BILL ANALYSIS ------------------------------------------------------------ |SENATE RULES COMMITTEE | SB 949| |Office of Senate Floor Analyses | | |1020 N Street, Suite 524 | | |(916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) | | |327-4478 | | ------------------------------------------------------------ UNFINISHED BUSINESS Bill No: SB 949 Author: Oropeza (D) Amended: 8/20/10 Vote: 21 SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMM : 8-0, 5/4/10 AYES: Lowenthal, Huff, Ashburn, DeSaulnier, Kehoe, Oropeza, Pavley, Simitian NO VOTE RECORDED: Harman SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE : Senate Rule 28.8 SENATE FLOOR : 28-0, 5/28/10 AYES: Alquist, Ashburn, Calderon, Cedillo, Corbett, Correa, DeSaulnier, Ducheny, Dutton, Florez, Hollingsworth, Huff, Kehoe, Leno, Liu, Lowenthal, Negrete McLeod, Pavley, Price, Romero, Runner, Simitian, Steinberg, Strickland, Wolk, Wright, Wyland, Yee NO VOTE RECORDED: Aanestad, Cogdill, Cox, Denham, Hancock, Harman, Oropeza, Padilla, Walters, Wiggins, Vacancy, Vacancy ASSEMBLY FLOOR : Not available SUBJECT : Vehicles: local authority: assessing penalties SOURCE : Author DIGEST : This bill clarifies that the provisions of the CONTINUED SB 949 Page 2 California Vehicle Code are applicable throughout the state, and that local authorities may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution related to matters covered in the state Vehicle Code, including ordinances or resolutions that establish regulations or procedures for, or assess a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a violation of the Vehicle Code, unless expressly authorized to do so. Assembly Amendments clarify that this bill, to the extent permitted by current state law, does not impair the current lawful authority of the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority to enforce an ordinance or resolution relating to the management of public lands within its jurisdiction, delay implementation of this bill until July 1, 2011, and add double-jointing language with AB 2294 (Block) and AB 2756 (Blumenfield). ANALYSIS : The California Vehicle Code provides that its provisions are applicable and uniform throughout the state. A local authority may not enact or enforce any ordinance on matters covered by the Vehicle Code unless it expressly authorizes a local authority to do so. Local authorities may adopt rules and regulations by ordinance or resolution regarding the following matters: 1. Regulating or prohibiting processions or assemblages on the highways. 2. Licensing and regulating the operation of vehicles for hire (e.g., taxis), drivers of passenger vehicles for hire, tow trucks, and tow truck drivers. 3. Regulating traffic by means of traffic officers, official traffic control devices, persons authorized for that duty by the local authority, and at the site of road construction or maintenance. 4. Operation of bicycles and of electric carts by physically disabled persons or persons 50 years of age or older on the public sidewalks. 5. Providing for the appointment of nonstudent school crossing guards. SB 949 Page 3 6. Regulating the methods of deposit of refuse in streets for collection. 7. Regulating cruising, closing streets to vehicular traffic, and diverting traffic under certain circumstances. 8. Regulating or authorizing the removal by peace officers of vehicles unlawfully parked in a fire lane on private property. 9. Designating any highway as a through highway and requiring that all vehicles observe official traffic control devices before entering or crossing the highway. 10. Prohibiting certain vehicles from using particular highways. 11. Closing particular streets during regular school hours for the purpose of conducting driver training. 12. Temporarily closing a portion of any street for celebrations, parades, local special events, etc. 13. Prohibiting entry to or exit from any street by means of islands, curbs, traffic barriers, or other roadway design features to implement the circulation element of a general plan. The Vehicle Code also prescribes specific fines and assessments for numerous violations of the code. For violations for which the code does not prescribe a specific penalty, the Vehicle Code provides a maximum fine in which case the Judicial Council may establish the exact fine to be assessed. This bill: 1.Clarifies that the provisions of the California Vehicle Code are applicable throughout the state, and that local authorities may not enact or enforce an ordinance or resolution related to matters covered in the state Vehicle Code, including ordinances or resolutions that SB 949 Page 4 establish regulations or procedures for, or assess a fine, penalty, assessment, or fee for a violation of the Vehicle Code, unless expressly authorized to do so. 2.Specifies the bill does not preclude a local authority from enacting parking ordinances. 3.Clarifies that this bill, to the extent permitted by current state law, does not impair the current lawful authority of the Mountains 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. 4.Delays implementation of this bill until July 1, 2011. 5.Contains double jointing language with AB 2294 (Block) and AB 2756 (Blumenfield). Comments The debate: state preemption . A hand full of local governments around the state have established municipal ordinances that include violations identical to ones contained in the Vehicle Code (e.g., a person shall obey traffic signs and signals) and that assess penalties for the violations. If a person is cited for a violation under a municipal ordinance, the penalty assessed is the penalty contained in the ordinance, not the state Vehicle Code. The local government receives the revenue from the penalty and it does not communicate the violation to the Department of Motor Vehicles. At issue is whether the state Vehicle Code preempts local ordinances with regard to regulating traffic. Section 7 of Article XI of the California Constitution provides that a local authority "may make and enforce within its limits all local, police, sanitary, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws." Opinions issued formally by the Office of the Attorney General (1990) and informally this year by the Los Angeles Police Department cite legal cases in which "conflict" was found to occur when the state has enacted a legislative scheme SB 949 Page 5 intended for uniform application throughout the state and has indicated its intention to preempt local regulation in the area. In its 1990 opinion, the Office of the Attorney General concluded, "The Vehicle Code is such an enactment and in fact contains