2500 Bates Avenue, Suite B, Concord CA 94520 | Phone: (925) 608-5200 | Fax: (925) 608-5188 cchealth.org
Good Evening, Mayor Meyers and Honorable Council members, My name is Dr. Sofe Mekuria, and I am the Director of Contra Costa Public Health and Interim Director of the Community Health and Safety Branch. I appreciate your consideration of these tobacco policy recommendations. Our mission is to care for and improve the health of all people in Contra Costa County with special attention to those who are most vulnerable.
Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States. According to the 2024 CDC’s Surgeon General report, tobacco kills more than 480,000 people annually, which is more than AIDS, alcohol, car accidents, illegal drugs, murders and suicides combined. If smoking rates do not decline, an estimated 441,000 of all California youth alive today could die prematurely from smoking-related diseases.
Youth are one of the most vulnerable to the influences of tobacco. Nearly 9 out of 10 smokers start before the age of 18 and 99% start by age 26. Exposure to nicotine among young people is particularly dangerous since it affects key brain receptors, making young people more susceptible to nicotine addiction. Vape devices, which are the most popular tobacco product with youth, often have particularly high levels of nicotine and deliver nicotine in a more concentrated form. For example, one Elf Bar (a popular brand among youth) contains the equivalent nicotine dose of 25 cigarette packs1.
As a pediatrician and public health officer working in our healthcare system, I see the critical need for community level interventions, including policies to improve health outcomes. Prevention is critical.
Many factors contribute to reducing youth tobacco use, and studies have shown that comprehensive Tobacco Retailer Licenses (TRLs) are associated with lower youth tobacco initiation and use. If young people don’t initiate tobacco use by age 26, they likely never will, and a TRL policy is a critical component to the reduction of youth tobacco use.
Thank you for your leadership in protecting the health of young people in Brentwood.
Sofe Mekuria, MD, MPH
Director of Public Health,
Interim Director of Community Health and Safety Branch, STI Controller, Deputy Health Officer
Contra Costa Health
1 (Dr. Jackler, Stanford Medicine Research into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising, UCSF Billion Lives Symposium, April 11 2025).
Support Letter – Tobacco Retail License Policy
Date: 8-25-25
City: Brentwood -94513; District III
Dear Mayor Meyers and honorable city council,
My name is Nancy Benavides; I am a Brentwood resident. I am writing to you in support of the adoption of the Tobacco Retail License Policy.
Strong local tobacco control measures like the one under consideration tonight are needed in Brentwood. With the American Lung Association issuing an F grade to Brentwood for the lack of policy protections, adopting comprehensive tobacco retail licensing program can deter and reduce tobacco initiation among youth. We must protect our community from Big Tobacco and ensure the next generation of youth do not become addicted to emerging nicotine products.
The 2023-2024 California Healthy Kids Survey showed that 24% of 11th graders in Liberty Union High School District have never used a vape with 73% reporting that vapes are either fair or very easy to access.
As a mother of 2 girls-now young ladies-, I am personally interested in having better tobacco policies for our city to protect the youth. As many women in our city, I am a working mom, and I must commute and leave home earlier to go to work. Unfortunately, many times in the past I found myself having to drop my kids early in the morning before school started at a donut shop close to their high school so they could wait and kill some time before school started. Much to my dismay, one day I discovered that a tobacco dispensary opened next to the donut shop where my kids along with many other kids waited before going to school. Sadly, this made it easier for some of the kids to go to the store and purchase all types of tobacco products before going to school. Working parents do not get to have the time we’d like to influence our kids in a positive manner, as a result, our kids become easy prey to many negative influences and tobacco is just one of them. Allowing tobacco retailers to set up shops and influence our kids’ decisions using location and convenience as an advantage has a negative impact on the health of our children and families in Brentwood. Please help working parents of Brentwood to reduce the negative influences for our kids by adopting a comprehensive tobacco retail licensing program.
Let’s join the 12 other cities in Contra Costa County that have adopted a Tobacco Retail License program.
