The URL can be used to link to this page

CC SR 20250902 02 - Speed Cameras and Loud Exhaust Legislation CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 09/02/2025 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Regular Business AGENDA TITLE: Consideration to receive a report on the use of technology as potential speed safety system and loud vehicle exhaust enforcement programs. RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: 1) Receive and file a report on speed safety system programs including legislation enacted by Assembly Bill 645 (AB 645) and Senate Bill 1297 (SB 1297) to use camera technology to enforce posted speed limits; 2) Consider whether the City should pursue inclusion in the State of California’s Speed Safety System Pilot Program; 3) Affirm collecting data from the speed feedback signs throughout the City to use for enforcement operations with the Lomita Station; and 4) Receive and file a report on loud exhaust enforcement operations throughout the City and legislation enabling cities to use camera technology as an enforcement tool. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: Jennifer Schmid, Public Safety Manager JS Lucas Balbi, Public Safety and Emergency Management Intern LB REVIEWED BY: Catherine Jun, Deputy City Manager CJ APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. AB 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program (page A-1) B. SB 1297 City of Malibu’s Speed Safety System Pilot Program (page B-1) C. SB 1079 Sound Activated Enforcement Devices (page C-1) D. RPV Letter of Support for SB 1079 (page D-1) E. Wallstreet Journal Article of Loud Exhaust Cameras (page E-1) BACKGROUND: 1 At the January 16, 2024 City Council meeting, former Mayor John Cruikshank and former Mayor Pro Tem Eric Alegria requested that staff provide information on legislation pertaining to speed safety systems and enforcement of loud vehicle exhaust. This request was prompted by ongoing resident concerns regarding speeding and exhaust noise in the community, particularly in areas such as the switchbacks along Palos Verdes Drive East (PVDE), Palos Verdes Drive South (PVDS), and Hawthorne Blvd. The following is an update report on their request in combination with the 2025 City Council Goal to implement Citywide traffic calming measures including enhanced enforcement. DISCUSSION: The Use of Technology as Speed Safety System Program Camera Technology: There are approximately 316 individual communities in the United States that use technology, such as cameras, as some form of a speed safety program. Such programs in New York City, Chicago, and Portland, for example, have cited significant decreases in speeding, injuries, and crashes. In October 2023, the State enacted AB 645 (Attachment A), which created a pilot program authorizing select cities in California to install speed safety cameras, which are fixed or mobile systems that utilize automated equipment to deter and also detect a violation of speed laws and obtain a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s rear license plate. The speed safety program is intended to reduce excessive speeds and traffic-related injuries and fatalities by targeting high-injury corridors through automated enforcement on a 24/7 basis. Under the pilot program, these cameras are limited to traffic corridors in school zones, segments most prone to vehicle-related injuries and fatalities, and areas identified by local authorities as having high volumes of speeding, speeding citations, collisions, and other considerations prescribed by AB 645. In California, the initial pilot program enacted through AB 645 applied to 6 cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach. These six cities were selected due to data demonstrating that they exhibit some of the state’s highest rates of traffic fatalities and pede strian injuries. In 2024, the City of Malibu was added to the program through SB 1297 (Attachment B), which authorized the use of speed safety cameras specifically along Pacific Coast Highway. SB 1297 was prompted by dangerous speeding and crashes along Pacific Coast Highway, namely in October 2023 when a speeding driver crashed into several parked vehicles that struck and killed four Pepperdine University students. To date, only San Francisco has installed and implemented speed cameras pursuant to AB 645. Citations under this pilot program are issued as civil penalties only and therefore do not result in DMV points, insurance impacts, or license suspensions. Enforcement begins 2 when drivers exceed the posted speed limit by 11 miles per hour or more. The fine structure is tiered, beginning at $50 for speeds between 11 and 15 miles per hour over the limit, $100 for 16 to 25 miles per hour, $200 for speeds exceeding 26 miles per hou r, and $500 for speeds of 100 miles per hour or greater. Strict privacy safeguards are built into the program. Participating cities are required to adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy that limits how data may be used, accessed, and retained. Cameras are prohibited from using facial recognition or capturing identifying details other than the rear license plate of the vehicle. California legislation requires the program to operate on a revenue-neutral basis. Any revenue generated may only be used to cover the costs of equipment, operations, and traffic calming. If there is any excess revenue, it must be reinvested into traffic calming measures or transferred to the State’s Active Transportation Program after three years. Importantly, the law does not require police agencies to issue citations; instead, cities may contract with third-party vendors to handle citation issuance and processing through an administrative system. Costs to implement a Safe Speed Camera program may vary. Malibu’s plan proposes up to five cameras in high-risk traffic areas along Pacific Coast Highway. The estimated implementation cost is just over $2 million, which covers equipment, vendor services, policy development, public outreach, and operational support. Malibu officials emphasized that their program is administered under civil law with minimal law enforcement dependency, freeing up Sheriff’s Department resources for other enforcement priorities. The City of Glendale has been considering camera leases estimated to cost approximately $1 million per year to cover nine locations, for a total estimated cost of $5 million over a five year least agreement. These costs include expenses for installation, maintenance, and operation of automated speed enforcement systems, as well as administrative staffing and costs related to processing violations and program oversight. San Francisco, the only city that has implemented such a program, also provides valuable insight into the program’s potential impact. In June 2025, San Francisco launched its speed safety camera program with 50 cameras installed citywide. Within the first month, the city issued more than 132,000 warning notices to drivers exceeding the speed limit by 11 miles per hour or more. Staff has contacted San Francisco officials to learn from their early results and best practices, and a meeting is forthcoming (the meeting will likely occur after the September 2 City Council meeting, and the Public Safety City Council Subcommittee, comprised of Mayor Pro Tem Seo and Councilmember Perestam, will be updated). Should Rancho Palos Verdes wish to consider pursuing participation in the program, several steps would be required. First, the City would need to conduct a preliminary traffic study to determine whether eligible high-risk corridors exist within the City. One of the primary eligibility requirements for this pilot program is that collisions must be speed related. Staff would need to obtain collision data from Lomita Sheriff’s Station to determine whether the City meets the qualification criteria. Next, the City would need 3 legislative authorization from a State Senator or Assemblymember to be added to the AB 645 framework. Staff would also be responsible for drafting a Speed Safety System Use Policy and Impact Report, developing impartial adjudication procedures, and engaging a vendor for system installation, data management, and citation processing. Coordination with the Lomita Sheriff’s Station would be necessary to address site selection, legal review, and potential enforcement support. The City Council is being asked whether it wishes to consider initiating the process to have the City included in the State’s Speed Safety System pilot program. This would first involve contacting Senator Allen and Assembly Member Muratsuchi to gauge their interest in sponsoring the required legislation. Radar Speed Feedback Signs: The City currently uses radar speed feedback signs as part of its traffic calming efforts. These portable or permanent devices flash a driver's speed to make drivers more aware of their speed relative to the speed limit or speed advisory condition. The speed feedback signs are often deployed in residential areas, school zones, and on arterial roadways based on a traffic engineering study. Speed feedback signs are currently in place throughout the City. Permanent devices are deployed on Hawthorne Boulevard near Ryan Park, on Eddinghill Drive, and on Abbottswood Drive and Geronimo Drive. In addition, mobile speed feedback signs have deployed intermittently throughout the City. One long-term mobile speed feedback sign has been placed on Verde Ridge Road near Locklenna Lane and a second along Miraleste Drive. Plans are underway to install two additional permanent signs along PVDE. Some of the City’s current feedback signs have the ability to collect speed data that can be sorted and utilized to determine if speeding in a specific stretch of roadway or at a certain time is a persistent issue that requires additional traffic enforcement operations by the Sheriff’s Department or other traffic calming tools. This data may also be used in future speed camera programs that require data justification to deploy such cameras in the future. Both the Public Safety Division and Public Works are coordinating to initiate an effort to begin downloading this data and populate a GIS map. There is a cost associated with personnel time to collect the data from the speed feedback signs, Staff is currently exploring associated costs for staff time required to collect the data. This includes evaluating the option of utilizing a contractor to provide training on how to properly retrieve and manage the information. Staff seeks City Council affirmation to collect the data, so long as there is sufficient discretionary funding available in the budget to support this work. Loud Vehicle Exhaust The City currently uses every available legal tool to address loud vehicle exhaust by working in coordination with the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. Enforcement is guided primarily by California Vehicle Code (CVC) Sections 27150 and 27151, which require that vehicles 4 be equipped with operational mufflers and prohibit any modifications that amplify exhaust noise beyond 95 decibels for vehicles under 6,000 pounds. The CVC further empowers enforcement by using a “reasonableness” standard, which allows Sheriff deputies to cite vehicles that produce plainly audible or disruptive noise without requiring the use of decibel meters. Residents are often encouraged to report repeat offenders or locations where loud exhaust violations occur frequently, which allows the Sheriff’s Department to target its enforcement patrols accordingly. However, the enforcement of loud exhaust has proven to be difficult primarily because a Sheriff deputy must witness the sound of a loud exhaust or modified muffler to apply the “reasonableness” test. In 2022, SB 1079 (Attachment C) authorized a five-year pilot program for sound-activated enforcement devices (i.e. cameras), which are designed to detect excessive exhaust noise and capture license plate information. Rancho Palos Verdes supported this bill as a tool for data collection but opted not to participate in the program (Attachment D) given that this bill did not provide any funds for implementation, leaving participating cities responsible for the acquisition, installation, and monitoring of the cameras. In lieu, the City chose to track this program and its results to determine if it could successfully be implemented in the City and whether future grant funding may be made available for program implementation. It should also be noted that these types of cameras are relatively new technology that may require time and additional data to fine tune. Following its adoption, the legislation was amended to require the California Highway Patrol to evaluate devices from at least three companies and submit findings and recommendations to the Legislature by January 1, 2025. At this time, staff was unable to confirm the filing of such findings and will continue to work with our state representatives and lobbyists to obtain an update. According to a recent Wall Street Journal article (Attachment E), programs in other states demonstrate that sound activated enforcement can be costly and labor intensive, but effective. New York City launched a similar program, which uses city staff and mobile trailers rather than fixed installations. This appears to be the most cost-effective model, and staff continues to research its potential applicability for the City. At present, however, the City is already utilizing all legally available enforcement mechanisms, along with community outreach and engagement on the City’s website and social media. For example, the City has installed electronic message boards at strategic locations (i.e. Palos Verdes Drive West, Palos Verdes Drive South, and thge Switchbacks) noting zero tolerance for loud exhaust in combination with random enforcement operations by the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. Due to the evolving technology and the high cost for operating sound activated cameras, until future opportunities become available to utilize camera technology for loud exhaust violations at a reasonable cost, the City Council is not being to take any action at this time aside from receiving and filing this update. Staff will continue to work with the Lomita Sheriff’s Station on loud exhaust operations in strategic location in the City. