of
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 142 of 287
Les!'I
IJnmntrollable
FaC'.tors
Obstruction
Driver
ObstructionlDuc
Motor
Cycle
Helmet
Plate
Obstruction
Vehicle
Obstruction
PolicylWeather
Extended
Vehicle
Sun
Glare
Registration Issues
Out
of
Country
Plate
Paper
Plates
Wrong
or
No
DMV
Total less
Rejpçtc;Camera Malfunction
Face
Camera
Focus
B
Face
Not
in
Frame
Misc
Camera
Issue
Plate
Bum
Out
Plate
Not
in
Frame
Rear
Plate
Camera
BI
Rear
Plate
Flash
Inapp
Police
Rejects
Driver
Unidentifiable
Invalid
Offence Obstructed
View
Plate
Unclear Red-light
not
visible
in
Process
Issues
Too
Old
Total 6" t)-Printed
on 07- 200SJunement
KepOn (
I:.nClnltaS)
m zn m
mZninz
1 1
2 Õ------ 11----- 3------~------ 7H = = = = = = =
4= = = = = = ~
1 2------ 20i------ 4:7= = = = = = §~ Õ------ 11----- g-- 17If----- J1 43 - - - - - - is- - - - - -
f18
0 000%
1 001%
1 000%
0-000% - -
11 -
006% - -
1f
OÕ3%
1-001% - - -
Õ -
OOÕ% - - -
f
000%
0-000% - - -
2 -
oM% - - -
f
ÕÕ1%
2-001% - - -
1 oM% - - -
f
001%
1-
Õ01% - - -
4 -
OÕ2% - - -
5-
ÕÕ1%
0-000% - - -
1 -
oM% - - -
f
õõo%
i1-Õ13% - -
47 -
025% - -
6f
Õ19%
3-Õ02% - - -
3 -
002% - - -
f
ÕÕ2%
5-003% - - -
2 -
oM% - -"
f
ÕÕ2%
1-001% - - -
1 -
oM% - - -
f
001%
þ=@Q~= = =~ =
oQ2!.{ = =)=
9Q:1~
Õ-Õoo% - - -
2 -
001% - - -
f
001%
34 021%
78 041%
112
032%
lïgnt
Incidents
Page1of1
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 143 of 287
ernent
tteport \
t:nclnnas)
IIgnt
Incidents
LASS
IJnrnntroliablA
Faclors
Obstruction
Driver
ObstructionlDuc
Motor
Cycle
Helmet
Plate
Obstruction
Vehicle
Obstruction
PolicylWeather
Extended
Vehicle
Sun
Glare Weather/Nature
Registration Issues Total
Paper
Plates
Wrong
or
No
DMV
Less. c:Reject.Camera Malfunction
Digital
Distortion
Face
Camera
Flash
I
Face
Camera
Focus
B
Face
Not
in
Frame
Mise
Camera
Issue
Plate
Bum
Out
Plate
Not
in
Frame
Rear
Plate
Camera
BI
DMV
Not
On
File
Driver
Unidentifiable
Gender
Match (
police)
Invalid
Offence Obstructed
View
Red-light
not
visible
in
Police
Rejects Process
Issues
Too
Old
Total 6"-I
Printed
on 07- 2005Junm p¡m z
a
mzÇI m z m n
1 0
1 Õ------ 11----- j----- 81------- j~====== ß======~ Q1------- 4------ 5ë------~------ 37 Q======)=======? 9------ ë------ 15f====== J5C====== ß
4Õ - - - - - -
55- - - - - -
95 1
001%
0 000%
1000%
1-
001% - - -
0 -
000% - - -
f000%
ÕooO% - - -
2 -
oM% - - -
f
001%
Õ -
ÕOO% - - -
8 -
0õ6% - - -
f003%
2-
001% - - -
0 -
000% - - -
f
001%
Õ -
000% - - -
f
OM% - - -
f000%
ÕooO% - - -
2 -
oM% - - -
f
OÕ1%
0 -
000% - - -
f -
oM% - - -
1-
OÕO%
0 000%
1 001%
1000%
15-
Õ09% - -
25 -
018% - -
40- õf3%
1-
001% - - -
0 -
ooÕ% - - -
fOÕO%
1-
Õ01% - - -
0 -
OÕÕ% - - -
f000%
ÕÕOÕ% - - -
f -
oM% - - -
f
000%
j =
@1~ = = = ~ =
oQ~~ = =)= QÕ)~
ÕÕOÕ% - - -
2 -
oM% - - -
f
001%
22 013%
47 034%
69 023%
Page
1 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 144 of 287
Dear City Council Members
t
J: eeet~ cd ..Jt.~
6'/ 05 (-âr'ðe/, /J¡~- : tIb
June 15, 2005:
On Feb 7,2005, I Anna Mintz received a Red Light Traffic Camera ticket.