Together, we can make Brentwood a safer, healthier place for our youth.
Sincerely,
Nancy Benavides
From: e chan
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Public Comment re: Adoption of Chapter 5.76 (‘Tobacco Retailers’) and Adoption of Tobacco Retail License Fee Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:01:41 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Dear City Council and Staff,
I'm sharing a comment from a community who needed help sharing her story with the city council this week -- Mirna Mayorquin from the Village Community Resource Center.
Hola mi nombre es Mirna. Soy organizadora comunitaria. Vivo en Discovery Bay por 4 anos y tengo una hija que asiste en Liberty High school. aquien corresponda invito a considerar que no permitan que mas tiendas se esten abriendo cercas de las escuelas. me preocupa saber que hay tiendas cercas de la escuela, ya que es mas facil que los ninos esten espuestos salir a comprar cigarros o otros objectos inapropriados para los jovenes.
Hello, my name is Mirna. I am a community organizer. I live in Discovery Bay for 4 years and I have a daughter who attends Liberty High School. To whom it may concern, I invite you to consider to not let new stores open near schools. I'm worried that if new stores open, it'll be that much easier for the young people to be exposed to and buy cigarettes and other inappropriate items for them.
Thank you for your consideration,
Mirna
From: Jack Zulawski
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Public comment
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 3:37:12 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hi, I’m Jack Zulawski and I’m 12.
If you couldn’t already tell by my shirt, my parents own Quik Stop. Mom made me wear it.
That store is how they pay for our house, our food, and, most importantly, my video games. If this new rule goes through, we might lose the store… which means no more pizza nights, no more new shoes, and definitely no new PlayStation or Nintendo switch games. Tragic, right? But seriously, I’ve watched my mom and dad work really hard every single day. They go to work before I’m even awake, and somehow still have the energy to bug me about homework when they get home. I don’t think it’s fair that all their hard work could just disappear because of one rule.
If our store closes, it’s not just my parents losing their jobs — it means we lose our whole way of life. And honestly, I’m way too young to start filling out job applications to help pay the bills.
So please, when you vote, think about families like mine. I’d really like my family to keep their store… because between you and me, I am not ready to live off bread forever.
From: Fred White
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Tobacco retailer ordinance
Date: Tuesday, August 26, 2025 12:22:28 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
To whom it may concern, I am not a fan of penalizing businesses that have been established here for a long time and bring in tax revenue and provide a multitude of services to an area especially in Brentwood.
I am not a tobacco user and I'm certainly not a fan of a new generation adopting the use of marijuana and tobacco or alcohol or drugs, or any other kind of unhealthy situation that leads to a decline in our community or social fabric. So singling out tobacco in a state that has sold out on legalizing marijuana makes no sense to me. If you want to really be a hard line on these things, let's go the other way and I will vote for it. By the way. Let's make this a dry City. Let's make it so that marijuana and tobacco and alcohol are all discouraged, and make sales of such in this city. Disallowed. For that I would vote for.
But the execution of these laws or ordinances should not be to penalize businesses but to raise up the bar on what we expect from behavior from our population, which means that rather than penalize businesses, we should be getting smarter and thinking about the fact that if this is about you smoking then really this is about environment and they grow where they grow up and stressors and how they deal with that in education and whether we actually have a mature enough environments in our school system to even do that. In my opinion we do not. Forcing values that penalize businesses is not only the wrong thing to do. Why don't you start thinking about penalizing parents or people who are truly liable in the eyes of law? I am always open to comments and I certainly would enjoy some feedback from the city.
Although I might be surprised if I get any, but it would be great if I did so I will leave the ball in your court.
Sincerely, Fred White
Somebody who has lived in many cities and worked with many cities and am surprised how messed up Brentwood is.
Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
From: Linda Morse-robertson
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Tobacco Shops
Date: Thursday, August 21, 2025 10:31:28 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Tow Whom It May Concern:
Reading about the upcoming "ruling" about property lines is rather disturbing. Some of these business's have been in operation YEARS longer than the current city council
members. To see this arbitrary and unnecessary changes for CURRENT business's is just truly unfair.
