From: Jesse Hanwit
To: City Clerk
Subject: Agenda Item 12A. Explore the Applicability of a Red Light Camera Pilot Program per SB 720 in the City of Encinitas. Sept. 9 City Council Meeting
Date: Thursday, September 3, 2026 7:55:16 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City City Council members. I have never spoken with an Encinitas resident who is not concerned about the safety of our streets. Moving forward on this issue is imperative.
I strongly recommend that the City Council unanimously approve moving forward with studying the costs, effectiveness, and applicability of red light camera detection under SB 720.
At this point, I believe we owe it to our residents to fully explore whether this technology could be an effective tool for improving traffic safety in Encinitas.
Thank you for your consideration.
Jesse Hanwit
687 S. Coast Highway 101 #305
Encinitas CA 92024
From: Aria Grossman
To: Bruce Ehlers; Luke Shaffer; Jim OHara; Joy Lyndes; Marco San Antonio Cc: City Clerk; Laura Keenan; Ian Hembree; Hernandez, Israel Subject: Vision Zero Coalition Support for the Proposed Red-Light Camera Program ( 9/9/26, Agenda Item 12A) Date: Friday, September 4, 2026 12:11:21 PM
Attachments: 2026-09-03 Encinitas Red Light Cameras.pdf CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Good afternoon Mayor Ehlers and Members of the Encinitas City Council, We write as members of the Vision Zero Coalition in support of the proposed red-light camera program to be considered at the September 9 City Council meeting. Please find attached our full letter urging your support for the program.
Thank you,
Aria Grossman
---
September 4, 2026
Mayor Ehlers and Members of the Encinitas City Council
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: Vision Zero Coalition Support for the Proposed Red-Light Camera Program
Dear Mayor Ehlers and Members of the Encinitas City Council:
On behalf of the undersigned members of the Vision Zero Coalition, we write to strongly encourage you to move forward with implementing a red-light camera program under the SB 720 statute.
1. Red-light cameras are a proven lifesaving tool.
Traffic violence remains at historically high levels. Red light running is a significant cause of fatalities and deaths on our streets, including in our own communities. On April 25, 2025, 12-year-old Emery Chalekian was killed by a reckless red-light runner in Encinitas.
Enforcement of traffic safety laws is critical to achieving zero traffic fatalities. Redlight cameras are a proven solution to permanently reduce reckless driving behavior and prevent senseless tragedies like what happened to Emery.
In New York City, intersections with red light cameras saw a 73 percent decrease in [1]
red light running. These intersections also saw a 65 percent reduction in deadly Tbone crashes and a 49 percent reduction in rear-end collisions.[2] Seattle saw a 50 percent reduction in fatal collisions at intersections with red light cameras.[3] This is sustained behavioral change. In New York, 94 percent of vehicles that received tickets received no more than one or two violations.[4] Seattle saw similar sustained success rates.
2. Red-light cameras can only enforce targeted illegal behavior at authorized intersections.
Unlike other types of camera equipment utilized by public safety agencies, red light cameras only enforce the specific type of illegal behavior they are authorized to combat. These cameras are triggered only when a driver illegally runs a red light, providing direct accountability if and only if an illegal and reckless violation that can result in loss of life is committed. Because the cameras are intended to enforce violations at specific intersections, they do not interact to create an information network that can be used for other purposes.
3. The SB 720 framework improves upon previous red-light camera programs.
The red-light camera program under consideration aligns with the SB 720 framework, a new law passed in 2025 that overhauls the previous red-light camera framework. Key distinctions between SB 720 and the previous red-light camera law include:
·Implementation and Oversight Authority: Under SB 720, Departments of Transportation and Public Works can manage the system, rather than solely police departments.
·
Liability: Ticket liability is placed on the vehicle owner rather than the driver. This limits data retention and improves privacy protections. ·
Privacy: SB 720 has strict privacy rules that prevent facial recognition, secondary use of collected data, requires facial blurring, and limits data retention.
·
Fines: Fines under SB 720 are civil and are subject to an escalating system, starting at $100. The law also provides for alternatives for low-income drivers.
Fines under previous programs were criminal and sat at $490. ·
Driver’s license points: Under SB 720, violations will not result in points against a driver’s record.
·
Use of Funds: Under the SB 720 framework, revenues from the program must be spent on Vision Zero improvements to make streets safer.
4.It’s time to take enforcement of life saving laws seriously.
In 2024, there were 99 traffic fatalities and 197 serious injuries in San Diego County.[5] It is time that we start seriously enforcing our laws that are intended to prevent these tragedies. Emery’s story must not be repeated. Red light cameras are a safe and proven tool to help us prevent deaths like hers.
Sincerely,
Aria Grossman
Policy Manager
Circulate Planning & Policy
Ian Hembree
Advocacy & Community Manager
San Diego County Bike Coalition
Laura Keenan
Co-Founder
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Israel Hernandez
Associate State Director, Advocacy
AARP California
[1] New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Red Light Camera Program Review 2024 Report (May 2024), available at https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf. [2] Id.
[3] City of Seattle, Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Project Final Evaluation Report (December 2027), available at Red_Light_Study_07.pdf.
[4] [4] New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Red Light Camera Program Review 2024 Report (May 2024), available at https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf. [5] San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Safety Dashboard, available at https://opendata.sandag.org/stories/s/Traffic-Safety-Dashboard/5f7y-nefe/, last visited September 3, 2026. --
Aria Grossman
Policy Manager
701 B Street, # 1150
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 736-0072
Email: [email protected]
Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy neighborhoods.
September 4, 2026
Mayor Ehlers and Members of the Encinitas City Council
City of Encinitas
505 South Vulcan Ave
Encinitas, CA 92024
SUBJECT: Vision Zero Coalition Support for the Proposed Red-Light Camera Program Dear Mayor Ehlers and Members of the Encinitas City Council:
On behalf of the undersigned members of the Vision Zero Coalition, we write to strongly encourage you to move forward with implementing a red-light camera program under the SB 720 statute.
