo enforcement program. That
opinion was released in July, 2015. The court unanimously
held that MRCA's video camera was not in violation of the
Vehicle Code or any other provision of law. This case is
now binding since the California Supreme Court declined
further review.
4. The court relied on the MRCA ordinance that authorizes
automated enforcement, and the Vehicle Code provision
referenced in #2 Existing Law, below. In addition, as a
joint powers authority, MRCA possesses the "common power"
of its creating agencies, all of whom, in this case, have
statutory power based in provisions in the Public Resources
Code to adopt specified ordinances. The court specifically
concluded that MRCA's management of its parkslands may be
different from the traffic provisions in the Vehicle Code.
5. MRCA contracted with Kimley-Horn to assess the public
safety rationale for stop signs at seven controlled
intersections within MRCA's jurisdiction. The report's
major conclusion was that "given the unique site conditions
at the [seven] locations and safety concerns due to
pedestrian vehicular interactions and speeding, Stop signs
were necessary at these study locations."
The study determined that the vast majority of vehicles were
violating speed limits by relatively modest amounts, often 3-8
miles per hour above the posted speed limits which are either 15
or 25 miles per hour. The speeding was measured by radar guns.
6. However, the Kimley-Horn study also made several
recommendations to MRCA which are in the process of being
finalized and implemented by the end of this month,
according to the most recent MRCA letter in opposition to
SB 218.
7. These changes include the following:
a) Improved spacing between stop signs and
pedestrian crosswalks at Franklin Canyon/trailhead,
Topanga Canyon Blvd., and other locations;
b) Standardizing various traffic signs
regarding speed limits, stop ahead signs, photo
enforcement warning signs, and photo enforced signs
SB 218 (Huff) Page 3
of ?
posted on Stop posts;
c) Increase spacing of signs at certain
locations to reduce motorist confusion;
d) Trim vegetation that reduces motorist
sightlines to traffic signs;
e) Replace signs in Franklin Canyon with
those that meet current standards on reflectivity.
BACKGROUND AND EXISTING LAW
1. The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) is
a joint powers authority formed by the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy, the Conejo Recreation and Park District, and the
Rancho Simi Recreation and Park District. The authority was
created to acquire, develop, and conserve park and open-space
lands with a special emphasis on recreation and conservation
projects, to protect and conserve watersheds, and to develop
river parkways.
MRCA manages and provides ranger services to 69,000 acres of
public lands, including those owned by the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy. Much of this land separates the San
Fernando Valley from the Los Angeles basin, making some of the
roads through these parks an alternative route for Los
Angeles-area commuters.
2. The Vehicle Code was amended in 2010 (SB 949) in legislation
authored by Senator Jennie Oropeza to preempt local government
traffic ordinances that created violations that were duplicative
of state vehicle code violations. However, that legislation
contained an explicit limited exception for the MRCA.
This exception is in section 21(b) of the Vehicle Code and
states in full: "To the extent permitted by current state law,
this section does not impair the current lawful authority of the
Mountains and Recreation and Conservation Authority, a joint
powers authority, or any member agency constituted therein as of
July 1, 2010, to enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to
the management of public lands within its jurisdiction."
MRCA has used this provision to support an automated traffic
SB 218 (Huff) Page 4
of ?
enforcement program at seven stop signs in its parks. Violations
result in administrative citations with fines equal to $100 for
the first violation, $200 for a second violation within a year,
and $500 for subsequent violations within the year.
MRCA issues administrative citations, which means that the
violations do not count against an individual's driving record.
Appeals of violations are handled internally, and those appeals
can be taken to the Superior Court. In 2013, 24,356 tickets were
issued. Over the last three calendar years the MRCA received
about $1.5 million annually in gross revenues from the program,
which resulted in about $700,000 in net revenue to MRCA.
3. The Recreation and Park District statute, beginning at Public
Resources Code section 5786, authorizes local park districts
such as the two local district members of the MRCA, to acquire,
operate, and maintain recreation facilities including parking,
transportation, and other related services that improve the
community's quality of life. The act authorizes these local
parks districts to adopt ordinances on any of the activities
authorized by the act and to enter into joint powers agreements.
4. Section 33211.5 of the Public Resources Code requires all
vehicles within the boundary of the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy to conform to all posted signs, and Section 33211(c)
authorizes the conservancy to do "any and all other things
necessary to carry out the purposes" set forth in the applicable
division of state law, which includes section 33211.5.
PROPOSED LAW
This bill adds "a joint powers authority, and a park district"
to the definition of "local authorities" in the Vehicle Code
which would expand the pre-emption accomplished by SB 949 to
such entities. A second provision states that notwithstanding
any other law, no local agency may use an automated traffic
enforcement system at stop signs. This provision would override
the MRCA photo enforcement program.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT
The author is concerned that current law does not authorize
automated traffic enforcement system at stop signs, and that the
Vehicle Code provision that applies to the MRCA is being used to
justify stop sign cameras and, not incidentally, to generate
SB 218 (Huff) Page 5
of ?
significant revenues.
