BILL ANALYSIS
------------------------------------------------------------
|SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | AB 1336|
|Office of Senate Floor Analyses | |
|1020 N Street, Suite 524 | |
|(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | |
|327-4478 | |
------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD READING
Bill No: AB 1336
Author: Eng (D)
Amended: 9/2/09 in Senate
Vote: 21
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE : 9-2, 6/16/09
AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, DeSaulnier, Harman, Kehoe, Oropeza,
Pavley, Simitian, Wolk
NOES: Ashburn, Hollingsworth
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE : 3-1, 7/14/09
AYES: Harman, Florez, Leno
NOES: Walters
NO VOTE RECORDED: Corbett
ASSEMBLY FLOOR : 44-24, 5/14/09 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT : Photographic enforcement of street sweeping
parking
violations
SOURCE : California Public Parking Association
DIGEST : This bill, until January 1, 2015, allows a local
public agency to issue parking citations for violation of
street sweeping parking restrictions based on digital
photographs collected by an automated parking enforcement
system installed on street sweepers.
Senate Floor Amendments of 9/2/09 clarify that citations
CONTINUED
AB 1336
Page
2
are limited to street sweeping parking violations.
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, and the color
and make of the vehicle cited.
If a person wishes to contest a parking citation, he/she
may request a free initial review by the issuing agency
(the city or county police or parking enforcement
department) 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 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/she may request an administrative
hearing with the citation processing agency (which may be
the same as the issuing agency or may be a public or
private contractor) 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.
Current law enacted in 2007 by AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377,
AB 1336
Page
3
also allows San Francisco, until January 1, 2012, to issue
citations for violations of transit-only traffic lane
parking restrictions based on video images collected from
cameras installed on city-owned public transit vehicles.
This bill allows a local public agency to issue parking
citations for violation of street sweeping parking
restrictions based on digital images collected by an
automated parking enforcement system installed on street
sweepers. Specifically, this bill:
1. Defines a local public agency as a city, county, city
and county, district, or joint powers authority.
2. Requires that the automated parking enforcement system
take digital camera-based photographs and be linked with
a violation detection system that synchronizes the
photograph with the occurrence of a parking violation.
3. Allows a local public agency to install and operate an
automated parking enforcement system on agency-owned or
operated street sweepers for the purpose of taking
digital photographs of parking violations in street
sweeping lanes.
4. Provides that only a local public agency may operate an
automated parking enforcement system.
5. Requires cameras to be angled and focused in a way that
captures photographs of the vehicles' license plates
without unnecessarily capturing photographs of drivers,
pedestrians, or other vehicles. Specifies that the
equipment shall only capture photographs when the
automated parking enforcement system detects the
occurrence of a parking infraction.
6. Requires the local public agency to issue a public
announcement 30 days prior to issuing citations and to
issue only warnings during the 30-day period.
7. Requires a designated city employee who is qualified to
issue parking citations to review the photographs and
determine if a violation of parking restrictions has
occurred.
AB 1336
Page
4
8. Allows for citations to be issued only for violations
captured during the hours of the street sweeping parking
restrictions, except that the agency may not issue
citations based on photographic images for violations
that occur after the street has been swept.
9. Requires the local public agency to issue a citation
within 15 days of the violation.
10.Requires the citation to state the parking violation and
include the date, time, and location of the violation,
the license plate number, the registration expiration
date if visible, the color of the vehicle, the make of
the vehicle if possible, the payment due date, a copy of
the digital photographic evidence, and the process of
paying or contesting the citation.
11.Requires the local public agency to serve the citation
by mail to the registered owner's last known address
listed with the Department of Motor Vehicles and to
maintain proof of mailing.
12.Requires the local public agency, consistent with
current law, to cancel a citation if it determines that,
in the interest of justice, the citation should be
canceled.
13.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.
14.Allows the local public agency, consistent with current
law, to contract with a private vendor for processing
citations and notice of delinquent violation, provided
that the agency maintains overall control of supervision
of the automated parking enforcement system.