1. Red-light cameras are a proven lifesaving tool.
Traffic violence remains at historically high levels. Red light running is a significant cause of fatalities and deaths on our streets, including in our own communities. On April 25, 2025, 12-year-old Emery Chalekian was killed by a reckless red-light runner in Encinitas.
Enforcement of traffic safety laws is critical to achieving zero traffic fatalities. Red-light cameras are a proven solution to permanently reduce reckless driving behavior and prevent senseless tragedies like what happened to Emery.
In New York City, intersections with red light cameras saw a 73 percent decrease in red light running.1 These intersections also saw a 65 percent reduction in deadly T-bone crashes and a 49 percent reduction in rear-end collisions.2 Seattle saw a 50 percent reduction in fatal collisions at intersections with red light cameras.3 This is sustained behavioral change. In New York, 94 percent of vehicles that received tickets received no more than one or two violations.4 Seattle saw similar sustained success rates.
2. Red-light cameras can only enforce targeted illegal behavior at authorized intersections.
Unlike other types of camera equipment utilized by public safety agencies, red light cameras only enforce the specific type of illegal behavior they are authorized to combat. These cameras are triggered only when a driver illegally runs a red light,
1 New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Red Light Camera Program Review 2024 Report (May 2024), available at https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf. 2 Id.
3 City of Seattle, Traffic Safety Camera Pilot Project Final Evaluation Report (December 2027), available at Red_Light_Study_07.pdf.
4 4 New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Red Light Camera Program Review 2024 Report (May 2024), available at https://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nyc-red-light-camera-program.pdf.
Creating excellent mobility choices and vibrant, healthy neighborhoods. 2 providing direct accountability if and only if an illegal and reckless violation that can result in loss of life is committed. Because the cameras are intended to enforce violations at specific intersections, they do not interact to create an information network that can be used for other purposes.
3. The SB 720 framework improves upon previous red-light camera programs.
The red-light camera program under consideration aligns with the SB 720 framework, a new law passed in 2025 that overhauls the previous red-light camera framework. Key distinctions between SB 720 and the previous red-light camera law include:
• Implementation and Oversight Authority: Under SB 720, Departments of Transportation and Public Works can manage the system, rather than solely police departments.
• Liability: Ticket liability is placed on the vehicle owner rather than the driver. This limits data retention and improves privacy protections. • Privacy: SB 720 has strict privacy rules that prevent facial recognition, secondary use of collected data, requires facial blurring, and limits data retention. • Fines: Fines under SB 720 are civil and are subject to an escalating system, starting at $100. The law also provides for alternatives for low-income drivers.
Fines under previous programs were criminal and sat at $490. • Driver’s license points: Under SB 720, violations will not result in points against a driver’s record.
• Use of Funds: Under the SB 720 framework, revenues from the program must be spent on Vision Zero improvements to make streets safer.
4. It’s time to take enforcement of life saving laws seriously.
In 2024, there were 99 traffic fatalities and 197 serious injuries in San Diego County.5It is time that we start seriously enforcing our laws that are intended to prevent these tragedies. Emery’s story must not be repeated. Red light cameras are a safe and proven tool to help us prevent deaths like hers.
Sincerely,
Aria Grossman
Policy Manager
Circulate Planning & Policy
Ian Hembree
Advocacy & Community Manager
San Diego County Bike Coalition
5 San Diego Association of Governments, Traffic Safety Dashboard, available at https://opendata.sandag.org/stories/s/Traffic-Safety-Dashboard/5f7y-nefe/, last visited September 3, 2026.
Laura Keenan
Co-Founder
Families for Safe Streets San Diego
Israel Hernandez
Associate State Director, Advocacy
AARP California
From: James Wang
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item 12A Red-Light Cameras - yes
Date: Saturday, September 5, 2026 2:46:20 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Mayor Ehlers and City Council:
Red-light violations are neither acceptable nor excusable.
While the earlier red-light cameras used by the city raised some objections, they did show that:
1. There are too many red-light violations
2. The majority of violations are by out-of-town motorists, and
3. Red-light cameras significantly reduced their number.
The provisions of SB720 avoid the problems of the previous red-light cameras while still retaining their safety improvements.
Therefore, I strongly urge you to approve the use of red-light cameras per SB720.
Thank you,
James Wang
Cardiff
From: shawn johnson
To: City Clerk
Subject: In support of red light cameras
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 12:06:22 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Hello, I am a resident of Encinitas and in immense support of red light cameras at intersections. Driving has become egregious and we need to slow drivers down and stop people from running red lights. This is preventable. People did not always drive so recklessly and I believe it’s because of our culture of tolerance and lack of accountability.
Thank you for protecting our community,
Shawn Johnson
951 Stratford Dr
Encinitas, Ca 92024
From: J C
To: City Clerk
Subject: Item 12A
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 4:29:43 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Caution: The sender name (J C) is different from their email address ([email protected]), which may indicate an impersonation attempt. Verify the email's authenticity with the sender using your organization's trusted contact list before replying or taking further action.
Secured by Avanan
Greetings Mayor and Council—
I am writing in support of moving forward with a revised red light camera program under the specifications of SB 720.
It is human nature to gradually blow off unenforced traffic laws, and those who are chronically careless become more so.
Being slapped with a penalty each time a red light is run will curb most peoples’ acquired habit of ignoring traffic lights.
If the renewed presence of traffic light cams encourage compliance with laws designed to ensure public safety, lives
will certainly be saved.
Pretty basic.
Thank you,
J Cannon
Why the Installation of Automated Red Light Cameras is a Bad Idea
Crisis is the rallying cry of the tyrant—James Madison
There is consideration being given to install automated red light cameras (ARLC’s) once again in Encinitas. The town has sixteen years of experience with ARLC’s from 2004-2020 and it is well-known that the ARLC’S were highly unpopular with a very large segment of Encinitans.