My dispute like many others about this is that we feel very strong that we DID NOT start the intersection entering on a Red Light as it shows in the camera shot that was taken.
Action Taken:
After paying this fine and having pleaded not guilty, I interviewed many people in the court yard and discovered many people with a similar story as mine.
We all felt that the camera shots taken making us appear guilty of entering an intersection on a red when we all clearly remember it turning red just as we're actually already making a left turn.
We all strongly felt that the yellow lights were extremely short in time and switched to red within seconds which in turn lead the cameras to go off.
Reauest to council:
To re-evaluate the length of the red light going from green to yellow to red and investigate why people are appearing on a photo as though they are entering an intersection on a red when indeed it was either yellow or green. 2) Seconq Concern ( Safety Issue)
People are now more paranoid than ever to enter Red Light Camera intersections. Thoughts that go on as they're driving consist of:
a) How long was that light green for?
b) Should I take a chance and go through it or slow down just in case it turns yellow? (Please note that it has been found that the more careful drivers with a good driving record are the ones that have received these tickets more so than the one who speed through yellows and reds.) c) Should I speed up and make it through just in case it turns yellow on me? Result:
More potential accidents.
One person we interviewed witnessed 3 accidents due to these lights since people now slam the breaks afraid when they think it's going to turn colors on them and as a result injuring the back driver.
People are aware the lights are short especially (left turn signals) and are confused as to what to do.
Another person we interviewed was so afraid when they got half way on an intersection and it turned red that rather than continue through, they backed up to 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 145 of 287
the start of the intersection since they were scared of getting a ticket which indeed they got any way.
Reauest:
To lengthen the yellow to allow enough time to make safe decisions to slow down and stop
3) Tax payers money could be better spent:
Too many cops are spending time in the sheriffs department showing and explaining to people their videos and then more time in court explaining the video again as people dispute their tickets.
Reauest:
a) Tax payers money could be better spent if sheriffs NOT CAMERAS (having the same human eye as the average individual), can clearly see the allotted time it takes for one to cross an intersection and fine them accordingly rather than rely on cameras which can be dysfunctional and don'toperate the same as the human eye.
This would save the tax payer a significant amount of money if they're fined since we would not have to support a privately owned camera company and the sheriffs at the same time.
The fines for such a violation are outrageous and it was sad to see so many students paying their own education and seniors on fixed incomes and in my case a stay home unemployed mom who had to use savings that were to go towards my son's special education program go towards a $400 penalty which resulted in delaying him into the program to better his future. b) To re-emburse the innocent or reduce the penalty fee to an affordable amount. Please take into account there are worse violations and crimes committed with much smaller fines to pay.
4) On Monday May 9,2005, I spoke to Rob Blough Engineer for the Traffic Lights in Encinitas who after hearing my concerns of the cameras and Lights, may have possibly done something to correct the timing on them. If so, Reauest:
That it be dated as to when this correction on the lights have been made and if indeed they were off and needed to be corrected, that those like myself fined on EI Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd be re-embursed for inaccuracy of traffic lights and camera shots.
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 146 of 287
We have several names on the petitions attached who feel strongly that something needs to be done to provide better safety methods on intersections and wish for council to hear our concerns and please help make a positive change.
Petitioner names are available and many more can be offered upon request; People in attendance today who wish to be re-embursed
1) Anna Mintz (ticketed on Feb7/05) $384.00
5) Lastly, Perhaps we could start to consider putting a TIMER similar to the ones pedestrians have only in this case we would have them near the green traffic lights so that a driver may see exactly how many seconds are to remain on the green light. This is turn will allow the driver to make a decision in a more relaxed and logical manner rather than guessing how many seconds they have before it turns yellow. As we already know not all intersection lights are timed the same leaving the driver very uncertain of how long they have before it switches yellow and if the yellow is indeed too short, it results in a poor decision to go through attached with a high fine to pay.
I would assume that SAFETY would come well before the high price people are paying for these tickets that could easily be avoided.
T~ank you.
vi\Þt-.11;,v
Þ:nna Mintz ~
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 147 of 287
i
I
C
I
i
CITY OF ENCINITAS
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: January 21, 2009
TO: City Council
VIA: Phil Cotton, CityManager~
FROM: eCota-Robles, Director of Engineering Services
RbRob Blough, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Authorize the City Manager to extend an existing agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc for the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program with a language
amendment consistent with recent court ruling
BACKGROUND:
On February 9, 2004 the Gity and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc entered into a 5-year contract to provide red light photo enforcement cameras and related services. The contract provides that the City may extend the contract term for up to two additional consecutive one (1) year periods following the expiration of the Initial (5 year) Term. The contract is included as Attachment 1.
