BILL ANALYSIS Ó
SB 413
Page 1
SENATE THIRD READING
SB
413 (Wieckowski)
As Amended July 1, 2015
Majority vote
SENATE VOTE: 40-0
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Transportation |16-0 |Frazier, Achadjian, | |
| | |Baker, Bloom, Campos, | |
| | |Chu, Daly, Dodd, | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Gomez, Kim, Linder, | |
| | |Medina, Melendez, | |
| | |Nazarian, O'Donnell | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Public Safety |7-0 |Quirk, Melendez, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Jones-Sawyer, Lackey, | |
| | |Lopez, Low, Santiago | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |17-0 |Gomez, Bigelow, | |
SB 413
Page 2
| | |Bloom, Bonta, | |
| | |Calderon, Chang, | |
| | |Daly, Eggman, | |
| | |Gallagher, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Jones, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Wagner, | |
| | |Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Makes changes to statutes governing prohibited conduct
on public transit properties. Specifically, this bill:
1)Clarifies that playing sound equipment on or in a transit
facility or vehicle or failing to comply with the warning of a
transit official regarding disturbing others with loud noise
is punishable as an infraction.
2)Makes failing to yield seating reserved for elderly or
disabled persons on public transit property punishable as an
infraction provided that the governing board of the public
transportation agency enacts an ordinance following a public
hearing on the issue.
3)Allows transit operators to levy administrative penalties
against minors who have committed certain violations on their
systems.
4)Clarifies what constitutes rail transit property.
SB 413
Page 3
5)Makes related, clarifying amendments.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, potential non-reimbursable costs to public transit
operators for enforcement, offset to some extent by fine
revenues.
COMMENTS: According to the author, transit agencies need to
have the ability to improve enforcement on rail and bus systems
so that they can improve service and provide a better passenger
experience for all transit users. To accomplish this, the
author has introduced this bill on behalf of the sponsor, the
California Transit Association, to provide for an administrative
process for minors to resolve citations (as an alternative to
going to court), to clarify various statutes with respect to
noise violations, to clarify what constitutes rail authority
property for the purposes of enforcement, and to provides
transit officers with the ability to enforce certain provisions
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Administrative Penalties for Minors: In 2006, SB 1749 (Migden),
Chapter 258, Statutes of 2006, authorized certain transit
operators to enforce administrative penalties for transit
violations. While SB 1749 provided this administrative process
for adults, it specifically precluded minors from using it with
the intention that forcing minors to go to court would serve as
a deterrent to engaging in prohibited conduct. As it stands,
minors are instead required to enter the court system with
respect to transit citations. This has overburdened the court
system and the author believes that supplanting the requirement
that minors go to court with resolving transit citations
administratively, would provide minors with a means to more
easily, quickly, and cost effectively resolve transit citations.
SB 413
Page 4
This proposed amendment has drawn mixed reaction from youth
advocates. The San Francisco Youth Commission supports the
provision for youth to use an administrative process to resolve
transit citations and their support letter notes that allowing
local transit agencies to use an administrative process to
address transit citations for minors makes it easier for youth
to resolve citations quickly and easily online thereby avoiding
the need to go to court where excessive penalties and
administrative fees are often assessed. They correctly point
out when criminal penalties are assessed; fees often end up
costing triple the base fine.
The Youth Law Center (YLC), on the other hand, contends that
replacing the option of going to court with an administrative
process would make it impossible for youth to "negotiate"
alternative penalties, such as community service in lieu of
fines. They also contend that online payment systems used by
transit entities are not a realistic option for indigent youth
who often lack computers, internet access, and credit cards.
Transit agencies have confirmed, however, that their
administrative processes do allow for all forms of payment
(cash, credit cards, and checks) as well as the ability to
substitute community service for fines.
Noise Violations: According to the author, different standards
are applied with respect to what constitutes a noise violation
on transit property. For example, the Penal Code states that
officers may cite an individual for "disturbing another person
with loud or unreasonable noise" while the Public Utilities Code
states that individuals may be cited for "playing sound
equipment on or in a system facility." To address
inconsistencies and provide regular enforcement, this bill
matches the wording with respect to noise violations and adds
the clarification that failing to comply with the warning of a
transit official related to a noise disturbance also constitutes
a violation. By adding this clarifying language, the author
hopes to make noise disturbance enforcement more uniform and
SB 413
Page 5
consistent.
The YLC contends that in an attempt to clarify the codes, this
bill has made the provision overly broad, implying that simply
playing sound equipment could be a citable offense. While it is
unlikely that a transit officer would issue a citation if
someone were simply listening to music on their iPod.
Rail Authority Property: This bill seeks to clarify what
constitutes a rail authority property. According to the
sponsor, transit officers often need to take enforcement action
to address activities occurring on adjunct facilities such as
tracks, culverts beneath tracks, viaducts, and facilities that
are leased rather than owned. This bill elucidates that transit
facilities include all properties owned or leased by the transit
operator, including stations and rail cars or buses and
associated facilities. By clarifying what constitutes a rail
authority property, this bill will allow transit operators to
better address prohibited conduct.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance: This bill
addresses the act of failing to give up designated priority
seating to elderly or disabled person, making failure to comply
a violation that can be cited as an infraction. Specifically,
the sponsor notes that in accordance with ADA requirements,
signs are posted in facilities specifying that individuals must
give up designated priority seating for elderly and disabled
persons, upon request. Transit entities, however, are not
authorized to cite passengers who refuse to comply, making it
impossible for the transit agency to enforce ADA requirements.
Committee comments: Given that California has a stated goal of
reducing emissions and improving air quality, it stands to
reason that achieving this goal involves getting people out of
their cars and onto public transit. Getting people to take
SB 413
Page 6
transit, in lieu of driving, will be difficult, at best, if
transit operators are not able to provide a safe, secure, and
pleasant transit experience for their users. This bill gives
transit operators the tools they need to keep their facilities
safe and enjoyable to use, which, in turn, will increase
ridership and help California achieve its clean air goals.
Analysis Prepared by:
Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093 FN: 0001502