The author argues that MRCA operates this automated traffic
enforcement system outside the purview of the rules established
for other automated traffic enforcement systems (such as red
light cameras).
Other proponents argue that some of the stop signs are located
in unreasonable or illogical places such as 26 feet before an
intersection or within a parking lot at which there is a
crosswalk.
They are unconvinced by MRCA's traffic studies which they
contend were designed to justify the MRCA photo enforcement
program. They also point to two unpublished court decisions
which disagreed with MRCA's interpretation of Vehicle Code
Section 21.
The opposition also argues that due process issues are presented
in that citations are issued with no certifiable witness and
with the possibility of inadequate or untimely notification. The
camera takes photos of license plates, not individual drivers,
so a car owner may pay for a violation committed by someone
using that car.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION
MRCA manages nearly 70,000 acres of parkland throughout southern
California. One of its core objectives is to preserve valuable
open space that is directly adjacent to the dense urban center
of the greater Los Angeles area. The majority of these parklands
are preserved in its natural state as undeveloped land. This not
only provides enduring habitat for plants and wildlife, but also
allows park visitors an authentic outdoor recreational
experience in close proximity to a very large urban area. Many
of the MRCA parks are located in the Santa Monica
Mountains/Hollywood Hills, which divide the San Fernando Valley
to the north from the Los Angeles basin to the south. The
locations of these parks often make the small park roads
attractive for drivers looking to cut down on their commute
time.
According to MRCA, many of the park roads it manages are often
narrow, winding, and may have obstructed sightlines. While these
roads are open to private vehicles, they were never designed to
meet modern design standards. The roads are also used by
SB 218 (Huff) Page 6
of ?
pedestrians walking to and from parking lots, park facilities,
and trail heads.
MRCA states that it is not uncommon to see vehicles ignoring
traffic signs and speeding past parents pushing strollers,
bicyclists, hikers, and dog walkers. MRCA views the combination
of recreational users and frustrated commuters as a significant
public safety challenge.
The MRCA ordinance was developed to address the
vehicle/pedestrian interface in these parks. MRCA states that it
also commissioned several traffic studies which underscored the
need for traffic control methods, including stop signs, at
several park locations.
It believes that stationing rangers on a regular basis at the
seven locations instead of using photo enforcement is
impractical.
It is not seeking to expand its current program. Its opposition
is based on its view that the Legislature should not alter the
recognition of the MRCA in the Vehicle Code. It believes that
SB 218 would cripple the authority of MRCA to safely provide
sound traffic management in areas under its jurisdiction.
COMMENTS
1. The Committee may consider the bill problematic if it is
persuaded that the MRCA traffic enforcement program is not in
conflict with existing state law and therefore should not be
eliminated by this bill.
2. It is not clear whether the recent amendment that adds "a
joint powers authority, and a park district" in the definition
of "local authorities" in the Vehicle Code would have one or
more unknown consequences. The amendment deletes the reference
to MRCA and adds "a joint powers authority, and a park
district." That language is more expansive than the previous
reference to the MRCA alone. It would clearly include the MRCA
joint powers authority which consists of the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy and two local park districts-but it would
seem to apply to any joint powers authority and any park
SB 218 (Huff) Page 7
of ?
district regardless of whether such park district is a member of
a joint powers authority.
3. As a consequence, the Committee may consider the bill
problematic if it is persuaded that other joint powers
authorities and park districts may face unknown consequences.
For example, in a 2011 opinion involving the very MRCA practice
targeted in this bill, the appellate division of the LA County
Superior Court, in a published opinion, pointed out that "by
express language [see references in the Existing Law section of
this analysis], the Legislature authorized agencies such as the
MRCA to regulate traffic within their districts so long as the
regulations are not in conflict with state law." The court was
clearly stating that parks agencies, including the MRCA, have
some latitude regarding their traffic regulations. The court
concluded that the MRCA ordinance is not in conflict with any
Vehicle Code provisions regarding stop signs. Of course, that
would change if this bill is passed.
4. It is not known how many other park districts in California
have utilized the Recreation and Park District statute to
regulate parking or transportation within their boundaries or
whether such regulations would survive if this bill's amendments
to the Vehicle Code (not just regarding photo enforcement, but
on other issues as well, such as speed limits or other vehicular
safety issues) are interpreted to pre-empt those regulations.
SUPPORT
Arias Ozzello and Gignac, LLP
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Construction Trucking Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
National Motorists Association
Peace Officers Research Association of California
Safer Streets LA
SB 218 (Huff) Page 8
of ?
168 Individuals (via email)
OPPOSITION
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers
California Association of Recreation and Park Districts.
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
Conejo Recreation and Park District
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
Oak Forest Canyon Homeowners Association
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
Sickle Cell Disease Foundation of California
-- END --