its own preemption rule, found in its Section 21." The City of Roseville argues that by allowing local authorities to adopt rules and regulations regarding "regulating traffic by means of official traffic control devices," the state Vehicle Code does expressly authorize local authorities to establish and enforce municipal ordinances regarding such actions as obeying signs or signals. Allowing local authorities to regulate traffic by means of official traffic control devices, however, has generally been interpreted to mean that local governments may determine where to place which traffic signs and signals. Furthermore, a number of legal opinions rendered over the years reinforce the state's preemption of the field of traffic control, particularly in cases where penalties for violations are established in state statute. In response to local governments enforcing local ordinances related to matters covered by the state Vehicle Code, the author requested the Legislative Counsel to opine on the following question: Does the Vehicle Code preempt local authorities from enacting and enforcing ordinances to assess a fine for nonparking-related violations (i.e., moving violations) if a fine for the violation is specified in the Vehicle Code? In its opinion, Legislative Counsel asserted that the Vehicle Code does preempt the authority of a local authority to enact and enforce ordinances assessing penalties for moving violations because it provides for a comprehensive scheme of penalties for moving violations, including the disposition of fine revenue. Statutory and case law show that local ordinances that assess penalties for moving violations contained in the Vehicle Code are preempted by the Vehicle Code and thus invalid. If a local authority would like to cite violators SB 949 Page 6 using municipal ordinances, then legislation would be needed to explicitly authorize local authorities to enact and enforce laws that establish penalties for specified moving violations. Fine revenue . The fines for violations cited under municipal ordinances vary by jurisdiction tend to range from $100 to $150 for the first offense with increasingly higher fines for subsequent offenses. For failing to obey traffic control devices, the City of Roseville has adopted a fine of $100 for a first offense, $200 for a second offense, and $500 for subsequent offenses. Local fines are not subject to the state-mandated penalty assessments, surcharges, or other fees that apply to citations issued under the Vehicle Code. One hundred percent of revenues from fines collected under municipal ordinances stay with the jurisdiction in which the violation occurred. The fines for violations cited under the Vehicle Code, by contrast, are much higher in total once penalty assessments, surcharges, and other fees are added. According to the 2010 Uniform Bail and Penalty Schedule, base fine in the amount of $35 has a total bail of $211 and a base fine of $100 has a total bail of $445. Fine revenues, including penalty assessments, are distributed according to complicated formulas established in statute, but some portion is distributed to the local jurisdiction where the violation occurred. The exact percentage depends on the amount of the base fine as some of the penalty assessments are calculated as a percentage of the base fine. For base fines of $35, the local government receives approximately 34 percent of the total bail amount, which for total bail of $211 is $71. For base fines of $100, the local government receives about 43 percent of the total bail, which equals $191. FISCAL EFFECT : Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: No Local: No SUPPORT : (Verified 8/26/10) Automobile Club of Southern California California State Automobile Association California Traffic Classes, Inc SB 949 Page 7 Cheap School (Traffic School) Great Comedians Traffic School Traffic Safety Consultants, Inc. OPPOSITION : (Verified 8/26/10) Alameda County City of Costa Mesa City of Fremont City of Los Angeles City of Red Bluff League of California Cities Urban Counties Caucus ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT : According to the author's office, several local governments, including the county of Alameda and the cities of Marysville, Roseville, Riverbank, and Newman, have elected to make it their official policy to ignore certain moving violations and penalties in the state Vehicle Code and punish these offenses under their own local ordinances. Legislative Counsel has opined that such actions by local governments are illegal. The Los Angeles Police Department, the largest local law enforcement entity in the state, has reached a similar conclusion, finding such actions by local governments to be in violation of the California Constitution. With this understanding, the author considers this bill to be a technical cleanup measure to remove any misunderstanding local governments may have regarding their authority under state law. Inconsistency in the enforcement of the state's Vehicle Code fosters confusion and distrust among drivers. In addition, it inhibits accurate collection of statewide data on moving violations, used to track unsafe drivers and calculate insurance rates, and it puts the state at risk of losing millions in federal transportation dollars. ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION : Opponents state, "While seemingly narrow in scope, this bill would create a blanket preemption of municipal codes addressing traffic violations. Specifically, SB 949 would prohibit a local agency from issuing a traffic citation - as currently SB 949 Page 8 authorized under Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code - if the penalty assessed through the local municipal code is different from the provided for in the state Vehicle Code. The intent of this legislation is well within reason, and we generally concur that uniform traffic regulation is vital to safe passage for the motoring public, pedestrians, and cyclists. However, the additional consequences of SB 949 are problematic for both local agencies and the state, and sets a dangerous precedent for state control over policies intended to address public safety issues specific to a jurisdiction. "The discretion afforded through the municipal codes to local jurisdictions, the law enforcement officers serving those local jurisdictions, and courts reviewing citations ensures an appropriate response to the local needs. SB 949 unfortunately undermines that flexibility for a one-size-fits-all approach to public safety." JA:nl 8/26/10 Senate Floor Analyses SUPPORT/OPPOSITION: SEE ABOVE **** END ****