As Council is aware, the red light cameras are located at the intersections of El Camino ReaUEncinitas Boulevard and E1 Camino Real/Leucadia Boulevard-Olivenhain Road. The El Camino ReaUEncinitas Boulevard intersection has two approaches monitored with cameras, the eastbound left/ right trough/ turn lanes and the southbound left/through lanes. The El Camino ReaULeucadia Boulevard-Olivenhain Road intersection has one approaeh monitored with camera, the westbound left turn lane. The automated red light photo enforcement program has been a success as it has improved the safety at these two intersections as well as other non-camera intersections throughout the City.
DISCUS5ION:
Due to the program'ssuccess, staff believes that the City should at this time avail itself of the contract's extension provision.
As Council is also aware, there was a recent Couri ruling (see Attachment 2) that the City of Fullerton's Automated Enforcement System contract with NTS (Fullerton's red light camera enforcement provider) was flawed due to a"cost neutrality' provision, see Attachment 2. While the City of.Encinitas' contract with Redflex does not contain identical cost neutrality provisions, there is AR0926T
16 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 148 of 287
i
i
i
i
language in the contract that might be so construed. As a precautionary measure, the City Attorney has recommended that this language be amended as part of any contract extension with Redflex.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The Red Light Photo Enforcement Program continues to operate at no net cost to the City.
RECOMMENDATION:
Autharize the City Manager to extend the existing agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc far the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program with a
language amendment consistent with the recent
court ruling subject to the review ofthe City Attorney
Attachments
1) Contract between City of Encinitas and Redflex dated February 9, 2004 Z) People of the State of California vs. Franco decision AR0926T
17 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 149 of 287
iI
i
A-41dU e,:• W+
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY 4F ENCINITAS
AND REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC: FOR
AUTOMATED RED LIGHT PHOTO ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS
This Agreement (this "A eement") is made as of this ay of February, 2004 by and between the City of Encinitas, a municipal corporatioq with offices at 505 S. Vulcan Avenue, Encinitas, California, 92024 (the "City") and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., a.
Delaware corporation with offices at 5813A Uplander Way, Culver City, California 90230 ("Redflex"),
RECITALS
WHEREAS; Redflex has exclusive knowledge, possession and ownership of certain equipment, licenses, applications, and citation proc.esses relateti to digital red light photo enforcement cameras;
WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the services of Redflex: to provide certain equipment, processes and back office seivices, so that sworn SherifFs officers and/or employees of the Sheriff's Department under contract to the City are able to monitor, identify and enforce red light running violations;
WHEREAS; it is a mutual objective of both Redflex a.nd the City to reduce the incidence of vehicle collisions at -the traffic intersections that will be inonitored, pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.'
NOEN THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual coyenants contained herein, and for other valuable consideiation received, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
AGREE7VIENT
1. DEFINITIONS. In this Agreement, the words and phrases below sha11 have the fotlowing meanings:
1. 1. "Authorized Officer" means the Sher'cff s Project Manager or . such other individual(s) as the Gity shall designate to review Potential- Violations and to authorize the Issuance of Citations: in respect thereto, and in any event, a sworn officer or employee ofthe Sheriff'sDepartment under confract to .the City.
1.2. "Authorized Violation" means each Potential Violation in the Violation Data for which authorization to kssue a citation iri the form of an Electronic Signature is given. by the Authorized Officer,by using the Redflex.System.
1.3. "Citation" means the notice of a Violation, which is mailed or otherwise delivered by Redflex to the violator on the appropriate Enforcement Documentation in respect of each Authorized Violation.
1.4. "Confidential Information" means, with respect to any Person, any iriformation, matter or thing of a secret, confidential or private nature, whether or not so labeled, which is considered confidential under local, state, or federal laws, or which is connected with such Person's business or methods of operation or concerning any of such Person's suppliers, licensors, licensees, City's or others with whom such Person has a business relationship, and which has current or 1 O1/ 0407/
18 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 150 of 287
potential value to such Person or the unauthorizeci disclosure of which could be detrimental to such Person, including but not limited to:
1.4. Matters of a business nature, inctuding but not limited to information relating to development plans, costs, finances, mazketing plans, data, procedures, business opportunities, marketing methods, plans and strategies, the costs of constructioq installation, materials or components, the prices such Person obtains or has obtained from its clients or City's, or at which such Person sells or has. sold its services; and.