To penalize a LONG STANDING business because another
business wants to move in next door to them SMACKS of
unfair, unthinking, so called representatives. To deny that long standing business the profits from YEARS of service to the community, NOT TO MENTION the devastating impact such
a ruling would have on the ESTABLISHED business?
REALLY?
Loss of income, lost employee hours, loss of income that THOSE employees spend IN BRENTWOOD? Why on God's
green earth would a small group of so called representatives choose to penalize a family owned and operated business.
It appears to be nothing more than yet ANOTHER power play on the part of so called representatives, BECAUSE those individual's apparently do NOT care about that business ONE WHIT!
I encourage the public to TAKE A STAND against this utter nonsense. IF Quick Stop were the one's trying to move into a building with a dance studio, IF the dance studio was there first, it MIGHT make sense. But to deny a this long standing business THEIR rights to make a living, to keep people
employed, to continue to be able to support THEIR family? NOPE. NOT EVEN.
YOU SHOULD be ashamed of yourselves for this lack of fair play.
Sincerely,
Linda Morse Robertson
From: Matthew Gonzales
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Quik Stop on Walnut Blvd Tobacco Permit
Date: Saturday, July 26, 2025 3:09:45 PM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Hello, my name is Matthew Gonzales and I am both a citizen of Brentwood and a homeowner in Brentwood. I just wanted to reach out and write to express what I feel could be an unjust slight to hardworking citizens that chose to invest heavily in Brentwood while pursuing their American Dreams.
As a tax paying homeowner in the city of Brentwood and having done quite a bit of work in the City of Brentwood I think it would be right if this establishment were granted an exemption of some sort.
It would be draconian and unjust to strip a business overnight of it's ability to be profitable. Especially when the new owners chose to invest so heavily. I know Amber on a professional level having done deliveries to the store there and she is very kind and an asset to the community. It would be an immense loss both to the current owners if their tobacco license were stripped as well as any future investors that may choose to take a chance and start in Brentwood, because an abrupt closure of this store could signal a city unwilling to work with it's businesses.
I also fail to understand how the proximity to a youth center of a gas station that sells cigarettes would in any way influence or promote tobacco consumption in minors. The world is not so small that the proximity alone to one school a child may attend would forever bar them from engaging in any tobacco products. Kids have bikes. I was a kid. I walked a lot.
I hope the City will consider at least giving this particular business an exemption to this rule, especially seeing as the youth establishment in question isn't even a public school.
Thanks for reading my input,
Matthew Gonzales
From: Stephanie Teves
To: webCityClerk
Subject: Public Comment for the City Council
Date: Saturday, August 23, 2025 11:30:04 AM
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Brentwood City Council Members,
I am writing to share my concerns regarding the proposed Tobacco Retailer License (TRL) Ordinance. While I believe most of us—smokers and non-smokers alike—can agree that tobacco use poses serious health risks and should be kept out of the hands of minors, these protections already exist under federal law.
As a mom and president of the Brentwood Elementary Parents Club, I understand the importance of promoting anti-smoking messages. In fact, for the past four years, I have personally organized spirit days and activities to celebrate Red Ribbon Week and encourage healthy choices among our students. My concern is not about the value of tobacco prevention, but rather the unintended consequences this ordinance, in its current form, could have on small businesses in our community.
For example, my two children attend Brentwood Elementary alongside the Zulawski family, who own the long-standing Brentwood staple, Quikstop. When they took over this business, our school community celebrated. Since then, they have been incredible supporters of our Parents Club, contributing sponsorships and prizes for numerous events.
When I learned that this hardworking local family could face devastating financial consequences because of the TRL Ordinance as proposed, I was shocked. It is the responsibility of the City Council to consider the local impact on families and small businesses. Large corporations like Walgreens or grocery chains will remain unaffected, but small, family-owned businesses could be forced to close—destroying livelihoods and eroding community ties.