Was this large group of people opposed to the ARLC’s wrong or irrational? What do we actually know about this experience and who is actually right? The main argument given for ARLC’s is that they change driver behavior, and therefore, crashes like the one that tragically took Emery Chelekian’s life, will be prevented. Traffic Engineer Bandegon writes: “During the past 5 years, 80% of the violations were for non-residents and only 20% were for Encinitas residents. Also 99% of the notices were issued to first-time violators and only 1% had multiple such violations on their records which can be considered a measure of effectiveness meaning after being detected by the system and receiving their first notices, most regular redlight violators have not repeated the violation at these locations” (Agenda Report, Traffic and Public Safety Commission, July 23, 2018). That is not adequate support for the idea that ARLC’s are effective at changing driver behavior.
I have reviewed many articles on the effectiveness of ARLC’s and have not found a single article that has any convincing data whatsoever that ARLC’s are effective at changing driver behavior or reducing significantly red light related crashes. Just because some people claim something, repeatedly, does not make it true.
Because Encinitas has 16 years of experience with ARLC’s I felt it would be a good place to start to see if, indeed, they were effective. Steve Linke and I we reviewed Encinitas ARLC intersection crash data, as reported in the CCRS (California Crash Reporting System database). We chose two comparable control intersections which did not have ARLC’s and compared the crash data (Please see the attached report presented by Steve Linke to the MTSC on 2/9/2026). Surprising both of us when we ran the data was the fact that during the 52 month period we reviewed, there was a much larger number of motor vehicle collisions at the ARLC intersections, there was only one severe injury (it occurred in a control intersection during a period of time when the signals were not operating which one must assume was the proximate cause of the crash) and there were insignificant differences in pedestrian or cyclist injuries.
Because of the surprising result Mr. Linke and I obtained, I sent a letter to Chief Engineer Nutter on November 13, 2025, requesting that “the city conduct their own independent analysis , which should serve as critical information to guide any recommendation made at our 2/2026 meeting.” (See second attachment). Chief Engineer Nutter replied in an email dated December 30, 2025: “I don’t want this coming off as though staff do not want to analyze this particular dataset; unfortunately, we are just so inundated with our normal day-to-day workload I don’t have the resources to have staff devote the necessary 8-10 hours for this task without it being a high priority. I appreciate your understanding.” In an effort to obtain all the data that Traffic Engineers Bandegan and Magdosku presented to City Council in three reports supporting the use of ARLC’s during 2018 I sent emails requesting the data and received no response as to whether there were files containing their reports. I then did a FOIA request for the City data. Again, nothing. If there are no records being kept of such important data, a prudent person may make the assumption that there is essentially no data.
Proponents of the ARLC’s would have us believe that ARLC’s will change driver behavior, yet, whatever data we are able to retrieve, proves nothing of the sort. Additionally, the limited data we have been able to retrieve in Encinitas (and national studies have corroborated this) show that one can expect increased numbers of collisions when ARLC’s are placed.
Proponents of the ARLC’s would also have us believe that this new pilot study (SB720) is somehow different in terms of influencing driver behavior because it (currently) reads license plates rather than faces, has dramatically reduced fines (half the California population will pay $20 for running a red light and not have it on their driver record), and no longer will affect insurance rates since it will be classified as a civil, rather than criminal offense. Can any reasonable person think that these changes will have a greater, not lesser influence, on causing people not to run red lights?
Which brings me to my final point.
If ARLC’s cannot be shown to change driver behavior and make streets safer, why are they being promoted so ardently by those in Sacramento who are busy trying to change our wonderful beach town into a highly dense city much more reminiscent of the mentioned “beloved Hoboken NJ” (population density 43,000/square mile). By deductive reasoning I am reasonably certain that the main purpose of the ARLC’s is one more piece of surveillance and that this unwritten agenda is what is behind this entire project.
Ron Medak
Olivenhain
From: Justin Linnan
To: Traffic User
Subject: Red Light Cameras
Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 7:03:32 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
I am strongly in favor of red-light cameras. Our streets need to be safer for our children.
Respectfully,
Justin Linnan
1967 N Vulcan Ave
Encinitas CA 92024
From: Steven Anton
To: Traffic User
Subject: Support for Red Light Camera Program - Agenda Item 10A Date: Friday, February 6, 2026 9:00:12 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Dear Mobility & Traffic Safety Commission,
I am writing to express my strong support for implementing a red light camera (RLC) program in Encinitas, as outlined in agenda item 10A.
As a resident of Encinitas at 281 Rain Tree Dr, I am deeply concerned about traffic safety in our community, particularly following the tragic loss of 12-year-old Emery Chalekian in April 2025 when a driver ran a red light. This preventable tragedy underscores the urgent need for proven safety measures like red light cameras.
Red light cameras have demonstrated significant safety benefits in cities across the country.
New York City's 2024 report shows that RLC programs achieve three critical outcomes: fewer accidents and deadly collisions at camera-equipped intersections, positive behavior change as drivers learn to stop safely, and strong community support leading to program expansion.
I recognize that Encinitas' previous RLC efforts faced legitimate challenges, including concerns about penalizing safe drivers, ticket costs, vendor integrity, and lack of transparency.
However, Senate Bill 720, effective January 1, 2026, provides a framework to address these issues through clear communication about location selection, public reporting of safety results, and built-in privacy protections.
I believe a well-designed, transparent RLC program can drastically improve safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists while earning community trust. The technology has proven effective at changing driver behavior and reducing collisions when implemented properly.
I urge the Commission to move forward with developing a red light camera program that prioritizes transparency, accountability, and measurable safety outcomes for our community.
Thank you for your consideration and for your commitment to making Encinitas streets safer for everyone.
Sincerely,
Steven Anton
281 Rain Tree Dr Encinitas, CA 92024
(302) 547-5807
From: Jennay Gunderson
To: Traffic User
Subject: Red Light Cameras
Date: Saturday, February 7, 2026 8:16:42 AM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Dear Respected Members of the Mobility and Traffic Safety Commission with the City of Encinitas, I’m an Encinitas resident and citizen and I’m writing in support of red light cameras for Item 10A on the Agenda for the next MTSC meeting on Monday February 9, 2026.