14.2. Matters of a technical nature, including but not limited to product information, trade secrets, know-how, formulae, innovations, inventions, devices, discoveries, techniques, formats, processes, methods, specifications, designs, patterns, schematics, data, access or security codes, coinpilations of information; test_ results and research and development projects: For purposes of ihis Ageement, the term "trade secrets" sha11 mean the broadest and most inclusive interpretation of trade secrets as defined by §3426. d) 1(of the California Civil Code (the "Uniform Trade Secrets Act') and cases interpreting the scope of thc Uniform Trade S.ecrets Act.
1.3. 4 Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information will not include information that: (i) was generally available to the public or otherwise part, of tfie public dohiain at the time of its disclasure, (u) became generally available to the pubIic or, otherwise part of the ;public doma'in after its disclosure and other than through any act or omission by a.ny party hereto in breach af this Agreement, (ui) was subsequentiy lawfully disclosed to the disclosing party by a person other than a party hereto, (iv) was reyuired by. a court of competent jurisdiction to be described, or (v) was required by applicable state lavy to be described.
1.5. "Designateci Intersection Approaches" means the Intersection Approaches set focth on ExYubit A. attached hereto, _ and any such additional Intersection Ap.proaehes as the City.may designate.&om time to time.
1.6. "Electronic Signature"_ means the method through which the Aufhorized Officer indicates his or her approvai ofthe issuance of a Citation irt respect of a Potential Violation using the Redflex System.
1.7. "Enforcement Documentation" . means the necessary and appropriate documentation related to the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, including but not limited to warning letters, citation notices (using the specifications -of the Judiciai Council and the San Diego Sheriffs Department),. a numbering sequence for use on all citation notices (in accordance with applicable court rules), instructions to accompany each issued Citation (including in such instructions a description of basic court procedures, payment options and informafion regarding the viewing of images and data collected by the Redflex System), chain of custody records, criteria regarding operational policies for processing Citations inclading with respect to coordinating with the Department of Motor Vehicles), and technical support documentation for applieable courtand judicial offcers .
1.8. "Equipment" means any and all cameras, sensors, equipment, components, products, software and ather tangible and intangible property relating to the 2 Oi/ 0407/
19 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 151 of 287
Redflex System, including but not limited to all camera systems, housings and poles. .
1.9. "Fine" means. a monetary sum assessed for Citation, including but not limited to bail forfeitures,. tiut excluding suspended fines.
1.10. Governmental Authority" means any domestic or foreign government, governmental authority, court, tribunal, agency or other regulatory, administrative or judicial agency, corrunission or organization; and any subdivisioq branch or department of any of the foregoing.
1.11. Installation Date" means the date on wtiich Redflex completes the construction and installation of at least two (2) Intersection Approaches in accordance.with the terms of this Agreement so tfiat such Intersection Approach is operational for the purposes of functioning with the Redlight Photo Enforcernent Program.
1.12. Intellectual Propert/,' means, with respect to. any Person, any and all now known or hereafter known .tangible and intangible (a) _ rights associated with works of authorship throughout .the world, including but not. limited ' to copprights, moral_ rights and mask-works, (b) trademark and trade name rights and similar rights, (c) trade secrets rights, (d) patents, designs, algorithms and other industrial property rights, (e) all other intellectual and industrial property - rights (of every kind and nature throughout the universe and however designated), whether arising by operation of law, coritract, license, or otherwise, and ( fl all registrations, initial -applications, renewals, extensions, continuations, divisions.or reissues hereof now or hereafter in.force (including.any rights in any ofthe foregoing), of such Person.
1.13. Tntersection Approach" . means a conduit of travel with up to four (4) contiguous lanes from the curb (e.g., northbound, southbound, eastbound or wesfbound) on wluch at least one (1). digital, rear. shot multiple image color camera and at least one (1) digital face c.ameca; . together with a.ll other components_ of the.Redflex System, including the SmartSceneTm System have been installed by _ Redflex and are_ operating for the purposes of facilitating Redlight. Photo Enforcement by the City.
1.14. Operational Period" means the period of time during #he Term, commencing on the Installation Date, during which : ihe Redlight Photo Enforcement Program is functional in order to permit the identification and prosecution of Violations at the Designated Intersection Approaches by the Aufhorized Offcer and the issuance of Citations for such approved Violations using. the. Redflex System.
1.15. . Person" means a natural individual, company, Governmental Authority, partnership, firm, corporatioq legal entity or other business association.
1.16. Project Managei" means the official_appointed by the City in accordance with this Agreement, which shall initially be the City Engineer, or such person as fhe City shall designate by providing written notice thereof to Redflex from time to tirrie: The Project Manager sha(1 be responsible £or overseeing the installation of the Intersection Approaches and the implementation of the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, and which manager shall have the power and authority to ma.ke management decisions retating to the Ciry's obligations pursuant to this 3 O1/ 0407/
20 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 152 of 287
Agreement, includin,gbut not limited to change order authorizations, subject to any limitations set forth in the City's charter or other organizational documents of the City or by the City Council or other governing body of the City.