The reality is that if a minor is determined to obtain tobacco, they will find a way despite additional regulations. With that in mind, I respectfully urge the City Council to consider the following reasonable amendments before passing this ordinance:
• Measure distance using door-to-door rather than property line-to-property line. • Allow existing businesses within the 250-ft range to apply for and receive a TRL.
From what I understand, these small adjustments could make a tremendous difference for local business owners without compromising the spirit of the ordinance.
Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Beaman
Thatch & Hooper, LLP
Attorneys at Law
GREGORY D. THATCH
LARRY C. LARSEN, of Counsel
RYAN M. HOOPER
LETICIA M. RAMIREZ
1730 I Street, Suite 220
SACRAMENTO, CA 95811-3017
Telephone (916) 443-6956
Facsimile (916) 443-4632
www.thatchlaw.com
July 18, 2025
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
City Clerk
City of Brentwood
[email protected]
Re: Public Comment Brentwood City Council Meeting July 22, 2025 Dear Honorable Members of the Brentwood City Council,
Our office represents Strauch & Company, and Strauch Brother Incorporation (collectively “Strauch”) the owners and operators of two ARCO AM/PM gas stations, convenience stores, and car washes in the City of Brentwood (“City”). Our client is a local family-owned business that was established in 1990. Strauch owns and operates various gas stations and convenience stores in Northern California, including three in Contra Costa County. As a long time, community member and business that has made significant investments in Brentwood, our client wishes to express its concerns regarding the City’s proposed Tobacco Retailer License Ordinance.
We therefore submit this written public comment on behalf of Strauch in response to the City Council’s (“Council”) consideration of an ordinance requiring the licensure of tobacco retailers on May 13, 2025 (Agenda Item No. C.1). At the conclusion of that discussion, the City Council directed staff to revise the proposed ordinance and return at a future meeting. We respectfully request that the City Council similarly direct staff to revise the ordinance to ensure the long-term viability of existing local businesses by strengthening the “grandfathering” provisions of the ordinance to exempt existing retailers from the location or “buffer” restrictions relating to proximity to youth-oriented establishments (Section 5.76.080 C and D) and to allow existing businesses to transfer their licenses upon the sale of their businesses. We also ask that the City Council direct staff to meet with impacted businesses to gather their input to inform Council’s consideration of the proposed ordinance.
We recognize that the City Council, like many other local jurisdictions, is seeking to adopt this ordinance to address an increase in youth vaping. Our client supports this policy goal. We believe that the revisions we are proposing advance that policy goal, while similarly advancing the Council’s desire to support existing businesses who have made a substantial investment of time and resources to establish their operations and become a part of the community. Our client’s customers who purchase cigarettes or other tobacco products also purchase gas and many other products when they visit their stores. However, depending on the language of the ordinance the Council adopts, our client will no longer be able to sell tobacco at one of its sites in Brentwood, Honorable Members of the Brentwood City Council
July 18, 2025
which is proven to drive patrons to other establishments, thereby significantly decreasing the sale of gas and other items. Our client built this location in Brentwood from the ground up and invested approximately $13 million to establish this site. In addition, our client purchased their second Brentwood location from another operator and invested heavily to remodel and expand its operations including obtaining a conditional use permit for a car wash. Like any business owner, our client did so with the expectation that one day they would be able to recoup that investment upon a future sale. Based on the language of the proposed ordinance, our client would be unable to transfer the tobacco license upon sale and the site would lose the ability to sell tobacco which would greatly reduce the value of their business due to the loss of a revenue stream.
We believe the amendments relating to grandfathering and transferability are narrowly focused on protecting existing businesses and do not hinder the intent of the ordinance. Our client considers themselves partners in reducing youth access to tobacco and welcomes the opportunity to share with Council and staff about their operations and efforts to do so as required under existing federal and state laws.
We appreciate your time and attention to our concerns. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact us at the information provided above.