In honor of young Emery Chalekian and her parents courageous efforts to make Encinitas streets safer, in addition to the real and serious problem of numerous drivers running red lights; I believe we need red light cameras throughout the City of Encinitas.
Personally, I have almost been hit in my van three times in the last year from drivers’ running red lights, and I am scared.
My van bears the bumper sticker given out by Emery’s parents, “SLOW DOWN, STOP ON RED.” I 100% support red light cameras as it will definitely influence drivers’ behavior to stop at red lights.
Thank you so much for your service to the City of Encinitas and its citizens.
Sincerely,
Jennay Gunderson
From: Sierra Tzoore
To: Traffic User
Subject: Public comment - agenda item 10A
Date: Sunday, February 8, 2026 8:01:33 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
To the members of the Mobility & Traffic Safety Commission:
I'm writing in support of the proposal to reinstate red light cameras in Encinitas (agenda item 10A of the Feb. 9, 2026, commission meeting.)
I live with my family of four in Village Park. I see drivers running red lights daily in Encinitas, often in intersections with high numbers of pedestrian crossings.
Because this law is broken so regularly with so few repercussions, some drivers seem to feel that this is a victimless crime and semi-allowed. But it snarls traffic and I have witnessed multiple near misses, both between cars and cars and pedestrians. Last year, a red light runner caused one child's death in our neighborhood.
Reinstating the red light cameras will send a much-needed signal to residents and visitors that Encinitas takes traffic safety seriously and the laws will be enforced.
Sincerely,
Sierra Tzoore
760-505-1558
From: Steve Linke
To: Traffic User; IT Service Desk
Subject: 2/9/2026 MTSC Item 10A - Red light cameras
Date: Monday, February 9, 2026 12:24:11 AM
Attachments: 2026-02-09 MTSC 10A Red light cameras - Linke.pptx 2026-02-09 MTSC 10A Red light cameras - Linke.pdf
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
IT and Traffic staff:
Please include the attached PDF as a public comment to the traffic commissioners, and please have the attached PPTX available for display during public comment at the meeting.
Thanks so much,
Steve Linke
Red light cameras:
Collision study
Encinitas Mobility and Traffic Safety Commission
2/9/2026
Steve Linke
1 Intersections
• Red light cameras
– ECR/Leucadia Blvd-Olivenhain Rd
– ECR/Encinitas Blvd
• No camera controls
– Garden View Rd/Leucadia Blvd
– Garden View Rd/ECR
2 With-without red light camera
collision study methods
• Collision data currently available through 8/2024 in
state database (CCRS)
• Equal 52-month periods (4-1/3 years)
– With cameras: 1/2016 – 4/2020
– After camera removal: 5/2020 – 8/2024
– Control intersections: no cameras in either period
• Collisions within 50 feet of intersections
3 With-without study of total collisions
4 Control intersections
Red light camera intersections
13 7
18 9
6 9
7 8
Red light camera intersections:
Total collisions and injuries
5 31
24 16
15 Red light camera intersections:
Broadside and rear end collisions
6 Broadsides
Rear Ends
6 10
7 7
13 9
6 4
Red light camera intersections:
Injury level
7 Injury severity With cameras After camera
removal
Complaint of Pain 4 3
Visible 20 11
Severe 0 1*
Fatal 0 0
Total 24 15
*Only collision where traffic signal was non-operational Red light camera intersections:
Injuries to vulnerable users
• With cameras
– 3 bicyclists with visible injuries
• After camera removal
– 1 pedestrian with visible injury
– 1 bicyclist with complaint of pain
8 Trends after removal of red light cameras
• Collisions decreased ~48%
• Injuries decreased ~38%
• Broadside collisions remained about the same
– Broadside injuries decreased
• Rear end collisions decreased ~69%
– Rear end injuries decreased
• Injury severity decreased—both overall and among vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists)
9 Agenda Item Comment Form
If you wish to provide comments regarding an agenda item, you may do so using this form.
All Agenda Item comments received will be provided to the Mayor and Council members and will be included in the meeting record.
To view the current council agenda, please click here.
This form is defined as a public record under the Public Records Act and is therefore subject to public disclosure. **Please note the Agenda Comments Form does not register individuals to speak at City Council Meetings. If you would like to speak at a City Council Meeting, a Request to Speak Slip must be filled out and submitted to the City Clerk at the beginning of the meeting. The Request to Speak Slip are located in the City Council Chambers.** * Full Name
Betsy Smith
* Email
[email protected]
Phone
(614) 207-3562
* Council Meeting Date
02/09/2026
* Agenda Item # and Title
10A MTSC
Please attach or type your comment below.
Comment Attachment (Optional)
**SKIPPED**
Image Attachment (Optional)
**SKIPPED**
Comment
I’m in favor of this proposal. My son River was struck by a car that ran a red light in downtown Encinitas last October. I see a car run a red light nearly every day (no exaggeration) driving Encinitas Boulevard taking my family to school and work. This is a major issue in our small ever growing community. Our children deserve to get to school and activities safely. Page | 1
Encinitas’ Experience with Automated Red Light Cameras
City Engineer Nutter:
At our 11/10/2025 MTSC meeting, Item 10B concerned a possible recommendation to council to implement automated red light enforcement with cameras. This item was continued until our next meeting in 2/2026. Former Carlsbad traffic commissioner Steve Linke submitted a public comment for the item, suggesting conducting a crash study at the intersections that previously had red light cameras, along with control intersections to account for potential confounding factors.
According to the Agenda Report, cameras had been installed at the Encinitas Boulevard and Leucadia Boulevard-Olivenhain Road intersections with El Camino Real, but they were removed as of 5/14/2020. This provides a unique opportunity to compare crashes in the last five-year period with the cameras with a five-year period after their removal.