1.17. Potential Violation" means, with respect to any motor vehicle passing through a Designated Intersection Approach, the data collected by the Redflex System with respect to such motor vehicle, which data shall be processed by the.
Redflex System for the purposes of allowing the Authorized Officer to review such data and determine whether a Volation has occurred.
1.18. Proprietary Property" means, witfi respect to any. Person, any written or I tangible property owned or used by such Person in connection with such I Person's busiriess, whether or aot such property is copyrightable or also qualifies I,as Confidential Information, including without limitation products, sarnples, equipment, files, lists, books, notebooks, records, documents, memoranda; reports, patterns, schematics, compilations, designs, drawings; data, test results, contracts, agreements, literature, eonespondence, spread sheets, compufer programs and soflware, computer print outs, other written and gaphic records. and the like, whether originals, copies, duplicates orsummaries thereof, affecting or relating to the business of such Person, financial statements, budgets,projections and
invoices. 1. 19.Redflex Marks" means all trademarks registered in the name of Redflex or any of its affiliates, such other trademarks as are used by Redflex or any of its affiliates on ar inrelatiQn to Redlight Photo Enforcement at any time during the Term this Agreement, service marks, trade names, logos, brands- and otheimarks owned by Redfle3c, and all modifications or adaptations ofa:ny of the foregoing.1. 20:Redflex Project Manager" means the project manager appointed by Redflex inaccordance with this Agreement,. whichproj.eet manager sha11 initially be as designated Uy the City Manager, or such person as Redflex sha11 designate by providing written notice thereof to the City from. time totin: ie, who shall beresponsible for overseeing theconstn ction and installation of the Designated Intersection Approaches and theimplementation the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, and who sha1l have the pawer and authority to make management .decisions relating toRedflex's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited tochange-order
authorizations.1. 21:Redflex System" means, collectively, the SmartCamTM System, the SmartOpsTM System, the SmartSceneTm System, the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, and all of the other equipment, flash units, applications, back office processes and digital red light traffc enforcement camecas, sensors, comporients, products, soflware and other tangible andintan,gible property relating thereto.1. 22.Redlight Photo Enforcement Program" means the process by which the monitoring, identification arid enforcementof Violations is facilitated by the use of cectain equipment, applications and back office processes of Redflex, including but not limited tocameras, flashes, central processing units, signal controller interfaces and detectors (whether loop, radar, video sensor or other) which, collectively, are capable of ineasuring Viotations and recording such Volation data in the form ofphotographic imagesof motor vehiclesand/or their drivers.
407/ Ol/
04 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 153 of 287
i
i
r
1.23. Redlight Violation Criteria" means the standards and criteria by which Potential I Volations will be evaluated by the Authorized Offzcer, which standards and criteria shall include, but are not limited to, the duration of time that a traffic light must remain red prior to a V'iolation being deemed to have occurred, and the location(s) in an intersection which a motor vehicle must pass during a red light signal prior to being.deemed to have committed a Violatioq all of which shall be I in compliance with all applicable laws; rules and regulations of Governmental i Authori#ies.
1.24. SmartCamTM System" means the proprietary digital speed and redlight photo enforcement system of Redflex relating to the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.
1.25_ SmartOpsTM Sysiem" means the proprietary back-office processes of Redflex relating to the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.
1.26. SmartSceneTM System"- means the proprietary digital video . camera unit, hardware and:software required for.providing supplemental violation data. 127. Traffie Signal_ Controller Boxes". means the signal controller interface and detector, including but not limited to the radaz or video 1oop, as the case may be.
1.28. Volation" rneans any traffic violation contrary to the terms of:the Vehicle Code or any applicable rule, iegulation or law of any oiher Governmental Authority, includirig but not limited to operating a motor vehicle contrary to tra#fic signals, and -operating a motor vehicle without displaying a valid license plate or registration.
1.29. Violations Data." means the images and other Violations data gathered by the Redflex System at the Designated Intersection Approaches:
1.30... Warning Period" means the period ofthicty (30) days after the Instatlation Date.
2. :.. TEAM. The term .of this Agreement shall cocnmence as of.the date hereof and shall continue for a period of five (5) years ( the "Init~ial Term"), The City shall have the right, but not the obligation,. to extend the term of this Agreement for up to two (2) additional consecutive one (1) year periods following the. expiration of the Initial Term (each, a"Renewal Term" and collectively wiih.the Initial Term, the "Term"), The City may exercise the right to extend this Agreement for a Renewal Term by providing written notice to Re.dflex not less than thirty (30) days prior to the last day ofthe Initial Term or the Renewal Term, as the case may be.