Very truly yours,
THATCH & HOOPER, LLP
LETICIA M. RAMIREZ
Cc: Marc Strauch, Owner, Strauch & Company, Strauch Brother Incorporation Darin Gale, Interim City Manager, City of Brentwood
Katherine Wisinski, City Attorney, City of Brentwood
From: Kris Brand
To: =yCouncil Members; webCityClerk
Subject: Public Comment Item G.2 for 8/26/25 Council Meeting Date: Monday, August 25, 2025 9:50:19 AM
Attachments: image.png
Screenshot 2025-08-25 091104.png
Screenshot 2025-08-25 090928.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
image.png
CAUTION – EXTERNAL SENDER
Honorable Mayor and Council,
As a preface, there is a lot of content being presented below to provide sufficient weight to a variety of factors not included in the staff report relating to red-light cameras. If you have questions, you're more than welcome to call me directly.
If you choose not to read the full email, please read the summary highlighted bold below:
The use of red-light cameras needs to be a "last resort" option in order to mitigate traffic signal violations.Before proceeding, it is imperative the following actions are completed first;
1. KPIs (known progress indicators) need to be established that define success criteria postimplementation. A scientific approach is best in which more controlled variables are leveraged. For example, year-over-year reduction in collisions. Future contract renewal contingent on certain KPIs showing promise and/or met.
2. Existing data points must indicate the nine described intersections are outliers from the remainder of the city's intersections in terms of overall risk to the community.
3. A comprehensive engineering countermeasure assessment of the relevant intersections must be completed.
4. Consideration for the variety of traffic signal violations and specifically targeting the most egregious violations as a safety countermeasure over more benign violations that would irritate residents.
5. Reviewing the large volume of data from other California cities that have implemented such technology and learning from their documented mistakes.
7. Calculate the fiscal impact of sustaining the camera technology with the plausible and/or estimated safety impact and make an assessment accordingly.
From this point forward, you will read specifics relating to the reasoning behind these recommendations.
The residents of Brentwood have spoken on many occasions regarding the safety needs on our local roads. In particular, the concern of blatant traffic light violations are especially poignant given the end result of said violation could involve death. This problem needs to be addressed very comprehensively and to start it's best to get a perspective on the nature of the violations.
Quick refresher for Traffic Signal 101
For those that are unaware, typically traffic light violations fall into three categories (from most dangerous to least):
Straight through running: Proceeding into an intersection after the red signal is illuminated.
Below you'll see a logarithmic drop in intersection timing entry. Late-into-red violations generally represent a small fraction (less than 5%) of all straight through red light running violations. Because cross traffic is more likely to be present within the intersection when the traffic signal has been red for a duration of greater than two seconds, it is these violations which should be of greatest concern to safety proponents as they are the most likely to result in the severe right-angle collisions depicted in most red light running crash videos. Most are due to 1) impairment, 2) distraction, 3) fatigue, 4) sun glare, 5) inclement weather, or 6) other adverse roadway conditions - rather than an aggressive driver willfully ignoring the red light. These variables would likely not be mitigated via a red-light camera.
Left-turn running: Similar to straight through, just in the left turn (dedicated or not) Rolling Right Turn: Similar to the "California Roll Stop" at stop signs just at signalized intersections.
In the entire State of California there are an average of 438,734 accidents per year; there are an average of only 26 rolling-right-turn collisions that result in any kind of injury to a pedestrian each year. 65% are extremely minor resulting in no visible injury (complaint of pain only) and there are an average of only 44 rolling-right-turn collisions that result in any kind of injury to a bicyclist each year. 52% are extremely minor resulting in no visible injury (complaint of pain only).*Source: NHTSA and 2011 Los Angeles, CA Study
In Oakland, CA, 98% of the violations captured by one red-light-camera were for rolling right turns, although no collisions had resulted from a right-turn-on-red movement at this location in at least the previous decade. In a four year period, the city issued over 40,000 tickets costing $490 each for these relatively innocuous violations.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and AAA published an “Automated Enforcement Program Checklist”. Prominent among the recommendations is: “Target violations with the greatest safety consequences.