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Community Survey Results 5 The City recently conducted a community survey to better understand the priorities and concerns of its residents. Among the top three concerns identified, speeding stood out as an issue impacting daily quality of life and neighborhood safety, as well as residential and vehicle burglaries. In response, staff have been actively exploring a wide range of potential tools and strategies to deter speeding and improve roadway safety , as well as reducing burglaries. Currently, options are somewhat limited. Legislation that supports innovative traffic calming measures is still evolving, and staffing levels within the Sheriff’s Department remain strained due to the Countywide shortage. Despite these challenges, staff continues to pursue solutions such as the operation of the City’s existing speed trailers and the deployment of portable message boards, while still relying on enforcement efforts through our partners at the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. Drones The City continues to explore emerging technologies that could have the potential to be implemented in the City, serving as additional force multipliers. One promising option is the drone program currently being implemented by various law enforcement agencies, including the Chula Vista and Beverly Hills Police Departments. Within LASD, the Cerritos Station has been identified as the pilot program site, with other stations being evaluated for future participation. The use of drones presents a unique opportunity to enhance public safety by providing real time aerial surveillance and faster response times to incidents often arriving minutes before deputies. This capability allows for greater situational awareness and improved coordination in the field. Drones can cover large geographic areas more efficiently than multiple patrol units, acting as both a proactive deterre nt and a rapid response resource. Unlike helicopters, drones are far more cost effective, highly flexible, and can be redirected instantly to respond to dynamic situations. Potential uses include monitoring traffic accidents, assisting in burglary responses, searching for missing persons, or supporting public safety during large community events. Equally important, these programs are being developed with transparency and community trust in mind. Policies emphasize that drones will not be used for long-term video storage or surveillance purposes, ensuring that the technology is deployed strictly to enhance safety and awareness for the community. At this stage, the concept remains in its early phases and is currently under consideration at the Lomita Sheriff’s Station. As this effort continues, Staff will continue to seek updates that include logistics and fiscal impacts. Staff recommends continued exploration of this tool as part of a broader strategy to address speeding and strengthen public safety within the City. CONCLUSION: 6 The City Council is being asked to consider receiving and filing a report on the use of technology as potential speed safety system and loud vehicle exhaust enforcement programs, and to affirm collecting data from the speed feedback signs for enhances law enforcement operations and traffic calming programs. ALTERNATIVES: In addition to Staff Recommendations, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Do not approve one or more recommendations and direct staff accordingly, which may include requests to return with additional information or updates. 2. Take other action. 7 Assembly Bill No. 645 CHAPTER 808 An act to amend, repeal, and add Section 70615 of the Government Code, and to add and repeal Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) of Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor October 13, 2023. Filed with Secretary of State October 13, 2023.] legislative counsel’s digest AB 645, Friedman. Vehicles: speed safety system pilot program. Existing law establishes a basic speed law that prohibits a person from driving a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable or prudent given the weather, visibility, trafﬁc, and highway conditions and in no event at a speed that endangers the safety of persons or property. This bill would authorize, 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. The bill would require 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 would require 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. The bill would require 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. The bill would also require a participating city or city and county to develop uniform guidelines for, among other things, the processing and storage of conﬁdential information. The bill would designate 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 specify that any violation of a speed law recorded by a speed safety system authorized by these provisions would be subject only to the provided civil penalties. The bill would, among other things, provide 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. The bill would require any program created pursuant to these provisions to offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, as speciﬁed. The bill would require a city or city and county participating in the pilot program to submit a report to evaluate the 88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL A-1 speed safety system to determine the system’s impact on street safety and economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. 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 a speed safety system 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 Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares all of the following: (a) Speed is a major factor in trafﬁc collisions that result in fatalities or injuries. (b) State and local agencies employ a variety of methods to reduce speeding, including trafﬁc engineering, education, and enforcement. (c) Trafﬁc speed enforcement is critical to efforts in California to reduce factors that contribute to trafﬁc collisions that result in fatalities or injuries. (d) However, traditional enforcement methods have had a well-documented disparate impact on communities of color, and implicit or explicit racial bias in police trafﬁc stops puts drivers of color at risk. (e) Additional tools, including speed safety systems, are available to assist cities and the state in addressing excessive speeding and speed-related crashes. (f) Speed safety systems offer a high rate of detection, and, in conjunction with education and trafﬁc engineering, can signiﬁcantly reduce speeding, improve trafﬁc safety, and prevent trafﬁc-related fatalities and injuries, including roadway worker fatalities. (g) Multiple speed safety system programs implemented in other states and cities outside of California have proven successful in reducing speeding and addressing trafﬁc safety concerns. (h) TheTransportationAgency’s “CalSTA Report of Findings: AB 2363 Zero Trafﬁc Fatalities Task Force,” issued in January 2020, concluded that international and domestic studies show that speed safety systems are an effective countermeasure to speeding that can deliver meaningful safety improvements, and identiﬁed several policy considerations that speed safety system program guidelines could consider. (i) In a 2017 study, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) analyzed studies of speed safety system programs, and found they offered signiﬁcant safety improvements in the forms of reduction in mean speeds, 88 —2 — Ch. 808 A-2 reduction in the likelihood of speeding more than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit, and reduction in the likelihood that a crash involved a severe injury or fatality. The same study recommended that all states remove obstacles to speed safety system programs to increase the use of this proven approach, and notes that programs should be explicitly authorized by state legislation without operational and location restrictions. (j) The National HighwayTrafﬁc Safety Administration (NHTSA) gives speed safety systems the maximum 5-star effectiveness rating. NHTSA issued speed enforcement camera systems operational guidelines in 2008, and is expected to release revised guidelines in 2021 that should further inform the development of state guidelines. (k) Speed safety systems can advance equity by improving reliability and fairness in trafﬁc enforcement while making speeding enforcement more predictable, effective, and broadly implemented, all of which helps change driver behavior. (l) Enforcing speed limits using speed safety systems on streets where speeding drivers create dangerous roadway environments is a reliable and cost-effective means to prevent further fatalities and injuries. SEC. 2. Section 70615 of the Government Code is amended to read: 70615. The fee for ﬁling any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-ﬁve dollars ($25): (a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative ﬁne or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation. (c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing ofﬁcer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database. (e) An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing ofﬁcer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as deﬁned in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code. (f) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 3. Section 70615 is added to the Government Code, to read: 70615. The fee for ﬁling any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-ﬁve dollars ($25): (a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative ﬁne or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation. (c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing ofﬁcer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. 88 Ch. 808—3 — A-3 (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database. (e) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2032. SEC. 4. Article 3 (commencing with Section 22425) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read: Article 3. Speed Safety System Pilot Program 22425. (a) As used in this article, the following deﬁnitions apply: (1) “Automated speed violation” means a violation of a speed law detected by a speed safety system operated pursuant to this article. (2) “Designated jurisdiction” means any of the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, or Long Beach, or the City and County of San Francisco. (3) A person is “indigent” if either of the following conditions is met: (A) The person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code. (B) The person receives public beneﬁts from a program listed in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code. (4) “Local department of transportation” means a designated jurisdiction’s department of transportation or, if a designated jurisdiction does not have a department of transportation, their administrative division, including, but not limited to, a public works department that administers transportation and trafﬁc matters under this code. (5) “School zone” means an area described by subdivision (b) of Section 40802. (6) “Speed safety system” or “system” means a ﬁxed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate. (b) (1) A designated jurisdiction may establish a program for speed enforcement that utilizes a speed safety system, to be operated by a local department of transportation, in the following areas: (A) On a street meeting the standards of a safety corridor under Section 22358.7. (B) On a street a local authority has determined to have had a high number of incidents for motor vehicle speed contests or motor vehicle exhibitions of speed. For the purposes of this provision, a high number of incidents shall be calls for law enforcement to respond to the area for at least four separate incidences of a motor vehicle speed contest or motor vehicle exhibition of speed within the last two years before the placement of the speed safety system. (C) School zones, subject to subdivision (c). (2) The number of speed safety systems operated by a designated jurisdiction at any time shall be limited as follows: 88 —4 — Ch. 808 A-4 (A) For a jurisdiction with a population over 3,000,000, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 125 systems. (B) For a jurisdiction with a population between 800,000 and 3,000,000, inclusive, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 33 systems. (C) For a jurisdiction with a population of 300,000 up to 800,000, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 18 systems. (D) For a jurisdiction with a population of less than 300,000, as determined by the United States Census Bureau in the 2020 Census, no