3. . SERT~ICES. Redflex shall provide the Redlight Photo Enforaerrient Program to the Gity vvith respect to the Designated Interseetion Approaches; in each case in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement. .
3. INSTALLATION. l.With respect to the constniction of the Designated Intersection Approaches and the instatlatxon. of the Redflex System at such Designated Intersection Approaches, the City and Redflex shall have the respective rights and obligations set forth on_Exhibit B attached hereto. 3,2. MAl,NTENANCE. With respect to the maintenance of the Redflex System at the Designated Intersection. Approaches, the City and Redflex shatl have the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto.
33. VIOLATION PROCESSINC. During the Operational Period, Violations shall be processed as follows:
3.1. 3. All Violations Data shall be stored on the Redflex System; 5 oiro7ioa
22 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 154 of 287
I
3.3. 2: The Redflex System sha11 process Violations Data gathered from the Designated Intersection Approaches into a format capable of review by the Authorized Officer via the Redflex System;
31:3.. The Redflex System shall be accessible by the Authorized Officer and Project Manager through a virtual private network in encrypted format by use of a confidential password on any computer equipped with a high-speed internet eonnection and a web browser;
33.4. Redflex shall provide the Authorized Officer and Project Manager with access to the Redflex System for the purposes of reviewing the pre- I processed Violations Data within seven (7) days of the gathering of the Violation Data from the applicabte Designated Intersection Approach;
3.3. 5 The City shall cause the Autharized Officer to review the Volations Data and to determine whether a citation shall be. issued with respect to each Potential Violation captured within such Violation Data, and transmit each such determination in the form of ati Electronic Signature to Redflex using' the soflware or other applica.tions or procedures provided by Redflex on; the Redflex System for such purpose, and REDFLEX HEREBY
AGKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES TI~iAT THE DECISION TO ISSUE A
CITATION SHALL BE THE SULE, UNILt4TERAL AND EXCLUSIVE
DECISION OF TIM AUTHORIZED QFFICER AND SHALL BE MADE
IN SUCH AiJTHORIZED• OFFICER'S SOLE DISCRETION A
CiTATION DECISION"), AND IN NO EVENT SHALL REDFLEX
HAVE THE ABII,ITY OR AUTHORIZATION TO NIAKE A CITATION
DECISION;
3.3. 6 With respect tq each Authorized Violation, Redflex shall print and mail a Citation within five (5) days after Redflex's receipt of such authorization; provided, however, during the Warning Period, warning violation notices shall be issued in respect ofall Authorized Violations;
3.3. 7: The City sha(1 track the collection of Fines assessed on each Citation and complete and accurate records shaIl be maintained by the City with respect to each such Citation;
3.8. 3 Redflex sha11 provide a toll-free telephone number for the purposes of answering citizen inquiries, responding to complaints and scheduling appointments during which recipients of Citatibns may view the applicable Violations Dafa, and Redflex sha11 .provide necassary personnel for such purpose;
3.3. 9 Redflex sha pernut the Authorized Officer and Project Nlanager to generate monthly reports usuag the Redflex Standard Report System.
3. 1~3: 0, Upon Redflex's receipt of a written request. from the City and ' m addition to the Standard Reports, Redflex shall provide, without cost to the City, reports regarding the processing and issuance of Citations, the maintenance and downtime records of the Designated Interseetion Approaches and the functionality of the Redtlex System with respect #hereto to the City in such format. and for such periods as the City may reasonably request; provided, however, Redflex shall not be obligated to provide in excess of six (6) such reports in any given twelve (12) month period without cost to the City; 6 Ol/ 04 . 07/
23 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 155 of 287
i
I I
3.3.11 Upon the City's receipt of a written request from Redflex, the City shail provide, without cost to Redflex, reports regarding the prosecution of Gitations and the collection of fines, fees and other monies in respect thereof in such format and for such periods as Redflex may reasonably request; provided, however, the City shall not be obligated to provide in excess of six 6) such reports in any given twelve (12) month period without cost to Redflex;
3.3. 12 During the four (4) month period following the Installation Date and upon Redflex's receipt of a written request from the Ci .ty at least fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of eourt pro.ceeding, Redflex shall provide expert witnesses for use by the City in prosecuting Violations; provided,.however, the City shall use reasonable best efforts to seek judicial notice in lieu of requiring Redflex to provide such expert vvitnesses; and 3:3. 1. During the. four (4) month period following the Installation Date, Redflex shall provide such training to police personnel as shall be reasonably necessary in order to allow sueh personnel to acC as sxpert witnesses on behalf of the City with respect to the Redlight Enforcement Program.