For example, you might decide not to ticket for right-turn-on-red violations… Typically, residents are most afraid of the Straight through running (late into red) violation because it could lead to the most violent accidents. Where-as rolling right turns have been shown to be inconsequential to the safety of Californians in general. ------
Engineering Countermeasures:
The complexity of the roadway system lends itself to making incremental changes as to not broadly disturb the full ecosystem. If there are large numbers of red light running violations or collisions occurring at a particular intersection, there is likely an engineering deficiency that needs to be addressed.
Identifying and fixing the engineering deficiency should mostly eliminate the problem and obviate the need for additional enforcement.
Engineering countermeasures are the only viable intersection specific option to reduce accidents caused by unintentional red-light-running.
Increasing the yellow interval has been shown to reduce red light running violations by up to 90% and collisions by up to 40%.
Studies have definitely proven that reasonable increases in the yellow interval do not lead to driver adjustment to the new timing as drivers cannot generally perceive changes of less than two or three seconds.
Dilemma zone protection technology is newly available which can significantly reduce the problems encountered by drivers in the indecision zone.
A proper “all-red” interval provides sufficient time for vehicles entering toward the end of the yellow interval to clear the intersection prior to release of the cross traffic.
At intersections where left-turn-opposed crashes are over-represented, significant safety improvement can be achieved by implementing a protected left turn (red arrow) phase. Not relevant to Brentwood
Increasing the signal visibility/conspicuity to ensure that the signal, and specifically the red indication, captures the motorists’ attention can provide significant safety benefits.
Synchronizing signals along a corridor can reduce exposure to red signals, thereby reducing the potential for running the red light.
Replacing signalized intersections with roundabouts has been shown to significantly improve safety.Not fiscally viable
Below is a compilation of measured effectiveness of said countermeasures:
-----
Data from other California Cities:
The solution presented by BPD and city staff has been proven in almost all municipalities to be ineffective alone to mitigate the safety concerns described above. In the staff report, the City of Citrus Heights is listed as an example of reductions due to their implementation. Personally, I'm unable to find the source of their dataset, however assuming it is accurate, I'd like to provide a rebuttal to this point:
The city of Citrus Heights is a little larger than Brentwood population wise (86k) and approximately the same overall size of ~15 sq/mi. As part of their implementation they declared approximately $78,110 yearly revenue over the course of 5 years from red-light cameras (2020- 2025). The city began using red-light cameras in 2008.
In 2015, a Sacramento County Grand Jury made the following findings:
"It is the finding of this Grand Jury that Citrus Heights chronically and systematically ignores its own policies for oversight, testing, monitoring, maintenance and record keeping. The City’s primary stated goal of the program is to reduce the incidence of accidents and fatalities, yet it fails to routinely collect and analyze the necessary data which would enable it to gauge the effectiveness of the program on an ongoing basis. The documentation received from Citrus Heights Police Department (CHPD) is flawed; thus, the actual reduction of accidents cannot be verified." F1. Citrus Heights does not uphold its responsibility to operate and monitor its red light camera program.
F2. The CHPD routinely fails to follow its adopted policy and procedures on red light cameras.
F3. The accident reduction data used to judge the effectiveness of the program by the CHPD is inconsistent and inaccurate in some instances.
F4. The City has no process in place to be alerted when the yellow light sequencing falls below the minimum standard set by CA DOT and mandated by the CVC.
F5. Citrus Heights has no reliable process in place to ensure that the timing of the yellow light sequencing is consistent. CHPD performs stopwatch audits of the yellow light sequencing using Redflex video, which is compressed and unreliable.
