Ben Allen
- Democratic
- Senator
- District 24
Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy and a Speed Safety System Impact Report before implementing the program, and requires the participating city or city and county to engage in a public information campaign at least 30 days before implementation of the program, including information relating to when the systems would begin detecting violations and where the systems would be utilized. Existing law requires a participating city or city and county to issue warning notices rather than notices of violations for violations detected within the first 60 calendar days of the program. Existing law also requires a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of confidential information. Existing law designates all photographic or administrative records, not including data about the number of violations issued or the speeds at which they were issued for, made by a system as confidential, and would only authorize public agencies to use and allow access to these records for specified purposes. This bill would authorize, until January 1, 2032, the City of Malibu to establish a similar program for speed enforcement that utilizes up to 5 speed safety systems on the Pacific Coast Highway. Existing law specifies that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by the Speed Safety System Pilot Program provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. Existing law provides, among other things, for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. Existing law requires any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as specified. Existing law requires a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the speed safety system to determine the system's impact on street safety and the economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. Existing law requires revenues derived from any program to first be used to cover program costs, including, among other things, the construction of traffic-calming measures, as specified. This bill would require the City of Malibu to also implement the above provisions if it establishes the speed safety system program on the Pacific Coast Highway. The bill would additionally require the City of Malibu to enter into an agreement with the Department of Transportation regarding the use of any excess revenue for traffic-calming measures on the Pacific Coast Highway, in the City of Malibu. Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions. This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of the City of Malibu's speed safety system program until January 1, 2032. Existing constitutional provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. This bill would make legislative findings to that effect. This bill would make legislative findings and declarations as to the necessity of a special statute for the City of Malibu.
Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 631, Statutes of 2024.
Approved by the Governor.
Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 4 p.m.
Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 36. Noes 4. Page 5731.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling.
In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending.
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 54. Noes 6. Page 6892.) Ordered to the Senate.
Read third time and amended.
Ordered to third reading.
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 11. Noes 0.) (August 15).
August 7 set for first hearing. Placed on suspense file.
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 8. Noes 1.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on P. & C.P. (Ayes 13. Noes 1.) (June 17). Re-referred to Com. on P. & C.P.
In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk.
Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 36. Noes 3. Page 4026.) Ordered to the Assembly.
Read second time. Ordered to third reading.
From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 3978.) (May 16).
Set for hearing May 16.
April 22 hearing: Placed on APPR suspense file.
Set for hearing April 22.
Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on APPR.
From committee: Do pass as amended and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 14. Noes 1. Page 3536.) (April 9).
Set for hearing April 9.
From printer. May be acted upon on or after March 17.
Introduced. Read first time. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print.
Bill Text Versions | Format |
---|---|
SB1297 | HTML |
02/15/24 - Introduced | |
04/11/24 - Amended Senate | |
08/23/24 - Amended Assembly | |
09/04/24 - Enrolled | |
09/27/24 - Chaptered |
Document | Format |
---|---|
04/08/24- Senate Transportation | PDF PDF |
04/20/24- Senate Appropriations | |
05/17/24- Sen. Floor Analyses | |
06/14/24- Assembly Transportation | |
06/28/24- Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection | |
08/05/24- Assembly Appropriations | |
08/19/24- ASSEMBLY FLOOR ANALYSIS | |
08/23/24- ASSEMBLY FLOOR ANALYSIS | |
08/29/24- Sen. Floor Analyses |
Data on Open States is updated periodically throughout the day from the official website of the California State Legislature.
If you notice any inconsistencies with these official sources, feel free to file an issue.