I asked Mr. Linke to go ahead and do this analysis and suggested two adjacent control intersections on Garden View Road at Leucadia Boulevard and at El Camino Real. He used the state CCRS database to identify crashes that occurred within 50 feet of the four above-described intersections and provided the following table, which shows that crash numbers did not change much at the control intersections. However, in contradiction to safety expectations, crash numbers at the intersections that had cameras reduced by about half after removal of the cameras. Note that there were zero fatalities and a single severe injury among all of the crashes--the remainder being non-severe or property damage only. Also note that these only represent crashes that rose to the level of generating police reports.
While these results are preliminary, and the sample size is relatively small, they suggest that--at best, the cameras do little or nothing to improve safety--and, at worst, they actually appear to decrease crash safety. Accordingly, I would like to request that the city conduct their own independent analyses, which should serve as critical information to guide any recommendation made at our 2/2026 meeting.
Mr. Linke provided the attached Excel file with a list of all of the crashes in the above table.
Sincerely,
Ron Medak
MTSC
From: X X
To: City Clerk
Subject: Subject: Item 12A: Opposition to Red-Light Camera Pilot Program Without Demonstrated Need and Independent Evidence
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 9:49:47 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Ehlers and Encinitas City Councilmembers,
I live in Carlsbad, but I drive in Encinitas frequently and am directly affected by the city’s traffic laws, roadway designs, speed limits, and enforcement policies.
I am writing regarding Item 12A, “Explore the Applicability of a Red Light Camera Pilot Program per SB 720 in the City of Encinitas.” I oppose directing staff to move forward with a red-light camera pilot program at this time.
The staff report describes a process by which Encinitas could eventually select a small number of intersections for automated enforcement.
However, it does not first establish the most important fact: that Encinitas currently has a red-light-running problem of sufficient frequency, severity, and concentration to justify automated enforcement.
The report itself says that a first step “could be” a citywide screening of signalized intersections using collision and traffic data, followed by analysis of red-light-related collisions, collision severity, documented violation frequency, pedestrian and bicycle exposure, approach speeds, traffic volumes, intersection geometry, and previous engineering or enforcement measures.
That analysis should come first.
The City should identify the problem before selecting the enforcement technology.
The current report does not provide current citywide data showing how many injury or fatal collisions are actually caused by red-light violations, whether those collisions are increasing, which intersections account for them, what percentage of signalized-intersection crashes they represent, or whether other engineering remedies would address the underlying causes more effectively.
The historical evidence from Encinitas’s previous camera program also deserves much closer scrutiny before it is used as justification for restarting automated enforcement.
The staff report states that at one former camera location, total collisions declined from an average of 8.7 per year before installation to 4.8 afterward, while red-light-related collisions declined from 2.0 to 0.32 per year. At the second location, total collisions declined from 9.2 to 6.3 and red-light-related collisions from 1.9 to 1.2.
Those numbers sound persuasive when presented by themselves, but a simple before-and-after comparison does not establish that the cameras caused the reduction.
The report does not provide comparable control intersections, exposureadjusted collision rates, statistical significance, traffic-volume changes, changes in signal timing or roadway configuration, changes in enforcement, or analysis of regression to the mean. Without those controls, other changes occurring over the same period cannot be separated from the effect of the cameras themselves.
Significantly, the staff report recommends that any new pilot, where practical, be compared with similar intersections without cameras specifically so that the City can distinguish changes associated with automated enforcement from broader changes in traffic volumes and collision trends.
I agree with that methodology.
But if comparison intersections are necessary to evaluate a future pilot properly, the City should apply the same standard before treating the old program’s uncontrolled before-and-after numbers as evidence that cameras worked.
The report also states that the former system examined nearly one million vehicle movements per month and that approximately 0.05 percent were initially identified as possible red-light violations. That raises another basic question that should be answered with current data: how frequent is dangerous red-light running in Encinitas today, and where is it actually occurring?
SB 720 changes some of the features of the previous system. Penalties are now civil rather than conventional traffic citations, fines are lower, driver’s-license points are not imposed, facial recognition is prohibited, cameras generally photograph the rear license plate, a 60-day warning period is required, and the law imposes privacy, public-review, and revenue restrictions.
Those changes address some objections to the former system. They do not answer the central policy question of whether automated enforcement is necessary or whether it will produce the best overall safety result in Encinitas.
SB 720 also shifts enforcement toward the registered owner based primarily on the vehicle’s license plate rather than identification of the driver. Even with administrative review and appeal procedures, that creates its own fairness concerns and deserves serious public scrutiny.
I also want to address the role that recent tragedies and organized advocacy are playing in this discussion.
Three young people have died in traffic collisions in Encinitas over the past three years: Brodee Champlain-Kingman, Emery Chalekian, and Fin Fadick. Every one of those deaths is heartbreaking. I have genuine compassion for their families, and I understand why parents who have suffered an unimaginable loss would devote themselves to preventing another family from experiencing the same thing.
But compassion and sound public policy are not the same question.
Safe Streets Encinitas was formed following Emery Chalekian’s death, and the organization identifies red-light cameras as its top short-term priority because Emery was killed in a collision involving a red-light violation.
That history understandably explains the organization’s intense focus on red-light cameras. It does not, by itself, establish that automated enforcement is the appropriate policy for the entire City of Encinitas.
The three recent deaths being cited in the broader street-safety discussion also did not arise from identical circumstances. They should not be grouped together as though each one demonstrates a citywide need for red-light cameras. Each collision should be studied on its own facts, and proposed remedies should be tied to demonstrated causes.
Public policy cannot be determined primarily by which constituency has suffered the most painful loss, generated the most sympathetic public attention, or advocated most persistently before the Council. An organized group has every right to petition its government and advocate forcefully for the changes it believes are necessary. But no advocacy organization, however sincere its motives or compelling its story, should effectively set citywide transportation policy without the same rigorous evidentiary scrutiny that would be applied to any other proposal.
These policies affect tens of thousands of residents and road users. They affect public expenditures, enforcement practices, roadway design, privacy, mobility, and the relationship between citizens and their local government.
The Council therefore has an obligation to distinguish empathy for victims and their families from the separate question of whether a particular policy has been demonstrated to be necessary, proportionate, effective, and appropriate for Encinitas.
