BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                       



           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
          |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE            |                   SB 734|
          |Office of Senate Floor Analyses   |                         |
          |1020 N Street, Suite 524          |                         |
          |(916) 651-1520         Fax: (916) |                         |
          |327-4478                          |                         |
           ------------------------------------------------------------ 
           
                                         
                                 THIRD READING


          Bill No:  SB 734
          Author:   Lowenthal (D)
          Amended:  As introduced
          Vote:     21

           
           SEN. TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE  :  10-0, 4/28/09
          AYES:  Lowenthal, Huff, Ashburn, DeSaulnier, Harman,  
            Hollingsworth, Kehoe, Pavley, Simitian, Wolk
          NO VOTE RECORDED:  Oropeza

           SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE  :  Senate Rule 28.8


           SUBJECT  :    General transportation clean-up

           SOURCE  :     Author


           DIGEST  :    This bill makes several clean-up, clarifying,  
          and non-controversial changes related to transportation  
          law.

           ANALYSIS  :    

          This bill includes the following provisions:

           Section 1

           Clarifies that any interest earned on the investment of  
          funds from the Local Streets and Road Improvement,  
          Congestion Relief, and Traffic Safety Account, as  
          established by Proposition 1B of 2006, must be used for  
                                                           CONTINUED





                                                                SB 734
                                                                Page  
          2

          transportation facilities.  The State Controller's Office  
          (SCO) has received numerous calls from cities seeking  
          clarification regarding the use of interest income, thus  
          prompting the SCO to clarify in statute that any interest  
          earned must be used for transportation purposes.  According  
          to the SCO, it is common practice for the interest earned  
          on funds to be used for the same purposes intended for  
          those funds.
           
          Section 2

           Deletes an obsolete deadline for adopting State  
          Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) guidelines.   
          Existing law requires the California Transportation  
          Commission to adopt guidelines for the development of the  
          STIP.  One subdivision of that law requires that the  
          guidelines be adopted by May 1, 1999.  This date has long  
          since passed, and this subdivision is now obsolete.

           Section 3

           Deletes unnecessary language describing the violation that  
          a sign warning of a minimum penalty refers to.  The  
          provision of law this bill amends requires that a sign be  
          posted to indicate the minimum fine amount.  The violation  
          is already described in the section of law that authorizes  
          the fine amount and so it is unnecessary to repeat in the  
          section regarding signage.
           
          Section 4

           Conforms the Public Utilities Code with the Government Code  
          regarding the time by which transit operators must file  
          annual reports with the Controller's office under  
          Proposition 1B.

           Sections 5-7

           Sections 5 and 6 of the bill add definitions of "bicycle  
          path" and "bicycle path crossing" to clarify the types of  
          facilities that bicycles are permitted to use, and Section  
          7 clarifies that state law does not prohibit bicycles from  
          operating on sidewalks and crosswalks, where permitted by  
          local ordinance.







                                                                SB 734
                                                                Page  
          3

           
          Section 8

           Adds a missing cross-reference, in the section of law  
          prohibiting a person from parking in a space designated for  
          a disabled person, to the section of law requiring state  
          agencies to provide one parking space for disabled person  
          for every 25 parking spaces it provides.

           Sections 9 and 10

           Deletes unnecessary language describing the violation that  
          a sign warning of a minimum penalty refers to.  The  
          provision of law this bill amends requires that a sign be  
          posted to indicate the minimum fine amount.  The violation  
          is already described in the section of law that authorizes  
          the fine amount and so it is unnecessary to repeat in the  
          section regarding signage.
           
          Section 11

           Applies the minimum and maximum fine amounts that relate to  
          criminal parking citations to civil parking citations  
          because mot citations are issued as civil violations, not  
          criminal infractions.  State law seeks to set minimum and  
          maximum fine amounts for parking in a disabled spot.  This  
          was meant to apply to all violations, but it does not apply  
          to the civil citation for which local governments set the  
          fine amounts.  This provision is intended to ensure that  
          the fine amounts set by local governments for these  
          violations are consistent with the range intended by the  
          Legislature.

           Section 12

           Changes required notice of penalty waiver for parking  
          ticket administrative hearings.  If a person who receives a  
          parking ticket contests the ticket within a specified  
          period of time, current law requires the issuing agency to  
          conduct an initial administrative review.  If the person  
          seeking the review is dissatisfied with the results, he or  
          she may, within 21 days, request an administrative hearing.  
           To receive an administrative hearing, the person must  
          first pay the parking penalty, unless the person can  







                                                                SB 734
                                                                Page  
          4

          provide satisfactory proof of an inability to pay in which  
          case the penalty is waived.  Current law, however, requires  
          the issuing agency to notify alleged violators of this  
          waiver only when they request a hearing, rather than at the  
          close of informal review.  In other words, persons who  
          request an administrative hearing only receive notice of  
          the waiver provision after they have requested the hearing.  
           Concern is raised that people who cannot afford the  
          penalty may not seek the administrative hearing and simply  
          let the ticket go unpaid, in which case the person would  
          accrue substantial penalties in addition to the original  
          fine.  Requiring that notice of the ability to seek a  
          waiver be provided at the close of an informal review is a  
          logical change to the law.

           Comments
           
           Purpose  .  The purpose of this bill is to combine multiple,  
          non-controversial changes to statutes into one bill so that  
          the Legislature may make minor amendments in a  
          cost-effective manner.

           Prior Legislation
           
          Most of these provisions were also contained in SB 432  
          (Lowenthal), 2007-08 Session.  The bill was passed by the  
          Legislature but vetoed by the Governor with the following  
          message:

            "The historic delay in passing the 2008-09 State Budget  
            has forced me to prioritize the bills sent to my desk  
            at the end of the year's legislative session.  Given  
            the delay, I am only signing bills that are the highest  
            priority in California. This bill does not meet that  
            standard and I cannot sign it at this time."

           FISCAL EFFECT  :    Appropriation:  No   Fiscal Com.:  Yes    
          Local:  Yes

          JJA:cm  5/11/09   Senate Floor Analyses 

                       SUPPORT/OPPOSITION:  NONE RECEIVED

                                ****  END  ****







                                                                SB 734
                                                                Page  
          5