more than 9 systems. (3) A speed enforcement program developed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall place the speed safety systems in locations that are geographically and socioeconomically diverse. The designated jurisdiction shall describe how it has complied with this provision in the Speed Safety System Impact Report described in subdivision (h). (c) If a speed safety system is deployed in a school zone and the school zone has a higher posted speed limit when children are not present, a designated jurisdiction may only enforce the school zone speed limit up to one hour before the regular school session begins, 10 minutes after school begins, one hour during lunch period, and up to one hour after regular school session concludes. For these school zones, ﬂashing beacons activated by a time clock, other automatic device, or manual activation shall be installed on a school zone sign and be active to indicate the times during which the school zone speed limit is enforced with a speed safety system. (d) A speed safety system may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements: (1) Clearly identiﬁes the presence of the speed safety system by signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the posted speed limit no more than 500 feet before the placement of the system. The signs shall be visible to trafﬁc traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the system is utilized, and shall be posted at all locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation after consultation with the California Trafﬁc Control Devices Committee. (2) Identiﬁes the streets or portions of streets that have been approved for enforcement using a speed safety system and the hours of enforcement on the municipality’s internet website, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations of enforcement. (3) Ensures that the speed safety system is regularly inspected, but no less than once every 60 days, and certiﬁes that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and at least once per year by an independent calibration laboratory. Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the system shall be retained at least 180 days after the date on which the system has been permanently removed from use. 88 Ch. 808—5 — A-5 (4) Utilizes ﬁxed or mobile speed safety systems that provide real-time notiﬁcation to the driver when violations are detected. (e) A speed safety system shall not be operated on any California state route, as deﬁned in Section 231 of the Streets and Highways Code, including all freeways and expressways, United States highways, interstate highways, or any public road in unincorporated areas of any county where the Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol has full responsibility and primary jurisdiction for the administration and enforcement of the laws, and for the investigation of trafﬁc accidents, pursuant to Section 2400. (f) Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing speed safety systems, the designated jurisdiction shall do both of the following: (1) Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. The public information campaign shall include the draft Speed Safety System Use Policy pursuant to subdivision (g), the Speed Safety System Impact Report pursuant to subdivision (h), information on when systems will begin detecting violations, the streets, or portions of streets, where systems will be utilized, and the designated jurisdiction’s internet website, where additional information about the program can be obtained. Notwithstanding the above, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required for additional systems that may be added to the program. (2) (A) Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the speed safety systems during the ﬁrst 60 calendar days of enforcement under the program. If additional systems are utilized on additional streets after the initial program implementation, the designated jurisdiction shall issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the new speed safety systems during the ﬁrst 60 calendar days of enforcement for the additional streets added to the program. (B) A vehicle’s ﬁrst violation within a designated jurisdiction for traveling 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit shall be a warning notice. (g) The governing body of a designated jurisdiction shall adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy before entering into an agreement regarding a speed safety system, purchasing or leasing equipment for a program, or implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall set forth the speciﬁc purpose for the system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required to be followed by employees and contractors of the designated jurisdiction administering the system prior to its use, and the uses of the equipment and data collected that are prohibited. The policy shall identify the data or information that can be collected by the speed safety system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access, transfer, and use or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the Speed Safety System Use Policy. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall be made available for public review, including, 88 —6 — Ch. 808 A-6 but not limited to, by posting it on the designated jurisdiction’s internet website at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body of the designated jurisdiction. (h) (1) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction also shall approve a Speed Safety System Impact Report prior to implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall include all of the following information: (A) Assessment of potential impact of the speed safety system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights. (B) Description of the speed safety system and how it works. (C) Fiscal costs for the speed safety system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding. (D) If potential deployment locations of systems are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods, a determination of why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to unsafe speed. (E) Locations where the system may be deployed and trafﬁc data for these locations, including the address of where the cameras will be located. (F) Proposed purpose of the speed safety system. (2) The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body at a public hearing. (3) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups, in developing the Speed Safety System Use Policy and Speed Safety System Impact Report. (i) The designated jurisdiction shall develop uniform guidelines, consistent with the provisions of this section, for both of the following: (1) The screening and issuing of notices of violation. (2) The processing and storage of conﬁdential information and procedures to ensure compliance with conﬁdentiality requirements. (j) Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, identify the speciﬁc section of the Vehicle Code violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation shall exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle. (k) The photographic evidence stored by a speed safety system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code. (l) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of the California Public Records Act, or any other law, photographic or administrative records made by a system shall be conﬁdential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the system. Data about the number of violations issued and the speeds at which they were issued is not considered an administrative record required not to be disclosed by this section. (2) Conﬁdential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of speed safety systems and enforcement of 88 Ch. 808—7 — A-7 this article shall be held conﬁdential, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Designated jurisdictions agents shall establish procedures to protect the conﬁdentiality of these records consistent with Section 1808.47. (3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the conﬁdential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after ﬁnal disposition of the notice of violation. The designated jurisdiction may retain information that a vehicle has been cited and ﬁned for a violation for up to three years. The municipality may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days in the Speed Safety System Use Policy. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after ﬁnal disposition of the notice of violation. Notwithstanding any other law, the conﬁdential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the conﬁdentiality of any person included in the record or evidence. (4) Photographic evidence that is obtained from a speed safety system that does not result in the issuance of a notice of violation shall be destroyed within ﬁve business days after the photograph was ﬁrst made. The use of facial recognition technology in conjunction with a speed safety system shall be prohibited. (5) Information collected and maintained by a designated jurisdiction to administer a program shall only be used to administer the program, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or ofﬁcial for any other purpose, except as required by state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding. (m) Notwithstanding subdivision (l), the registered owner or an individual identiﬁed by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review and obtain a copy of the photographic evidence of the alleged violation. (n) A contract between the designated jurisdiction and a manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not allow for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the system. The contract shall include a provision that all data collected from the speed safety systems is conﬁdential, and shall prohibit the manufacturer or supplier of the contracted speed safety system from sharing, repurposing, or monetizing collected data, except as speciﬁcally authorized in this article. The designated jurisdiction shall oversee, maintain control, and have the ﬁnal decision over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued. (o) Notwithstanding subdivision (n), a designated jurisdiction may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after an 88 —8 — Ch. 808 A-8 employee of a designated jurisdiction has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and not related to or afﬁliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems used by the designated jurisdiction. Any contract between the designated jurisdiction and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor. (p) (1) A speed safety system at a speciﬁc location shall be operated for no more than 18 months after installation of a system, unless one of the following thresholds has been met: (A) A reduction in the 85th percentile speed of vehicles compared to data collected before the system was in operation. (B) A 20-percent reduction in vehicles that exceed the posted speed limit by 10 miles per hour or more compared to data collected before the system was in operation. (C) A 20-percent reduction in the number of violators who received two or more violations at the location since the system became operational. (2) (A) Paragraph (1) does not apply if a designated jurisdiction adds trafﬁc-calming measures to the street. “Trafﬁc-calming measures” include, but are not limited to, all of the following: (i) Bicycle lanes. (ii) Chicanes. (iii) Chokers. (iv) Curb extensions. (v) Median islands. (vi) Raised crosswalks. (vii) Road diets. (viii) Roundabouts. (ix) Speed humps or speed tables. (x) Trafﬁc circles. (xi) Flashing beacons for school zone speed limits. (B) A designated jurisdiction may continue to operate a speed safety system with a ﬁxed or mobile vehicle speed feedback sign while trafﬁc-calming measures are being planned or constructed, but shall halt their use if construction has not begun within two years. (3) If the percentage of violations has not decreased by the metrics identiﬁed pursuant to paragraph (1) within one year after trafﬁc-calming measures have completed construction, a designated jurisdiction shall either construct additional trafﬁc-calming measures or cease operation of the system on that street. (q) The speed safety system, to the extent feasible, shall be angled and focused so as to only capture photographs of speeding violations and shall not capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians. (r) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 21455.6, the designated jurisdictions listed herein may use automated enforcement systems and photo radar for speed enforcement consistent with this article. 88 Ch. 808—9 — A-9 22426. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of any speed law pursuant to this chapter that is recorded by a speed safety system authorized pursuant to Section 22425 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (c), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator. (b) The speed safety system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to registered owners of those vehicles based on that evidence. (c) A civil penalty shall be assessed as follows: (1) Fifty dollars ($50) for driving at a speed of 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (2) One hundred dollars ($100) for driving at a speed of 16 to 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (3) Two hundred dollars ($200) for driving at a speed of 26 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit, unless paragraph (4) applies. (4) Five hundred dollars ($500) for driving at a speed of 100 miles per hour or more. (d) A civil penalty shall not be assessed against an authorized emergency vehicle. (e) The notice of violation shall be in writing and issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information: (1) The violation, including reference to the speed law that was violated, the speed of the vehicle, the speed limit for the road on which the violation occurred, and veriﬁcation of the most recent calibration of the system in accordance with paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 22425. (2) The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred. (3) The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. (4) A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22427. (5) The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the payment of the civil penalty or for contesting the notice of violation. (6) An afﬁdavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the afﬁdavit, and instructions for returning the afﬁdavit to the processor. If the afﬁdavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona ﬁde rental company, as deﬁned in Section 1939.01 of the Civil Code, or a personal vehicle sharing program, as deﬁned in Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, and its customer that identiﬁes the renter or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the renter or lessee identiﬁed in the afﬁdavit of 88 —10 — Ch. 808 A-10 nonliability. If the afﬁdavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a copy of a police report indicating the vehicle had been stolen at the time of the violation, the processing agency shall not subject the registered owner to a civil violation. (7) A proof of service consistent with Section 1013a of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) Mobile radar or laser systems shall not be used until at least two years after the installation of the ﬁrst ﬁxed radar or laser system unless the mobile radar or laser system is kept at a ﬁxed location. (g) (1) Revenues derived from any program utilizing a speed safety system for speed limit enforcement shall ﬁrst be used to recover program costs. Program costs include, but are not limited to, the construction of trafﬁc-calming measures for the purposes of complying with subdivision (p) of Section 22425, the installation of speed safety systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements as speciﬁed in this section. (2) Jurisdictions shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for trafﬁc-calming measures in order to remain authorized to participate in the pilot program, and shall annually expend not less than the annual average of expenditures for trafﬁc-calming measures during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 ﬁscal years. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating average expenditures on trafﬁc-calming measures, restricted funds that may not be available on an ongoing basis, including those from voter-approved bond issuances or tax measures, shall not be included. Any excess revenue shall be used for trafﬁc-calming measures within three years of the end of the ﬁscal year in which the excess revenue was received. If trafﬁc-calming measures are not planned or constructed after the third year, excess revenue shall revert to the Active Transportation Program established pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2380) of the Streets and Highways Code, to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Section 2381 of the Streets and Highways Code. (h) A person shall not be accessed a civil penalty if they are subject to criminal penalties for the same act. (i) A speed safety system may only be in operation for ﬁve years, or until January 1, 2032, whichever date is sooner. 22427. (a) No later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of a notice of violation, the recipient may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisﬁed that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make cancellation of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice within 60 days of receipt of the recipient’s request for 88 Ch. 808—11 — A-11 an initial review, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notiﬁcation of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedures adopted by the designated jurisdiction for the administrative hearing, including for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (b) (1) If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisﬁed with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agency’s initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. (2) The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency.The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. (3) The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days. (c) The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following: (1) The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing upon written declaration, video conference, or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency. (2) If the person requesting a hearing is an unemancipated minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult. (3) The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency.The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations. (4) (A) The issuing agency’s governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the designated jurisdiction shall appoint or contract with qualiﬁed independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualiﬁed independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualiﬁcations, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review, and shall meet the minimum requirements speciﬁed in subparagraph (B). The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation issuing and processing functions. An examiner’s continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and beneﬁts shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties upheld by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner. 88 —12 — Ch. 808 A-12 (B) (i) Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner, unless an employee of the designated jurisdiction, is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following: (I) An accredited college or university. (II) A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Ofﬁcer Standards and Training. (III) A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization. (IV) Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency. (ii) Training programs shall include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last ﬁve years. (5) The employee of the designated jurisdiction who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. To establish a violation, the issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph of the vehicle’s license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle.The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. If the designated jurisdiction meets its initial burden the recipient of the notice of violation may present any evidence and argument in defense. (6) The examiner’s ﬁnal decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by ﬁrst-class mail within 60 days of the date of the conclusion of the administrative hearing. (7) Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty. 88 Ch. 808—13 — A-13 (8) If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days. 22428. (a) Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the ﬁnal decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22427, the contestant may seek review by ﬁling an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agency’s ﬁle in the case on appeal shall be lodged by the designated agency at the designated agency’s expense and be received into evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by certiﬁed ﬁrst-class mail with return receipt upon the processing agency by the appellant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. (b) The fee for ﬁling the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the designated jurisdiction shall lodge its administrative record for the case with the court within 15 calendar days. The court shall notify the appellant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court. (c) The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial ofﬁcer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court. (d) If a notice of appeal of the examiner’s decision is not ﬁled within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed ﬁnal. (e) If the civil penalty has not been paid and the ﬁnal decision is adverse to the appellant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes ﬁnal, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22426. 22429. (a) A designated jurisdiction shall offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for a speed system violation. (b) A designated jurisdiction shall offer the ability for indigent speed safety system violation recipients to pay applicable ﬁnes and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan with monthly installments of no more than twenty-ﬁve dollars ($25) and shall limit the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to ﬁve dollars ($5) or less. (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable ﬁnes and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level. 88 —14 — Ch. 808 A-14 (d) The person may demonstrate that they are indigent or make up to 250 percent above the poverty level or less by providing either of the following information, as applicable: (1) Proof of income from a pay stub or another form of proof of earnings, such as a bank statement, that shows that the person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, subject to review and approval by the processing agency or its designee. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval. (2) Proof of receipt of beneﬁts under the programs described in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to, an electronic beneﬁts transfer card or another card, subject to review and approval by the processing agency. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval. 22430. Any designated jurisdiction that used speed safety systems shall, on or before March 1 of the ﬁfth year in which the system has been implemented, submit to its governing body and the transportation committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code, an evaluation of the speed safety system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the system’s impact on street safety and the system’s economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the internet websites of the respective jurisdictions and shall include all of the following information: (a) Data, at least three months before and at least six months after implementation of each system, on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding from 11 to 15 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, from 16 to 25 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, 26 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and for every violator traveling at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater. Data shall also be collected on the average speed of vehicles and 85th percentile speed of vehicles. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location. (b) The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year, the corridors or locations where violations occurred, and the number of vehicles with two or more violations in a monthly period and a yearly period. (c) Data, before and after implementation of the system, on the number of trafﬁc collisions that occurred where speed safety systems are used, relative to citywide data, and the transportation mode of the parties involved. The data on trafﬁc collisions shall be categorized by collision type and injury severity, such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury. (d) The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at 88 Ch. 808—15 — A-15 each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review. (e) The costs associated with implementation and operation of the speed safety systems, and revenues collected by each jurisdiction. (f) A racial and economic equity impact analysis, developed in collaboration with local racial justice and economic equity stakeholder groups.The analysis shall include the number of notices of violations issued to indigent individuals, the number of notices of violations issued to individuals of up to 250 percent above the poverty line, and the number of violations issued to each ZIP Code. 22431. This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 5. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that Section 4 of this act, which adds Section 22425 to the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public ofﬁcials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following ﬁndings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest: To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under a speed safety systems pilot program, the Legislature ﬁnds and declares that the photographic or administrative records generated by the program shall be conﬁdential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impact of the use of speed safety systems, as required by this act. SEC. 6. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique circumstances with trafﬁc speed enforcement in the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco. O 88 —16 — Ch. 808 A-16 Senate Bill No. 1297 CHAPTER 631 An act to amend Section 70615 of the Government Code, and to add and repealArticle 4 (commencing with Section 22435) of Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor September 27, 2024. Filed with Secretary of State September 27, 2024.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 1297, Allen. The City of Malibu’s speed safety system pilot program. 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 95 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL B-1 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. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares all of the following: (a) On October 17, 2023, a driver speeding at 104 miles per hour on the Paciﬁc Coast Highway (PCH) in the City of Malibu lost control of their vehicle and killed four university students standing on the side of the highway. (b) Since 2010, 59 people have been killed in vehicle accidents along the PCH in the City of Malibu. (c) Crash data from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department shows that, in 2023, there were 127 property-damage collisions, 93 injury collisions, and seven deaths in the City of Malibu. (d) The City of Malibu suffers uniquely from collisions. Over the past ﬁve years, the City of Malibu has had the highest number of fatalities and serious injuries resulting from vehicle crashes among similarly sized cities. Compared to all cities of every size, the City of Malibu is ranked 91st highest out of 482 cities despite being one of the smallest cities in the state. (e) The City of Malibu’s trafﬁc environment is uniquely hazardous with few sidewalks or separated bike lanes, limited parking, regionally popular beaches, and commercial establishments adjacent to a major highway with few safe ways to cross. (f) To address its trafﬁc safety problem, the City of Malibu has contracted for additional trafﬁc patrols from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s 95 —2 — Ch. 631 B-2 Department and, more recently, from the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (g) The City of Malibu would like to obtain additional trafﬁc patrols and is willing to pay for them, but stafﬁng shortages limit the ability of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department or the Department of the California Highway Patrol to provide them. SEC. 2. Section 70615 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 2 of Chapter 808 of the Statutes of 2023, is amended to read: 70615. The fee for ﬁling any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-ﬁve dollars ($25): (a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative ﬁne or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation. (c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing ofﬁcer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database. (e) An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing ofﬁcer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as deﬁned in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code. (f) An appeal under Section 22438 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing ofﬁcer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as deﬁned in Section 22435 of the Vehicle Code. (g) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed. SEC. 3. Article 4 (commencing with Section 22435) is added to Chapter 7 of Division 11 of the Vehicle Code, to read: Article 4. The City of Malibu’s Speed Safety Pilot Program 22435. (a) As used in this article, the following deﬁnitions apply: (1) “Automated speed violation” means a violation of a speed law detected by a speed safety system operated pursuant to this article. (2) “Designated jurisdiction” means the City of Malibu. (3) A person is “indigent” if either of the following conditions is met: (A) The person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code. (B) The person receives public beneﬁts from a program listed in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code. (4) “Local department of transportation” means the City of Malibu’s department that administers transportation and trafﬁc matters under this code. 95 Ch. 631—3 — B-3 (5) “Speed safety system” or “system” means a ﬁxed or mobile radar or laser system or any other electronic device that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speed laws and obtains a clear photograph of a speeding vehicle’s license plate. (b) The designated jurisdiction may establish a program for speed enforcement that utilizes up to ﬁve speed safety systems, to be operated by the local department of transportation, on the Paciﬁc Coast Highway. (c) The speed safety system may be utilized pursuant to subdivision (b) if the program meets all of the following requirements: (1) The designated jurisdiction continues funding the additional trafﬁc enforcement on the Paciﬁc Coast Highway provided by the Department of the California Highway Patrol. (2) Clearly identiﬁes the presence of the speed safety system by signs stating “Photo Enforced,” along with the speed limit signs with ﬂashing beacons and speed feedback signs, no more than 500 feet before the placement of the system. The signs shall be visible to trafﬁc traveling on the street from the direction of travel for which the system is utilized, and shall be posted at locations as may be determined necessary by the Department of Transportation after consultation with the California Trafﬁc Control Devices Committee. (3) Identiﬁes the street or portions of the street approved for enforcement using a speed safety system and the hours of enforcement on the municipality’s internet website, which shall be updated whenever the municipality changes locations of enforcement. (4) Ensures that the speed safety system is regularly inspected no less than once every 60 days, and certiﬁes that the system is installed and operating properly. Each camera unit shall be calibrated in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and at least once per year by an independent calibration laboratory. Documentation of the regular inspection, operation, and calibration of the system shall be retained for at least 180 days after the date on which the system has been permanently removed from use. (5) Utilizes ﬁxed or mobile speed safety systems that provide real-time notiﬁcation to the driver when violations are detected. (d) Prior to enforcing speed laws utilizing speed safety systems, the designated jurisdiction shall do both of the following: (1) Administer a public information campaign for at least 30 calendar days prior to the commencement of the program, which shall include public announcements in major media outlets and press releases. The public information campaign shall include the draft Speed Safety System Use Policy pursuant to subdivision (e), the Speed Safety System Impact Report pursuant to subdivision (f), information on when systems will begin detecting violations, the street, or portions of the street, where systems will be utilized, and the designated jurisdiction’s internet website, where additional information about the program can be obtained. Notwithstanding the above, no further public announcement by the municipality shall be required for additional systems that may be added to the program. 95 —4 — Ch. 631 B-4 (2) (A) Issue warning notices rather than notices of violation for violations detected by the speed safety system during the ﬁrst 60 calendar days of enforcement under the program. (B) A vehicle’s ﬁrst violation for traveling 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit shall be a warning notice. (e) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall adopt a Speed Safety System Use Policy before entering into an agreement regarding a speed safety system, purchasing or leasing equipment for a program, or implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall set forth the speciﬁc purpose for the system, the uses that are authorized, the rules and processes required to be followed by employees and contractors of the designated jurisdiction administering the system prior to its use, and the uses of the equipment and data collected that are prohibited. The policy shall identify the data or information that can be collected by the speed safety system and the individuals who can access or use the collected information, and the rules and processes related to the access, transfer, and use or use of the information. The policy shall also include provisions for protecting data from unauthorized access, data retention, public access, third-party data sharing, training, auditing, and oversight to ensure compliance with the Speed Safety System Use Policy. The Speed Safety System Use Policy shall be made available for public review, including, but not limited to, by posting it on the designated jurisdiction’s internet website at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body of the designated jurisdiction. (f) (1) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall approve a Speed Safety System Impact Report prior to implementing a program. The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall include all of the following information: (A) Assessment of the potential impact of the speed safety system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights. (B) Description of the speed safety system and how it works. (C) Fiscal costs for the speed safety system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding. (D) If potential deployment locations of systems are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods, a determination of why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to unsafe speed. (E) Locations where the system may be deployed and trafﬁc data for these locations, including the address where the cameras will be located. (F) Proposed purpose of the speed safety system. (2) The Speed Safety System Impact Report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body at a public hearing. (3) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups, in developing the Speed Safety System Use Policy and Speed Safety System Impact Report. 95 Ch. 631—5 — B-5 (g) The designated jurisdiction shall develop uniform guidelines, consistent with the provisions of this section, for both of the following: (1) The screening and issuing of notices of violation. (2) The processing and storage of conﬁdential information and procedures to ensure compliance with conﬁdentiality requirements. (h) Notices of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, identify the speciﬁc section of the Vehicle Code violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. Notices of violation shall exclude images of the rear window area of the vehicle. (i) The photographic evidence stored by a speed safety system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code. (j) (1) Notwithstanding any provision of the California Public Records Act, or any other law, photographic or administrative records made by a system shall be conﬁdential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this article or to assess the impacts of the system. Data about the number of violations issued and the speeds at which they were issued is not considered an administrative record required not to be disclosed by this section. (2) Conﬁdential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of speed safety systems and enforcement of this article shall be held conﬁdential, and shall not be used for any other purpose. Designated jurisdictions’ agents shall establish procedures to protect the conﬁdentiality of these records consistent with Section 1808.47. (3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in paragraph (4), the conﬁdential records and evidence described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to 60 days after ﬁnal disposition of the notice of violation. The designated jurisdiction may retain information that a vehicle has been cited and ﬁned for a violation for up to three years. The municipality may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days in the Speed Safety System Use Policy. Administrative records described in paragraph (1) may be retained for up to 120 days after ﬁnal disposition of the notice of violation. Notwithstanding any other law, the conﬁdential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the conﬁdentiality of any person included in the record or evidence. (4) Photographic evidence that is obtained from a speed safety system that does not result in the issuance of a notice of violation shall be destroyed within ﬁve business days after the photograph was ﬁrst made. The use of facial recognition technology in conjunction with a speed safety system shall be prohibited. (5) Information collected and maintained by a designated jurisdiction to administer a program shall only be used to administer the program, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal governmental agency or ofﬁcial for any other 95 —6 — Ch. 631 B-6 purpose, except as required by state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding. (k) Notwithstanding subdivision (j), the registered owner or an individual identiﬁed by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review and obtain a copy of the photographic evidence of the alleged violation. (l) A contract between the designated jurisdiction and a manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems shall allow the local authority to purchase materials, lease equipment, and contract for processing services from the manufacturer or supplier based on the services rendered on a monthly schedule or another schedule agreed upon by the municipality and contractor. The contract shall not allow for payment or compensation based on the number of notices of violation issued, or as a percentage of revenue generated, from the use of the system. The contract shall include a provision that all data collected from the speed safety system is conﬁdential, and shall prohibit the manufacturer or supplier of the contracted speed safety system from sharing, repurposing, or monetizing collected data, except as speciﬁcally authorized in this article. The designated jurisdiction shall oversee, maintain control, and have the ﬁnal decision over all enforcement activities, including the determination of when a notice of violation should be issued. (m) Notwithstanding subdivision (l), a designated jurisdiction may contract with a vendor for the processing of notices of violation after an employee of a designated jurisdiction has issued a notice of violation. The vendor shall be a separate legal and corporate entity from, and not related to or afﬁliated in any manner with, the manufacturer or supplier of speed safety systems used by the designated jurisdiction. Any contract between the designated jurisdiction and a vendor to provide processing services may include a provision for the payment of compensation based on the number of notices of violation processed by the vendor. (n) The speed safety system, to the extent feasible, shall be angled and focused so as to only capture photographs of speeding violations and shall not capture identifying images of other drivers, vehicles, or pedestrians. (o) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 21455.6, the designated jurisdiction listed herein may use automated enforcement systems and photographic radar for speed enforcement consistent with this article. 