The proper response to tragedy is not to automatically enact the policy preferred by those closest to the tragedy. It is to investigate what happened, identify the actual causes and patterns, evaluate the evidence, compare possible interventions, and adopt measures that can be independently justified on their merits.
I respectfully ask the Council to make that distinction here. Listen to Safe Streets Encinitas. Listen to the families. Take their concerns seriously. But then subject red-light cameras to exactly the same evidence-based analysis that any other major enforcement proposal deserves.
I support targeted, evidence-based traffic safety measures. If an intersection has a demonstrated red-light-running problem, determine why. Examine yellow-light timing, clearance intervals, signal phasing, visibility, intersection geometry, turn movements, traffic volume, pedestrian and bicycle exposure, and targeted law-enforcement options. Then determine which remedy best addresses the documented cause.
Automated enforcement should not become the starting assumption simply because the technology is now authorized by state law.
I ask the Council NOT to direct staff to develop a red-light camera pilot at this time. Instead, direct staff to first publicly produce:
A citywide analysis identifying intersections with significant red-lightrelated collision histories.
Current red-light violation data based on actual observation or temporary video collection.
Collision rates adjusted for traffic exposure and volume.
Injury and severity data, not simply raw collision counts.
Analysis of alternative engineering and enforcement remedies at each candidate location.
A controlled, independently reviewable analysis of Encinitas’s former camera intersections before, during, and after camera operation.
Comparison with similar Encinitas intersections that did not have cameras.
If the Council nevertheless chooses to investigate a pilot further, any future proposal should establish objective success and failure criteria before enforcement begins. Evaluation should include total collisions, injury severity, red-light-related collisions, rear-end collisions, pedestrian and bicycle conflicts, citation dismissal and appeal rates, costs, revenues, and public complaints. There should also be a defined pilot period and no expansion without a separate public review and Council vote.
I am not asking the City to ignore dangerous intersections. I am asking the City to identify actual problems, determine their causes, compare available remedies, and demonstrate that automated enforcement is the best solution before committing Encinitas to another camera program.
“Consider red light camera use in the city” is a Council work-plan objective. Consideration does not require implementation.
Please do the analysis first.
Sincerely,
David Brown
Carlsbad resident and frequent Encinitas road user
Sent from my iPhone
From: Dennis Kaden
To: City Clerk; Bruce Ehlers; Jim OHara; Joy Lyndes; Luke Shaffer; Marco San Antonio Subject: Sept. 9 Agenda Item 12A - RED_LIGHT CAMERAS
Date: Tuesday, September 8, 2026 11:11:06 PM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
September 8, 2026
Subject: Agenda Item 12A. Sept. 9 City Council Meeting
Explore the Applicability of a Red Light Camera Pilot Program per SB 720 in the City of Encinitas.
Mayor Ehlers, Council Members O’Hara, Lyndes, Schaffer, and San Antonio, As the City considers a pilot red-light camera program, please include strong language prohibiting any data from being shared with SANDAG or any other public or private organization for the purpose of studying, encouraging or implementing a mileage tax.
This requirement should apply to any organization—including Flock, the Sheriff’s Department, and others who provide cameras, software, hardware, data, maintenance, references, educational studies, related services, whether sold, leased, or provided at no cost.
All information obtained should remain the exclusive property of the City of Encinitas and be used only to support public safety and community well-being.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Regards
Dennis Kaden
1 September 8, 2026
Re: 9/9/2026 Agenda Item 12A: Explore Red Light Camera Pilot Program Encinitas City Council:
SUMMARY
I am not opposed to a pilot red light camera program, and I respect the ci�zens who are advoca�ng for safety improvements. However, here are some points to consider:
• From about 2004 through 2020, Encinitas had red light cameras in opera�on at the intersec�ons of El Camino Real with Leucadia Boulevard/Olivenhain Road and Encinitas Boulevard. However, average annual crashes, including both rear-end and broadside crashes, as well as injuries and injury severity, have all decreased since the removal of the cameras. • A major impetus for the program is the three tragic teen fatali�es that have occurred over the past few years. However, the circumstances of these incidents indicate that a red light camera program is not a countermeasure likely to address the underlying safety issues, which appear to be more related to distracted operators.
• Although staff’s proposed pilot program seems well-designed, given the rarity of crashes and injuries at individual intersec�ons, it is going to be nearly impossible to assess success or failure based on these most relevant endpoints.
• Red light camera programs can be very resource-intensive—both direct costs (monetary) and indirect costs (staff �me). Based on the above points, it may be advisable to focus these resources on approaches that are more likely to achieve the desired goals, including those listed in the city’s Local Roadway Safety Plan, as well as distracted driving enforcement.
DETAILS
Crash frequencies with and without red light cameras in Encinitas From about 2004 to April 2020, Encinitas had red light cameras in opera�on for a subset of the movements at two of its most heavily traveled intersec�ons: (1) El Camino Real with Leucadia Boulevard/Olivenhain Road, and (2) El Camino Real with Encinitas Boulevard. Based on the methods described later, official crash data (SWITRS and CCRS) was used to assess annualized crash and injury frequencies that occurred within 50 feet of 11 intersec�ons along the El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard corridors. The last 9+ year period the camera program was in opera�on (1/2011-4/2020) was compared with a nearly 6-year period a�er inac�va�on/removal of the cameras (5/2020-12/2025).
In the accompanying figure, the two red light camera intersec�ons are designated with red dots, and the other 9 intersec�ons are designated with purple dots (El Camino Real with Garden View Road, Santa Fe Drive, and Manchester Avenue; and Encinitas Boulevard with Vulcan Avenue, Saxony Road, Quail Gardens Drive, Balour Drive, Village Square Drive, and Village Park Way). 2 The percentages adjacent to the dots show the changes in annual overall reported crashes a�er removal of the cameras at each of the intersec�ons.
The two former red light camera intersec�ons experienced well over 50% reduc�ons in average reported crashes per year a�er removal of the cameras. Other intersec�ons that never had cameras generally had rela�vely stable crash numbers or decreased up to about 20% across the same �me periods, but typically not the magnitude decrease seen at the former red light camera intersec�ons. A few showed larger increases.