3.4. PR05EGUTION . AND COLLECTION; COMPENSATION. The Ciry shall diligently prosecute Citations and the coltection of all Fines in respect thereof, anti: Redflex shall have the right to receive, and the City shall be obligated to pay, the compensation set forth on Exhi6it D attached hereto.
3.5: 01 TIER: RIGHTS AND: 4BLIGATTONS. IDuring the Tertn, in addition to all of the other rights and obligations set forth in .this Agreement, Redflex and the City shall have the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit E attached hereto.
3.6. CHANGE ORDERS. The City may from time to .time request changes to fhe wark required to be performed or the addition of products or services to those required pursuant to the terms of :thi.s Agreement 6y providing written notice thereof to RedfleX, setting forth in reasonable detail the proposed changes (a Change Or.der Notice'.'). LTp.on Redflex's receipt of a Change Order Notice, Redflex sfiall deliver a vvritten statement describing the effect, if any, the proposed changes would have on the pricing terms set forth in Exhibit D(the Change Order Pro.posal"), which Change Order 1'roposal shall include (i) a detailed breakdown of the charge and schedule effects, (ii) a: description of any resulting ehanges to the specifications and . obligations of the parties, (iu) a schedule for the deliveryand other performance obligations, and (iv) any . other information relating to the proposed changes reasonably requested by the City.
Following the Ci .ty's receipt of the Change Order Proposal, the parties shall negotiate in good faith and agcee to a p(an and schedule for implementation of the proposed changes, the time, manner and amount of payment or price increases or decreases, as the case may be, and any other matters relating to the propased changes; provided; however, in the event : that any proposed change involves only the addition of equipment or services to the existing Designated Intersection Approaches, or the addition . of Intersection Approaches to be covered by the terms of this Agreement, to the maximum extent applicable, the pricing terms set forth in Exhibit D shall govern. Any failure of the parties to 7 ovo7ioa
24 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 156 of 287
i
l
reach agreement with respect to any of the foregoing as a result of any proposed changes shall not be deemed to be a breach of this Agreement, and any disageement shall be resolved in aceordance with Section 10.
4. . LICENSE; RESERVA'TION OF RIGHTS.
4..1 Lieense. Subject to fihe terms and conditions of this Agreement, Redflex hereby gants the City, and the City hereby accepts from Redflex upon the terms and conditions herein specified, a non-exclusive, non-transferable license during the Term of this Agreement to: (a) solely within the City of ENCINITAS, access and use the Redflex System for the sole purpose of reviewing Potential Violations and authorizing the issuance of Citations pursuant to the terms of this Ageement, and to print copies of any content posted on the Redflex System_ in connection therewith, b) disclose to the public ('including outside of the City_ of ENCINITAS) that Redflex is providing services to the Ciry in connection with Redlight Photo Enforcement Program pursuant to the terins of this Agreement, and (c) use and display the Redflex Marks on or in marketing, public. awareness or education, or other publications or ma.terials relating to the- Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, so long as any and all: such publications or materials are approved in advance by Redfl'ex.
4.2 RESERVATICIN OF RIGI3.TS: The City hereby ackrjowledges and agees that:
a) Redflex is the sole and exclusive. awner of the Redflex System;, the Redflex Ivlarks, all Intellectual Property arising fi-om or relating to the Redflex System, and any and all related Equipment, (6) the City neither has-nor makes any claim to any right, title or interest in any of fhe foregoing, except as specifically granted or authorized under this Agreement,_' and (c) by reason of the exercise of any such rights or interests of City pursuant to this Agreement, the City shall gain no additional right, title or interest therein.
4.3 RESTRICTED USE. The City hereby covenants and agrees that <it shall not (a) make any modifications to the Redflex System, including but not limited to any Equipment, (b) alter, remove or tamper with any Redflex Marks, (c) use any of the Redflex Marks in any way which might prejudice their distinctiveness, validity or the goodwill of Redtlex thereiq (d) use any trademarks ar other marks other than the Redflex Mai-ks in connection with the City's use of the Redflex System pursuant to the ternis :of this Agreement without first obtaining the prior consent of Redflex, or (e) disassemble, decompile or otherwise perforin any type o.f reverse engineering to. the Redflex System; the Redflex System, _ircluding but not limited to any Equipment, or to any, Intellectual. Property or Proprietaty Property of Redflex, or cause ariy other Person to do any ofthe foregoing. 4:4 PROTECTION OF RIGH'TS. Redflex shall have the right to take whatever action it deems necessary or desirable to remedy or preverit the infringement of any Iritellectual Property of Redflex, including without limitation the filing of applications to register as trademarks in any jurisdiction any of the Redflex Marks, the filing of patent application for any of the Intellectual Property of Redflex, and making any oLher applications or filings with appropriate Governmental Authorities. The City shall not take any action to remedy or prevent such infringing activities, and shall not in its own name make any S
Ol/ 0407/
25 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 157 of 287
I
registrations or filings with respect to any of the Redflex Marks or the Intellectual Property of Redflex without the prior written consent of Redflex.