15.Provides that there shall be no late fees or penalty
increases if the vehicle owner makes payment or contests
the violation within 21 days of the mailing of the
citation or 14 days of the mailing of a notice of
delinquent parking violation.
16.Provides that the photographs collected by an automated
AB 1336
Page
5
enforcement system are confidential and may only be
accessed and used for the purposed of this program.
17.Requires the local public agency to destroy all
photographs that do not involve violations within 15
days, in a manner which preserves the confidentiality of
any person included in the information, and all
photographs that do involve violations within six months
or 60 days after final disposition of the citation,
whichever occurs later.
18.Requires, by January 1, 2014, a local public agency that
utilizes an automatic parking enforcement system collect
and report to the Senate and Assembly Judiciary
Committees information on the number of citations
issued, the number of violations contested and the final
disposition of those violations, an evaluation of the
overall effectiveness of the program, and an evaluation
of the privacy implications of the system.
19.Sunsets the bill on January 1, 2015.
Comments
Modeled on AB 101 . AB 101 (Ma), 2007-08 Session, allows
San Francisco, until January 1, 2012, to issue citations
for violations of transit-only traffic lane parking
restrictions based on video images collected from cameras
installed on city-owned public transit. AB 101 includes a
number of procedural and privacy protections for vehicle
owners and the general public. The language of this bill
is almost identical to that of AB 101. The real
differences are that this bill applies statewide, as
opposed to a single jurisdiction, and does not sunset.
Other experiences . Chicago and Washington, D.C. already
utilize the automated street sweeper system, known as
SweeperCam, on their street sweepers. The system uses
photo-light sensing, character recognition, and global
positioning system technology to spot parking violators and
fix their locations. The City of Chicago approved an
ordinance in 2008, and began using the system on a limited
number of street sweepers. Washington, D.C. is using the
automated technology on two street sweepers on a trial
AB 1336
Page
6
basis and intends to expand implementation later this year.
FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No
Local: No
SUPPORT : (Verified 9/3/09)
California Public Parking Association (source)
California League of Conservation Voters
City and County of San Francisco
Cities of Los Angeles and San Diego
League of California Cities
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office,
street sweepers provide significant environmental and
public health benefits to the community by cleaning the
streets of pollutants, trash, and debris. Each vehicle
parked in violation of street sweeping restrictions
prevents as many as three parking spaces from being
cleaned, significantly increasing the quantity of debris,
grease, oil, and other pollutants needlessly being washed
into the storm drains and greatly increasing costs, as the
cost of removing these contaminants from storm water before
it runs into rivers and bays is much greater than sweeping
them from the street. As a result, by increasing
enforcement of street sweeping parking restrictions, this
bill provides for a cleaner environment at much less cost.
ASSEMBLY FLOOR :
AYES: Beall, Block, Blumenfield, Brownley, Buchanan,
Caballero, Charles Calderon, Carter, Chesbro, Coto,
Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fong,
Furutani, Galgiani, Hall, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill,
Huffman, Jones, Krekorian, Lieu, Bonnie Lowenthal, Ma,
Mendoza, Monning, Nava, John A. Perez, V. Manuel Perez,
Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Skinner, Solorio,
Swanson, Torlakson, Torrico, Yamada
NOES: Adams, Anderson, Bill Berryhill, Tom Berryhill,
Cook, DeVore, Duvall, Emmerson, Fletcher, Fuller,
Gilmore, Hagman, Harkey, Huber, Knight, Logue, Miller,
Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Silva, Audra Strickland, Tran,
AB 1336
Page
7
Villines
NO VOTE RECORDED: Ammiano, Arambula, Blakeslee, Conway,
Fuentes, Gaines, Garrick, Jeffries, Saldana, Smyth,
Torres, Bass
JJA:mw 9/3/09 Senate Floor Analyses
SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE
**** END ****