3 Crash type and injury frequencies with and without red light cameras in Encinitas Looking cumula�vely at just the two intersec�on that had cameras—a�er removal of the cameras:
• Overall crashes decreased 54%
• Rear-end crashes decreased 77%
• Broadside crashes decreased 26%
• Total injuries decreased 45%
• Average injury severity also decreased modestly
Proponents of red light cameras acknowledge that they tend to increase rear-end crashes due to motorists slamming on their brakes when lights turn yellow, and the decrease in rear-end crashes a�er removal of the cameras is consistent with that—with an impressive 77% crash reduc�on. Camera proponents counter the rear-end collision increase with a theore�cal decrease in broadside crashes with cross-traffic, which are arguably more likely to cause injuries and higher injury severity. However, in the case of these Encinitas intersec�ons, broadside crashes, overall injuries, and average injury severity also all decreased a�er removal of the cameras.
Note that, among all of the injuries reported within the 50-foot radii of the two intersec�ons for the en�re 15-year study period, there were no fatali�es and only one severe injury that occurred when the traffic signals were non-opera�onal. The remaining crashes resulted in only minor injuries, complaints of pain, or property damage.
Average reported crashes per year since red light camera removal The average reported crashes per year from 5/2020 through 12/2025 are shown in the following tables for the intersec�ons along the El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard corridors (within a 50-foot radius).
For the most part, there were less than two reported crashes per year and average injuries per year tend to be far less than one:
4 Root cause analysis of three fatali�es
There have been three very tragic fatali�es of teens hit by vehicles over the last few years. It is difficult to conduct root cause analysis of the associated crashes, because details are very difficult to come by.
However, such an analysis is cri�cal, if the city hopes to iden�fy effec�ve countermeasures to reduce the likelihood of similar future incidents.
Westbound El Camino Del Norte pedestrian beacon crosswalk incident The most recent incident appears to have involved a westbound motorist striking a pedestrian on El Camino Del Norte near sunset at a crosswalk equipped with a so-called rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB)—with no traffic signals anywhere near the site. There are several of these RRFBs in Carlsbad, as well, and, from my own personal observa�ons and communica�ons from others, motorists tend not to no�ce them, unfortunately.
In addi�on, in news reports, local residents expressed concerns about blinding sun near sunset at this loca�on. Consistent with that, the image below is from a video taken facing west on the road within a few days of the crash at the same �me of day. The flashing beacons and a crossing pedestrian are barely visible. It is unclear exactly how good the visibility was on the day of the crash, but it is the responsibility of all motorists to drive at a speed that is prudent for the existing conditions (not necessarily the speed limit).
RRFBs are broadly considered to be safety countermeasures for pedestrians and may work in some contexts. However, in the wrong context, I believe that imprudent and/or distracted drivers can lead to RRFBs doing more harm than good—giving pedestrians a false sense of safety through an assump�on that motorist will both see the flashing beacons and understand that they need stop. 5 Given the specific issues at this loca�on and the fact that there are no traffic signals anywhere near it, I think a red light camera program is highly unlikely to address its root cause(s).
Northbound El Camino Real near Santa Fe Drive incident
In another incident, a bicyclist traveling northbound on El Camino Real apparently intended to turn le� using a le�-turn lane onto Santa Fe Drive. This necessitated traveling from the bike lane on the far right across mul�ple high-speed through lanes, and the bicyclist ended up crashing with a truck going in the same direc�on. This incident also did not involve a traffic signal. Either the truck driver or the bicyclist or both apparently did not see each other.
The city has already approved a project that should help encourage bicyclists to use a pedestrian crossing at the traffic signal to proceed westbound on Santa Fe Drive, rather than trying to cross all of the through-lanes, although they are s�ll free to do that if they so choose.
Westbound Encinitas Boulevard traffic signal crosswalk incident The other incident was a westbound motorist on Encinitas Boulevard striking a pedestrian in a crosswalk at the Village Square Drive intersec�on when he had a red light. Given the �me of year and �me of day, sunset glare may also have contributed to this incident, but, again, it is the responsibility of all drivers to drive at a speed that is prudent for the existing conditions.
More importantly, though, according to court records and news accounts of legal hearings, the motorist first hit another vehicle that was stopped at the red light and entered the intersec�on "over six seconds” a�er the light had turned red. The reasons for this incident (beyond possibly profound distrac�on) are unclear, but a red light camera program is unlikely to address problems with motorists running into other motorists at red lights and entering intersec�ons long periods of �me a�er the light turns red.
Again, I am not opposed to a red light program beyond the concern that it could divert resources from approaches that are more likely to help, but there should be no expecta�on that such a program would have altered any of the above three incidents or would influence poten�al future similar incidents.
Staff’s proposed pilot program
The pilot program proposed by staff seems generally very sound and thorough, par�cularly the plan to prospec�vely establish performance measures and test them both before and a�er ac�va�on of cameras. That said, the most meaningful outcomes/endpoints in this type of pilot study are changes in crashes and injuries. However, the vast majority of Encinitas intersec�ons experience less than two reported crashes per year that would be influenced by red light cameras, as evidenced by the above tables, and injuries per year tend to be far less than one.
Given the extreme rarity of crash/injury events, it would likely require an imprac�cal number of study intersec�ons or an imprac�cal study period length to accumulate enough data for those endpoints. 6 Perhaps “red light viola�ons” could be used as a “surrogate endpoint” under the assump�on that they may correlate long-term with crashes and injuries. Perhaps hundreds of viola�on events could accrue.
However, that also could be tricky and would require very careful study design on what cons�tutes a red light viola�on that may reasonably correlate with a crash/injury, and it also could require a prety lengthy “before” period.