22436. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of any speed law pursuant to this chapter that is recorded by a speed safety system authorized pursuant to Section 22435 shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in subdivision (c), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator. (b) The speed safety system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are traveling 11 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit and notices of violation shall only be issued to registered owners of those vehicles based on that evidence. (c) A civil penalty shall be assessed as follows: 95 Ch. 631—7 — B-7 (1) Fifty dollars ($50) for driving at a speed of 11 to 15 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (2) One hundred dollars ($100) for driving at a speed of 16 to 25 miles per hour over the posted speed limit. (3) Two hundred dollars ($200) for driving at a speed of 26 miles per hour or more over the posted speed limit, unless paragraph (4) applies. (4) Five hundred dollars ($500) for driving at a speed of 100 miles per hour or more. (d) A civil penalty shall not be assessed against an authorized emergency vehicle. (e) The notice of violation shall be in writing and issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information: (1) The violation, including reference to the speed law that was violated, the speed of the vehicle, the speed limit for the road on which the violation occurred, and veriﬁcation of the most recent calibration of the system in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 22435. (2) The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred. (3) The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. (4) A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to Section 22437. (5) The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the payment of the civil penalty or for contesting the notice of violation. (6) An afﬁdavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the afﬁdavit, and instructions for returning the afﬁdavit to the processor. If the afﬁdavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona ﬁde rental company, as deﬁned in Section 1939.01 of the Civil Code, or a personal vehicle sharing program, as deﬁned in Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, and its customer that identiﬁes the renter or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the renter or lessee identiﬁed in the afﬁdavit of nonliability. If the afﬁdavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a copy of a police report indicating the vehicle had been stolen at the time of the violation, the processing agency shall not subject the registered owner to a civil violation. (7) A proof of service consistent with Section 1013a of the Code of Civil Procedure. (f) Mobile radar or laser systems shall not be used until at least two years after the installation of the ﬁrst ﬁxed radar or laser system unless the mobile radar or laser system is kept at a ﬁxed location. 95 —8 — Ch. 631 B-8 (g) (1) Revenues derived from any program utilizing a speed safety system for speed limit enforcement shall ﬁrst be used to recover program costs. Program costs include, but are not limited to, the installation of speed safety systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements as speciﬁed in this section. (2) The designated jurisdiction shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for trafﬁc-calming measures in order to remain authorized to participate in the pilot program, and shall annually expend not less than the annual average of expenditures for trafﬁc-calming measures during the 2016–17, 2017–18, and 2018–19 ﬁscal years. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating average expenditures on trafﬁc-calming measures, restricted funds that may not be available on an ongoing basis, including those from voter-approved bond issuances or tax measures, shall not be included.The designated jurisdiction shall enter into an agreement with the Department of Transportation for the use of any excess revenue for trafﬁc calming-measures on the Paciﬁc Coast Highway, in the City of Malibu. Excess revenue shall be used for trafﬁc-calming measures within three years of the end of the ﬁscal year in which the excess revenue was received. If trafﬁc-calming measures are not planned or constructed after the third year, excess revenue shall revert to the ActiveTransportation Program established pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2380) of the Streets and Highways Code, to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Section 2381 of the Streets and Highways Code. (h) A person shall not be assessed a civil penalty if they are subject to criminal penalties for the same act. (i) A speed safety system may only be in operation for ﬁve years, or until January 1, 2032, whichever date is sooner. 22437. (a) No later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of a notice of violation, the recipient may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisﬁed that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make cancellation of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation. The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice within 60 days of receipt of the recipient’s request for an initial review, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notiﬁcation of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedures adopted by the designated jurisdiction for the administrative hearing, including for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (b). (b) (1) If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisﬁed with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agency’s initial 95 Ch. 631—9 — B-9 review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. (2) The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency.The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due. (3) The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days. (c) The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following: (1) The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing upon written declaration, video conference, or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency. (2) If the person requesting a hearing is an unemancipated minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated speed violation without the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult. (3) The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency.The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated speed violations. (4) (A) The issuing agency’s governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the designated jurisdiction shall appoint or contract with qualiﬁed independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualiﬁed independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualiﬁcations, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review, and shall meet the minimum requirements speciﬁed in subparagraph (B). The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation issuing and processing functions. An examiner’s continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and beneﬁts shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties upheld by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner. (B) (i) Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner, unless an employee of the designated jurisdiction, is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following: (I) An accredited college or university. (II) A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Ofﬁcer Standards and Training. (III) A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization. 95 —10 — Ch. 631 B-10 (IV) Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency. (ii) Training programs shall include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this subparagraph may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive ofﬁcer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last ﬁve years. (5) The employee of the designated jurisdiction who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. To establish a violation, the issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph of the vehicle’s license plate, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle.The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. If the designated jurisdiction meets its initial burden, the recipient of the notice of violation may present any evidence and argument in defense. (6) The examiner’s ﬁnal decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by ﬁrst-class mail within 60 days of the date of the conclusion of the administrative hearing. (7) Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty. (8) If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days. 22438. (a) Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the ﬁnal decision described in subdivision (c) of Section 22437, the contestant may seek review by ﬁling an appeal to the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agency’s ﬁle in the case on appeal shall be lodged by the designated agency at the designated agency’s expense and be received into evidence. A copy of the notice of violation shall be admitted into evidence as prima facie evidence 95 Ch. 631—11 — B-11 of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by certiﬁed ﬁrst-class mail with return receipt upon the processing agency by the appellant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this subdivision is a limited civil case. (b) The fee for ﬁling the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the designated jurisdiction shall lodge its administrative record for the case with the court within 15 calendar days. The court shall notify the appellant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court. (c) The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial ofﬁcer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court. (d) If a notice of appeal of the examiner’s decision is not ﬁled within the period set forth in subdivision (a), the decision shall be deemed ﬁnal. (e) If the civil penalty has not been paid and the ﬁnal decision is adverse to the appellant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes ﬁnal, proceed to collect the civil penalty under Section 22436. 22439. (a) A designated jurisdiction shall offer a diversion program for indigent speed safety system violation recipients, to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for a speed system violation. (b) A designated jurisdiction shall offer the ability for indigent speed safety system violation recipients to pay applicable ﬁnes and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan with monthly installments of no more than twenty-ﬁve dollars ($25) and shall limit the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to ﬁve dollars ($5) or less. (c) Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) and (b), a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable ﬁnes and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level. (d) The person may demonstrate that they are indigent or make up to 250 percent above the poverty level or less by providing either of the following information, as applicable: (1) Proof of income from a pay stub or another form of proof of earnings, such as a bank statement, that shows that the person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, subject to review and approval by the processing agency or its designee. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval. (2) Proof of receipt of beneﬁts under the programs described in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to, an electronic beneﬁts transfer card or another card, subject 95 —12 — Ch. 631 B-12 to review and approval by the processing agency. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval. 22440. The designated jurisdiction that used a speed safety system shall, on or before March 1 of the ﬁfth year in which the system has been implemented, submit to its governing body and the transportation committees of the Legislature, consistent with Section 9795 of the Government Code, an evaluation of the speed safety system in their respective jurisdictions to determine the system’s impact on street safety and the system’s economic impact on the communities where the system is utilized. The report shall be made available on the internet website of the jurisdiction and shall include all of the following information: (a) Data, at least three months before and at least six months after implementation of each system, on the number and proportion of vehicles speeding from 11 to 15 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, from 16 to 25 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, inclusive, 26 miles per hour over the legal speed limit, and for every violator traveling at a speed of 100 miles per hour or greater. Data shall also be collected on the average speed of vehicles and 85th percentile speed of vehicles. To the extent feasible, the data should be collected at the same time of day, day of week, and location. (b) The number of notices of violation issued under the program by month and year, the corridors or locations where violations occurred, and the number of vehicles with two or more violations in a monthly period and a yearly period. (c) Data, before and after implementation of the system, on the number of trafﬁc collisions that occurred where speed safety systems are used, relative to citywide data, and the transportation mode of the parties involved. The data on trafﬁc collisions shall be categorized by collision type and injury severity, such as property damage only, complaint of pain, other visible injury, or severe or fatal injury. (d) The number of violations paid, the number of delinquent violations, and the number of violations for which an initial review is requested. For the violations in which an initial review was requested, the report shall indicate the number of violations that went to initial review, administrative hearing, and de novo hearing, the number of notices that were dismissed at each level of review, and the number of notices that were not dismissed after each level of review. (e) The costs associated with implementation and operation of the speed safety system and revenues collected by the jurisdiction. (f) A racial and economic equity impact analysis, developed in collaboration with local racial justice and economic equity stakeholder groups.The analysis shall include the number of notices of violations issued to indigent individuals, the number of notices of violations issued to individuals of up to 250 percent above the poverty line, and the number of violations issued to each ZIP Code. 22441. This article shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed. 95 Ch. 631—13 — B-13 SEC. 4. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that Section 3 of this act, which adds Section 22435 to the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public ofﬁcials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following ﬁndings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest: To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under a speed safety system pilot program, the Legislature ﬁnds and declares that the photographic or administrative records generated by the program shall be conﬁdential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impact of the use of speed safety systems, as required by this act. SEC. 5. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that a special statute is necessary and that a general statute cannot be made applicable within the meaning of Section 16 of Article IV of the California Constitution because of the unique need to provide additional trafﬁc safety in the City of Malibu. O 95 —14 — Ch. 631 B-14 Senate Bill No. 1079 CHAPTER 449 An act to add Section 27150.4 to the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles. [Approved by Governor September 19, 2022. Filed with Secretary of State September 19, 2022.] legislative counsel’s digest SB 1079, Portantino. Vehicles: sound-activated enforcement devices. Existing law requires every motor vehicle subject to registration to be equipped with an adequate mufﬂer in constant operation and properly maintained to prevent any excessive or unusual noise and prohibits a mufﬂer or exhaust system from being equipped with a cutout, bypass, or similar device. Existing law further prohibits the modiﬁcation of an exhaust system of a motor vehicle in a manner that will amplify or increase the noise emitted by the motor of the vehicle so that the vehicle exceeds existing noise limits when tested in accordance with speciﬁed standards. This bill would require the Department of the California Highway Patrol to evaluate the efﬁcacy of sound-activated enforcement devices by evaluating devices from at least 3 different companies, and would require the department, on or before January 1, 2025, to prepare and submit its ﬁndings and recommendations from the evaluation in a report to the Legislature, as speciﬁed. 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. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: SECTION 1. Section 27150.4 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read: 27150.4. (a) The Department of the California Highway Patrol shall evaluate the efﬁcacy of sound-activated enforcement devices by evaluating devices from at least three different companies. (b) (1) On or before January 1, 2025, the department shall prepare and submit its ﬁndings and recommendations from the evaluation in a report to the Legislature, which shall include all of the following information: (A) How effective the devices are at determining that a vehicle was not equipped with an adequate mufﬂer in constant operation and properly maintained in accordance with the requirements of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200). 93 STATE OF CALIFORNIA AUTHENTICATED ELECTRONIC LEGAL MATERIAL C-1 (B) How often the device identiﬁed a potential violation that was not related to a violation of Section 27150, and the types of sounds other than a loud mufﬂer that triggered the device. (C) What percentage of time an ofﬁcer was unable to determine the source of the sound that activated the device. (D) How often the device was required to be serviced. (E) What, if any, technology does the sound-activated enforcement system use to determine the direction or source of the sound that violated the sound limits provided for in Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 27200). (F) Where the devices were located, and whether the location had any consequences to the effectiveness of the device. (G) The number of devices the department tested and from which companies were the devices that were tested. (H) Recommendations on all of the following: (i) Which, if any, device or devices would the department recommend be used for the purposes of enforcing Sections 27150 and 27151, and the reasons for that determination. If the department determines that it does not recommend any of the devices tested, the report shall include the standards and parameters that shall be met by future technology. (ii) What, if any, restrictions should be placed on the use of sound-activated enforcement devices in enforcing Sections 27150 and 27151, including, but not limited to, the decibel level setting for triggering a potential violation for the purposes of enforcement. (iii) Where the devices should be optimally located in order to reduce the chances of a false violation. (iv) Descriptions and explanation of any necessary and associated training that an individual reviewing these violations would need to go through in order to operate the device, including recommendations for what is necessary for a robust human review process. (v) Any other recommendations the department believes would be necessary for authorizing the use of sound-activated enforcement devices. (I) A video demonstrating the device.The video shall be edited to remove any personally identifying information, including the blurring of persons recorded in the video, street addresses, and license plates. (2) The report required by this subdivision shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code. (c) The department shall delete all videos recorded on a highway by a device within ﬁve days of the video being recorded. However, the department shall keep 15 videos from the devices of each company evaluated for the purposes of preparing the report required by this section and documenting the issues related to each device that helped the department make its recommendations.The department shall not keep any recording that picked up audio of a person speaking, if recorded on a highway. (d) Notwithstanding Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000) of Title 1 of the Government Code, or any other law, information collected and maintained by the department using a sound-activated enforcement device that could be used to identify the identity or location of any individual 93 —2 — Ch. 449 C-2 shall be conﬁdential and only be used for purposes of this section, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or ofﬁcial for any other purpose, except as required by the reporting requirements in this section, state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding. (e) For purposes of this section, “sound-activated enforcement device” or “device” means an electronic device that utilizes automated equipment that activates when the noise levels have exceeded the legal sound limit established in Section 27151 and is designed to obtain clear video of a vehicle and its license plate. A sound-activated enforcement device shall do all of the following: (1) Record audio, precision accuracy noise levels, and high deﬁnition video in two directions. (2) Utilize an automated system that triggers when excessive vehicle noise over the limit is detected and save the data for review. (3) Automatically delete any evidence not related to a violation. (4) Permit the department to manually review evidence to ensure a violation has occurred. (5) Conform to the class 1 accuracy standards in the International Electrotechnical Commission’s (IEC) standard IEC 61672:2013, or any other accuracy standard determined to be appropriate by the department. SEC. 2. The Legislature ﬁnds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Section 27150.4 to the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public ofﬁcials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following ﬁndings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest: To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under a sound-activated enforcement device program, the Legislature ﬁnds and declares that the records generated by a sound-activated enforcement device shall be conﬁdential. O 93 Ch. 449—3 — C-3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: 06/21/2022 AGENDA REPORT AGENDA HEADING: Consent Calendar AGENDA TITLE: Consideration and possible action to authorize the Mayor to sign a letter supporting Senate Bill No. (SB) 1079 (vehicles with modified exhaust systems). RECOMMENDED COUNCIL ACTION: (1) Authorize the Mayor to sign a letter supporting SB 1079, which would create a pilot program in six cities to evaluate the use of sound -activated devices to enforce vehicle noise limit laws particularly vehicles with modified exhaust systems. FISCAL IMPACT: None Amount Budgeted: N/A Additional Appropriation: N/A Account Number(s): N/A ORIGINATED BY: McKenzie Bright, Administrative Analyst REVIEWED BY: Karina Bañales, Deputy City Manager APPROVED BY: Ara Mihranian, AICP, City Manager ATTACHED SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS: A. Draft letter supporting SB 1079 (page A-1) B. Text of SB 1079 (as amended May 23, 2022) BACKGROUND AND DISUCSSION: On November 2, 2021, the City Council adopted the City’s 2022 Legislative Platform, outlining the policy positions of the City.1 The platform is intended to help the City maintain and enhance a high quality of life and safety for all residents. The City continues to experience instances of vehicles with modified exhaust systems, exceeding the sound requirements mandated by the California Vehicle Code (CVC). The City has engaged in public information campaigns, including posting information on the City website and social media pages, as well as utilizing message boards in areas with increased reports of loud exhaust. In addition, the City has funded supplemental patrols for the Sheriff’s Department to conduct loud exhaust enforcement patrols. 1 The 2022 Legislative Platform and a record of the bills the City Council has taken a position on during the 2021-2022 legislative session is available at rpvca.gov/LegislationCorner. 