In 2016, further data was collected from 5 intersections indicating that the overwhelming majority of tickets issued (74%) were for rolling right turns (Lane 5, adjacent to the sidewalk). The scale is so high, I have to break it into two graphs to make sense of it (the right graph shows citations >3 seconds where the left does not). The picture of an example intersection measured is adjacent to the graphs. 37,000 red light events resulted in 17,600 footage reviews causing 13,500 citations issued. Only
36.5% of the total red light events resulted in a paid fine, and approximately 22% of those were actual Citrus Heights residents.The former Mayor commented in 2021 that the cameras were "not changing anything" as police data indicated a similar number of violations occurring before the cameras were implemented. They are likely to not renew their current contract with the vendor when it expires in 2026. This is the only remaining municipality in Sacramento county still using this technology. Source: https://citrusheightssentinel.com/2024/03/23/citrus-heights-red-light-cameras-stilloperational-as-county-drops-program/ I've attached documents indicating at least 20 other municipalities (including Stockton, San Leandro, Riverside, Emeryville, San Mateo) who have decommissioned their cameras due to certain findings.
The full list can be found here. A staff report from Upland, CA is here to highlight the fiscal difficulty of successfully maintaining a red light camera system while also navigating the complexity of accident mitigation.
However, I'd like to focus on a few that may be relevant to this council's own experiences:
The City of Hayward (Councilmember Maloney)
City of Hayward, California (cameras installed in 2008, removed in 2013): "In response to Council Member Zermeño's question for reasons why cities chose to drop out of the Red Light Camera program... City Manager David commented that another reason was the lack of strong evidence in the industry that red light cameras were effective in reducing collisions." Minutes, 10-11-11 council meeting.
The City of Oakland (Vice-Mayor Pierson, Councilmember Mendoza, and Councilmember Oerlemans)
In Oakland, CA, 98% of the violations captured by one red-light-camera were for rolling right turns, although no collisions had resulted from a right-turn-on-red movement at this location in at least the previous decade. In a four year period, the city issued over 40,000 tickets costing $490 each for these relatively innocuous violations.
In 2010, the yellow light interval was extended by 1.0 second. Unfortunately, under pressure from the Oakland Police Department, who complained that the change was “negatively impacting” the red light camera program, after six months of increased safety for motorists, the Oakland DOT was forced to reduce the yellow interval by 1.0 second back to the prior timing. As a result, the early-into-red violations returned to their previous level. In May 2014, the City of Oakland ended their red light camera program.
As a comparative example, the city of West Hollywood observed similar yellow light adjustment caused the following results. After a small increase in yellow-light length, an 81% drop in red-light citations were issued.
Public Perception:
As the world continues further into the digital age, there is general apprehension when it comes to adopting automated systems, furthering public distrust in government overreach. I've highlighted a few areas that are particularly important for Brentwood residents. Having a logical explanation during the implementation phase (if reached) for each of these areas would greatly win the public's trust when a solution is presented at a future public hearing.
Programs are implemented primarily to generate revenue.
Cameras are placed where there are engineering deficiencies (short yellow intervals and arbitrarily low speed limits)
Programs target primarily minor violations, not the most dangerous behavior Programs issue tickets that live police officers could/would never issue There is a lack of police discretion when issuing tickets Ticketing has disproportionate effects on lower income communities and communities of color
Adjudication is rigged against the defendant – Fewer legal rights Untrustworthy analysis of program benefits – Cherry picking data For-profit private companies have too much influence
Conclusions:
In summary, I was in support of said systems as my wife regularly comments as she enters the intersection of Sand Creek and O'Hara that she "waits 2 seconds after the signal turns green" because she's afraid to proceed. This was the ultimate source of my investigation to understand it better. As a result, I thought it would be apt to share with the council as you make this decision on Tuesday. From my perspective, we're a far-sight away from making the decision to implement red-light cameras in Brentwood because I don't believe we've exhausted the necessary engineering countermeasure options available first. Please proceed accordingly and make a decision based on facts, figures, and hard data versus pre-conceived ideas, emotions, or misunderstanding.
Thank you for reading and just like a yellow light, proceed with caution.
Best,
Kris Brand
P.S. Additional docs and sources available here.