Alterna�ve approaches to reduce red light viola�ons
Here are some alterna�ve approaches to help reduce red light viola�ons, many of which are recommenda�ons listed in your Local Roadway Safety Plan:
• Ensure sufficient green �me, turn lanes/pocket lengths, signal coordina�on, etc. to avoid the need to stop for more than one signal cycle at the same intersec�on. • Other signal light �ming approaches: Increase yellow �me, increase red clearance �me, pedestrian lead intervals, signal coordina�on, advanced dilemma zone detec�on. • Increase signal light visibility: Reflec�ve backplates, LED signal lenses, visors/louvers, signal ahead signs/flashers.
• ADDRESS DISTRACTED DRIVING THROUGH ENFORCMENT: According to news reports, Escondido police have conducted mul�ple distracted driving enforcement opera�ons over the past year.
Methods
Official crash data from 1/1/2011 through 2/17/2015 from the state’s SWITRS database was combined with official crash data from 2/18/2015 through 12/31/2025 from the state’s CCRS database. The red light cameras at the two intersec�ons were ac�vated in 2004 to 2005 and were inac�vated as of May 2020. The �me period with opera�onal cameras for this study ran from 1/2011 through 4/2020 (9 years 3 months back to the availability of crash data), and the �me period a�er removal of the cameras ran from 5/2020 through 12/2025 (5 years 9 months from the �me of removal of the cameras). The most recent year or two of CCRS data is considered provisional, but previous years tend not to change much, so 12/2025 was chosen as the cutoff.
Crashes within 250 feet of intersec�ons are o�en considered intersec�on crashes due to areas of influence around intersec�ons. However, for red light camera influence studies, the distance tends to be less. Some prac��oners use 0 feet, while others use 50 feet, and s�ll others use different distances for different crash types (e.g., for rear-ends vs. broadsides). For simplicity, a distance of 50 feet was used for this study.
Unfortunately, no traffic counts were available for this study, which could be a minor confounder. Other possible confounders include vehicle safety improvements, roadway changes other than cameras, etc.
Best regards,
Steve Linke
From: janet nethery
To: City Clerk
Subject: Red Light Camera return vote Wednesday September 9th Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 9:54:56 AM
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
This is the first time you received an email from this sender ([email protected]). Exercise caution when clicking links, opening attachments or taking further action, before validating its authenticity.
Secured by Avanan
To Mayor and City Council Members,
As a resident of Encinitas since 1978 I vote “NO" on the return of Red Light Cameras and hope you wil do the same at Wednesday, September 9th meeting.
Sincerely,
Janet Nethery
438 Delage Drive
Encinitas, CA 92024
7607531122
From: patty.st
To: City Clerk; Peter Weichers
Subject: Please post in comments for tonights meeting for agenda item 12A Date: Wednesday, September 9, 2026 3:58:27 PM
Attachments: Road safety Sept 2026.docx
CAUTION: External Email. Do not click any links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender, verified their email address, and know the content is safe.
Dear Peter,
Please post my attached letter for 12A for tonight - on red light camera pilot program. thanks so much, also here:
Patty
also here:
Dear Mayor Ehlers and Encinitas Councilmembers,
As a grandmother of children living in Encinitas, and 46 year resident of Encinitas, I am writing to express my deep concern for the safety of our resident children, children visiting Encinitas, and people of all ages in Encinitas, and traveling on our roads either by car, by bicycle, by scooter or on foot.
My first thought about the red light cameras was that I didn’t think they would lessen accidents as cameras do not stop cars. But then after reading the staff report of lessened accidents while the cameras were in place, I thought maybe they are useful.
And then I read Mr. Linke’s report, with charts and data from the SWITRS: (CA Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records) and the CCRS: (Callifornia Crash Reporting System) during the period of the cameras utilized and after they were removed, and now see that there were considerably LESS collision reports in Encinitas AFTER the red light cameras were removed.
( “The last 9+ year period the camera program was in operation (1/2011- 4/2020) was compared with a nearly 6-year period after inactivation/removal of the cameras (5/2020-12/2025).”)
My take on this now is that our driving, biking, walking, safety, needs a multi-pronged approach. And that the Red Light Cameras may be the least effective in reducing accidents on our roads.
Besides the excellent visuals with Mr Linke’s map and charts, I found these points to be helpful clues for moving forward:
Westbound El Camino Del Norte pedestrian beacon crosswalk incident Flashing light crosswalk:—giving pedestrians a false sense of safety through an assumption that motorists will both see the flashing beacons and understand that they need stop.
Northbound El Camino Real near Santa Fe Drive incident
This incident also did not involve a traffic signal. Either the truck driver or the bicyclist or both apparently did not see each other
Then Mr. Linke goes on with some recommendations, and this one I found very interesting:
“• ADDRESS DISTRACTED DRIVING THROUGH ENFORCMENT:
According to news reports, Escondido police have conducted multiple distracted driving enforcement operations over the past year.” I have no idea how they do this, but this seems to be a key factor.
And if distracted driving is more common these days, then I feel education for people of all ages is KEY!
The 2 incidents mentioned above, look to be that the driver did not SEE the pedestrian and the bicyclist.I feel our education – especially in schools, must emphasize not to ASSUME that motor vehicles (being the largest and most dangerous) see them in their car, or bike, or scooter, or on foot.
And educate the reality of distracted drivers, and with that, utmost vigilance and caution is needed when entering a roadway.
I don’t believe that drivers want to purposely run a red light or cause any harm to a pedestrian or bicyclist.
But are people in general more distracted these days?
The saying mentioned at previous council meeting of “Stop, Look, Listen” I feel could be very helpful in the education piece. When a bus comes to a railroad crossing, the bus driver is REQUIRED to “Stop, Look and Listen” before crossing the tracks, even when the cross bar is not down. I have seen anomalies with the train bar going down with no train, the opposite could also be possible, thus the caution that bus drivers employ.
Also needed, it seems like, are things like raised crosswalks, speed cushions before crosswalks, that really do slow cars. And maybe signs that actually report recent fatalities and the need to slow down and use extreme caution on our roads.
Thank you for reading and considering,
Patty Stottlemyer RN, Encinitas
Sent with Proton Mail secure email.