1 D-1 SB 1079, introduced by Senator Anthony Portantino (La Cañada Flintridge), would authorize six unspecified cities to conduct a five-year pilot program using sound-activated enforcement devices to capture vehicle noise levels that exceed limits set in the CVC: 95 decibels (dBA) for vehicles and 80 dBA for motorcycles. Existing California law prohibits a person from modifying their vehicles in any way that amplifies the noise emitted by the vehicle . The pilot program would utilize cameras that are activated by noise exceeding set dBA limits, functionally similar to red light cameras, which capture information that can be used to issue a ticket. The cities of New York and Knoxville, Tennessee began pilot programs with noise-monitoring cameras in February 2022. The bill does not provide any funds to implement the pilot program, leaving the participating city responsible for the acquisition, installation, monitoring, etc. of the cameras. The participating city would also be responsible for establishing standards for the use of the cameras and associated data and be required to file annual progress reports. Staff does not recommend pursuing becoming a participant in the pilot program because of costs and staff monitoring, but the data collected through the other, unnamed, pilot cities could have valuable results that could be implemented in the City, potentially with future grant funding if the pilot program is successful in reducing loud exhaust violators. Sound-detecting cameras are a relatively new invention and the technology that exists today is relatively limited: the cameras require manual (staff resources) review of footage to confirm that the sound captured is from a vehicle’s exhaust rather than other noise such as a siren, and if more than one vehicle is in the frame, the camera would not be able to pinpoint the offending vehicle. Furthermore, there is some opposition to the bill due to concerns that the program would unfairly penalize individuals who cannot afford to repair their car, as it is not possible to differentiate between loud exhaust caused by intentional illegal modification and a vehicle in need of repairs. While the functionality of the program may have some hurdles, the data collected through the program could be used to develop future sound-detection programs to help reduce intentional vehicle noise pollution. This bill is a step in the right direction when it comes to addressing the adverse impacts associated with modified and loud vehicle exhausts. Therefore, Staff recommends the City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a letter in support of SB 1079 as drafted or with revisions (see Attachment A). ALTERNATIVES: In addition to the Staff recommendation, the following alternative actions are available for the City Council’s consideration: 1. Identify revised language to add to the letter. 2. Do not authorize the Mayor to sign the letter. 3. Take other action, as deemed appropriate. 2 D-2 June 21, 2022 Via Email The Honorable Anthony Portantino California State Senate 1021 O Street, Suite 7630 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Notice of Support for SB 1079 Dear Senator Portantino: The City of Rancho Palos Verdes respectfully supports SB 1079, which would create a pilot program evaluating the use of sound-activated devices to enforce vehicle noise limit laws. Modifying the exhaust system of a vehicle for the purpose of increasing or amplifying noise emitted is a willful violation of the California Vehicle Code and significantly increases noise pollution experienced by residents thereby adversely impacting the community’s quality of life. In an attempt to discourage such practices, the City has conducted multiple education and enforcement exercises to reduce loud vehicle noise – a short-term solution without any permanent consequences. A pilot program such as the one proposed in this bill would provide valuable data for all cities and law enforcement to evaluate sound-activated devices and their ability to enforce and deter modifications to exhaust systems. We look forward to the results compiled by the participating cities to inform future legislation, as well as illustrate best practices for enforcement of intentional illegal modification of vehicle exhaust systems. For these reasons, the City of Rancho Palos Verdes supports SB 1079. Sincerely, David L. Bradley Mayor, City of Rancho Palos Verdes A-1 D-3 Senator Portantino June 21, 2022 Page 2 cc: Ben Allen, Senator, 26th State Senate District Al Muratsuchi, Assemblymember, 66th State Assembly District Jacki Bacharach, South Bay Cities Council of Governments Jeff Kiernan, League of California Cities Marcel Rodarte, California Contract Cities Association Sharon Gonsalves, Renne Public Policy Group Rancho Palos Verdes City Council and City Manager A-2 D-4 This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com. https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9 New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors Traffic police deploy new technology—and steep fines—to combat roaring mufflers, revving engines and blaring stereos By Scott Calvert Follow Aug. 9, 2025 5:30 am ET Quick Summary Noise cameras are being implemented across the U.S. to combat excessive noise from vehicles, addressing a common public complaint. View more NEWPORT, R.I.—As the crimson Mustang GT rumbled toward winding Ocean Avenue on the rocky Atlantic coast, a roadside noise camera was listening. The device measured the Ford’s throaty engine and exhaust at 85 decibels, two over Newport’s limit, city records show. A camera snapped its license plate. The likely cost of that late July ride through this upscale tourist town? A $250 ticket for violating the municipal noise ordinance. Noise cameras are the new frontier in automated traffic enforcement. Growing numbers of agencies across the U.S., from New York to Hawaii, see them as a way to combat revving engines, blaring stereos, honking horns and earsplitting mufflers— some illegally altered. For police, public officials and residents, the machines partially solve a perennial top complaint, particularly during warmer months in spots like Newport, where throngs flock to the Gilded Age mansions, music festivals and the bustling colonial waterfront. “Folks have reached their boiling point,” Newport City Councilor David Carlin III said. 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 1/7E-1 Local resident Caroline Richards was on her front porch one June evening when she recorded what sounded like a racetrack. “We should be hearing crickets and nice summer sounds,” said Richards, 54 years old, a Realtor who supports the cameras. “I’m not for overpolicing what people want to drive or do. But it’s just obnoxious, it just definitely feels like it’s gotten worse.” To critics—some who refuse to pay the tickets—the devices are another step toward a surveillance society and can unfairly ensnare drivers simply going about their routines in street-legal vehicles. Harley rider James Alves, 56, who lives in a nearby town and received a noise warning, said he hasn’t altered his bike and rides respectfully. “If I see a couple walking a dog on the sidewalk, I pull my clutch in,” he said. Alves, who works at an auto-parts business, views the cameras as “just another way to grab money.” In this video from the Newport Police Department, a Mustang triggers the camera system, which uses 64 microphones to pinpoint the source of excessive noise. NEWPORT POLICE DEPARTMENT TAP TO UNMUTETAP TO UNMUTETAP TO UNMUTETAP TO UNMUTETAP TO UNMUTE 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 2/7E-2 Harley rider James Alves views noise cameras as ‘another way to grab money.’ PHOTO: TONY LUONG FOR WSJ Cameras that catch speeders and red-light runners are already common nationwide. Noise cameras are a recent import from Europe, first appearing several years ago and now spreading. Later this year, Knoxville, Tenn., plans to start downtown noise-camera enforcement, fining violators $50. Albuquerque, N.M., beset by drag racing, is trying out three cameras. In Philadelphia, where authorities tested the cameras, the city council passed a bill that would permit enforcement. Hawaii plans to install 10 detectors around Oahu to gather data on violators. Providence, R.I., budgeted $185,000 for a pilot program, while Avoca, Iowa, is set to crack down on overly loud trucks. Noise cameras are the new frontier in automated traffic enforcement. PHOTO: TONY LUONG FOR WSJ Lamborghini showdown 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 3/7E-3 New York City reigns as the U.S. noise-camera epicenter. It operates 10 in partnership with U.K.-based Intelligent Instruments, whose SoundVue cameras film and pinpoint the offending vehicle even with others present. Fines are $800 for a first violation, $1,700 for a second, and $2,500 for a third. The city has issued more than 2,500 tickets since 2021, though it has collected only about $550,000 of the roughly $2 million in fines. “Is this a complete dragnet? Of course not,” said Rohit “Rit” Aggarwala, commissioner of New York’s Department of Environmental Protection. “I think in order really to say whether it’s having an actual impact on noise violations, we would need a much more comprehensive deployment.” While cacophonous illegal mufflers are a target, he said driving an unmodified car doesn’t excuse topping the city’s 85-decibel violation threshold, which is above the legal limit. “It’s totally legal to buy a massive sound system to put in your backyard,” Aggarwala said. “That doesn’t mean you’re allowed to play it at full blast in a crowded neighborhood, right?” The noise code is city law, he added: “People have to figure out how to avoid violating.” That logic doesn’t sit well with city resident Anthony Aquilino. A noise camera in Manhattan recorded his $315,000 Lamborghini Huracán at 92 decibels. The insurance broker said he would have deserved a ticket for “acting arrogant” behind the wheel. But he said he was driving 25 miles an hour to a prostate-cancer awareness event. The burst of noise, he said, came when he braked for a pothole and the car downshifted. Aquilino, 39, unsuccessfully contested his citation, and a judge in June tossed his appeal. He has paid the $800 fine but pledged to continue fighting in court. “It’s either don’t drive the car in Manhattan, sell the car, or just keep getting noise-pollution tickets,” he said. “I can’t change the way the car sounds.” Mansions and motors Newport Police Chief Ryan Duffy said he faced growing pressure a couple years ago from city council members to address noise complaints. Loud house parties are easy, he said; loud cars and motorcycles aren’t: “It’s much more difficult when that party is mobile.” He gave every officer a handheld noise meter, with minimal success. 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 4/7E-4 Newport Police Chief Ryan Duffy. PHOTO: TONY LUONG FOR WSJ So the city borrowed two noise cameras made by Dutch company Sorama, linked them to license-plate reader technology, and mounted them on portable trailers. Sorama says the 64-microphone array can detect a sound’s origin. The first spot chosen in 2024 was one-way Thames Street, where clapboard buildings front the narrow, busy road, creating a canyon effect. On a recent evening, the mostly quiet procession of vehicles along Thames was pierced by a quartet of growling motorcycles and a Jeep that cruised with its top off and stereo screaming. At O’Brien’s Pub, bouncer Will McGary, 29, said those loud noises jar patio patrons. “They turn around, they stare, and then you hear them swear.” Farther south, where houses thin and roads open up, retired trade-association head Tom Gibson, 68, said too many drivers treat the area like a Grand Prix course. “It’s enough to drive you off your porch or to close your windows,” said Gibson, who backs the cameras. “I think when people are making noise, mostly it’s intentional.” Some motorists dinged by Newport said that doesn’t describe them. Pat Morganti, a dentist from Warwick, R.I., got a $250 ticket when his Corvette Z06 hit 84.3 decibels one morning. He said he was on a main road heading to a patient at a satellite office. “It’s got a pretty obnoxious engine, but that’s the way the car is made,” said Morganti, 63, who reluctantly paid the fine. Jonathon Zitt, a Navy sailor based in Newport, received a ticket from the same camera while on a food run to BJ’s in the 1994 Nissan Skyline GT-R he brought back from 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 5/7E-5 Videos Retired trade-association head Tom Gibson. PHOTO: TONY LUONG FOR WSJ Japan. The citation noted 94.9 decibels. Zitt, 38, who lives in neighboring Middletown, said he and his wife have mused about retiring locally. “That’s not an option if I can’t drive my car,” he said. “This is my dream car. I worked my whole life to buy this.” One of Zitt’s complaints: No signs warn drivers about the cameras. Duffy, the police chief, said previous noise-related signs backfired as some motorcyclists revved their engines—an acoustic middle finger. He said he recently asked the traffic unit to explore signage possibilities. So far, Newport has issued a few dozen noise-camera tickets, and Duffy said he expects the pace to accelerate. “I think when you have success with enforcement, you’ll be able to change the behavior.” That can’t come soon enough for Bill Hogan, 73, a retired municipal chief financial officer. “Our friends live throughout all of Newport,” he said. “The hue and cry is the same. Do something about the damn noise and the speed.” Write to Scott Calvert at scott.calvert@wsj.com 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 6/7E-6 8/10/25, 8:52 AM New Noise Cameras Pit Drivers of Fast Cars Against Their Neighbors - WSJ https://www.wsj.com/us-news/new-noise-cameras-pit-drivers-of-fast-cars-against-their-neighbors-d54383e9?mod=djem10point 7/7E-7