LEGISLATIVE ANALYST MEMORANDUM

To: Members of the Board of Supervisors

From: Gabe Cabrera, Office of the Legislative Analyst

Date: July 21, 2005

Re: MUNI cameras (OLA No. 038-05M)

Employee Suggestion

The employee suggests that the City and County of San Francisco (the "City") implement a photo enforcement program for parking violations. Under this program, the Municipal Railway (MUNI) would equip MUNI bus drivers with cameras to photograph vehicles parked in MUNI bus zones. MUNI would then issue citations, including photographs, to the alleged violators via U.S. mail.¹ The purpose of this program would be to improve MUNI service and traffic flow along MUNI bus routes. It may also increase parking citation revenue for the City.

Executive Summary

The City Attorney’s Office advised the OLA that the State Legislature (the "Legislature") would need to amend the State Vehicle Code (the "Vehicle Code") to expressly authorize a photo enforcement program for parking violations. This is probably why our research reveals that no other jurisdictions in California have implemented similar programs. Nevertheless, the Board of Supervisors (the "Board") could urge the Legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to expressly authorize a photo enforcement program for parking violations. Or, the Board could amend Section 13 of the City’s Traffic Code (the "Traffic Code") to authorize bus drivers to enforce parking regulations. However, the OLA believes that this strategy would disrupt MUNI service and traffic flow more than a photo enforcement program. Whatever the case, it would be necessary for the Municipal Transportation Agency (MTA) and the Transportation Worker’s Union Local 250A to meet and confer concerning the proposed changes in job duties for Class 9163 Transit Operators. Additionally, the City would need to review and if necessary, modify the job specifications for that class.

Analysis

The Vehicle Code contains the laws regulating the operation of motor vehicles and the use of highways in California. The Vehicle Code preempts the local regulation of matters addressed by the Vehicle Code except in a limited number of cases where it grants control to local authorities.² Specifically, Section 21 of the Vehicle Code states:

The City Attorney’s Office advised the OLA that the Legislature would need to amend the Vehicle Code to expressly authorize a photo enforcement program for parking violations. Unlike red light photo enforcement, the Vehicle Code does not currently authorize photo-based enforcement of parking violations. Instead, it requires peace officers or other persons authorized to enforce parking regulations to attach a notice of parking violation to the vehicle at the time of the violation (Vehicle Code Section 40202(b)). The OLA believes that it is unlikely that any ordinance enacted by the Board of Supervisors to create such a program could withstand a legal challenge. On an unrelated but comparable topic in People v. Moore (1964), a court invalidated the issuance of a "driver’s permit" by the City of Los Angeles (as contrasted to the issuance of a "vehicle permit" by the State) largely because it was not expressly authorized in the Vehicle Code. Of course, there is no way to know for sure how a court might view a City ordinance creating a photo enforcement program for parking violations. However, it is important to note that the OLA researched but did not find any jurisdictions in California that have implemented similar programs.

Moreover, the OLA discovered that the City could authorize MUNI bus drivers to enforce parking regulations. Section 13 of the Traffic Code contains a list of fourteen (14) City employee classifications that may currently enforce State and local laws which relate to non-moving violations affecting MUNI operations, including but not limited to the citation, removal and relocation of a vehicle parked in a bus zone. The City Attorney’s Office advised the OLA that the City could amend this list to include MUNI bus drivers (Class 9163 Transit Operators). Of course, MUNI would need to train these drivers to enforce parking regulations, especially on how to issue parking citations as outlined in Section 40202 of the Vehicle Code. As noted above, Vehicle Code Section 40202(b) requires peace officers and other persons authorized to enforce parking regulations to attach a notice of parking violation to the vehicle at the time of the violation. Therefore, if MUNI bus drivers began enforcing parking regulations, they would have to leave their vehicles and passengers unattended for the period of time (however brief) it takes to issue a citation. This is probably not advisable; however, drivers of MUNI’s electric trolleys routinely exit their vehicles now to reconnect the power poles when they become dislodged from the overhead wires. Presumably, they could do the same to issue citations.

Regardless of whether the Legislature amends the Vehicle Code to expressly authorize a photo enforcement program for parking violations, or whether the City authorizes MUNI bus drivers to enforce parking regulations, there are still certain labor issues to address. First and foremost, the MTA cannot impose new job responsibilities on MUNI bus drivers without meeting and conferring with their labor union. MTA and Local 250A, which represents MUNI bus drivers, would need to meet and confer concerning the proposed changes in duties. Notably, the current Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between MTA and Local 250A is effective from July 2004 through June 2008. The two parties may re-open this MOU to discuss economic adjustments starting within the second year of the agreement and each succeeding year thereafter. Moreover, MTA parking control officers (Class 8214 Parking Control Officers and Class 8216 Senior Parking Control Officers), who are represented by the Service Employees’ International Union Local 790, may object to MUNI bus drivers encroaching upon their job responsibilities and compromising their collective bargaining power. The current MOU between the City and Local 790 is effective from July 2003 through June 2006. Incidentally, this MOU expires around the earliest scheduled date that MTA and Local 250A may re-open their agreement (July 2006).

Conclusion

The City Attorney’s Office advised the OLA that the Legislature would need to amend the Vehicle Code to expressly authorize a photo enforcement program for parking violations. This is probably why our research reveals that no other jurisdictions in California have implemented similar programs. Nevertheless, the Board could urge the Legislature to amend the Vehicle Code to expressly authorize a photo enforcement program for parking violations. Or, the Board could amend Section 13 of the Traffic Code to authorize bus drivers to enforce parking regulations. However, the OLA believes that this strategy would disrupt MUNI service and traffic flow more than a photo enforcement program. Whatever the case, it would be necessary for the MTA and Local 250A to meet and confer concerning the proposed changes in job duties for Class 9163 Transit Operators. Additionally, the City would need to review and if necessary, modify the job specifications for that class.

¹ Notably, this assumes MUNI would have access to the State Department of Motor Vehicles’ vehicle registration and driver’s license databases.

² For instance, Section 21100 of the Vehicle Code allows local authorities to regulate processions/assemblages on highways, vehicles for hire, traffic control devices, appointment of traffic control personnel, traffic control at road/street construction or maintenance sites, tow truck service and cruising. There are several other instances where the Vehicle Code grants control to local authorities.