4.$ INFRiNGEN1EN'T. The City shall use its reasonab(e best efforts to give Redflex prompt notice of any activities or tlireatened activities of any Person of which it becomes aware tkat infringes or violates the Redflex Marks or any of Redflex's Intellectua( Property or that constitute a misappropriation of trade secrets or act of unfair competition that might dilute, damage or destroy any of the Redflex Marks or any other Intellectual Property of Redflex. Redflex shall _ have the exclusive right, but not the obligation, to take action to enforce such rights and to make settlements with respect thereto. In the event that Redflex .commences any enforcement action under this Section 4.5, then the. .City shall render to Redflex . such reasonabte cooperation and assistance as is reasonably requested by Redflex, and Redflex shall be entitled to any.damages or other monetary amount that might be awarded after deduction of actual costs; provided, that. Redflex shall reimburse the Ciry for any reasonable costs ineurred in providing such cooperation and assistance.
4.6 INFRINGING USE. The City shall give Redflex prompt written.notice of any aetion or claim action or claim; whether threatened or pending,: against the City alleging that the Redflex Ivlarks, or any other Intellectual Properry of Redflex, infringes or. violates any patent; tr.ademarlc, copyright, trade secret or other Intellectual Property: of any. other Person,.and . the City shall render to Redflex such reasonable cooperation and assistance as is reasonably requested by Redflex in the defense thereof; provided, that :Redflex shall reimburse the City for any reasonable costs incuned in providing such coo.peration and assistance. If such a claim is made .and Redflex determines, _in the exercise of its sole discretion, that an infringeinent may exist, Redflex shall-have the right, but not the obligation, to procure for the City the right to keep using the allegedly infringing items, modify them to avoid the alleged infringement or Feplace them with non-infringing items.
5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES..
5.1Redflex Representations and Warranti.es_
5.1.1:Authority. Redflex hereby warrants and zepresents that ,it rhas all right, power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder.
5.21.Professional Services: Redflex hereby warrants and represents that aiiy and all services provided by Redflex pursuant to this Agreement s.hall be perfoimed in a professional and workmanlike manner and, with respect to the instaltation of the Redflex System, subject to applicatzle law, in c.ompliance with all specifications provided to Redflex by the City.
5.2 City Representations and Warranties.
5. 12.Authority_ The Ciry hereby warrants and represents that it has all right, power and authority to execute and, deliver this Agreement and perform its ob(igations hereunder.
52.2 Professional Services. The City hereby warrants and represents that any and all services provided by the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner.
y
01/07/4
26 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 158 of 287
5.3 LIlVIITED WARRANTIES. EXCEPT AS OZ'BERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENf,. REDFLEX MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY K1ND,
EXPRESS OR IIViPL1ED, INCLUDINGS BUT NOT LIlVIITED TO, THE
WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE REDFLEX SYSTEM OR
ANY RELATED EQUIPMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO TBE RESULTS OF THE CITY'S USE OF ANY OF THE FOREGOIN('z NOTWITHSTANDING
ANY' HINGI'TO TBE CONTRARY SET FORTH HEBEIN, REDFLEX DOES
NOT WARRANT THAT ANY OF THE DESIGNATED INTERSECTION
APPROACHES OR TIM REDFLEX SYSTEM WII,L OPERATE 1N THE WAY THE CITY SELECTS rOR USE, OR THAT TBE OPERATION OR USE
THEREOF WII.,L BE UNIl* TERRUPTED. 4' THE CITY HEREBY
ACKVOWLEDGES THAT THE REDFLEX SYSTEM MAY MALF(JNCTION
FROM TIIVIE TO TIl1~IE, AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS
AGREEMENT, REDFLEX SHALL DILIGENTLY ENDEAVOR TO CORRECT ANY SUCH MALFUNCTION IN A TIlWLY MANNER.
6. TERMINATION.
6.1 Termination. Either party shall have the cight to teiminate this Agreement immediately by written notice.. to the. other if (i) the other party commits any breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement which breach is not remedied within forty-fve (45) calendar days (or within such other time period as the City and Redflex shall mutually agree, which agreement. shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) after written notice from the non-breaching party setting forth in reasonable detaii the events which caused the breach, or (ii) State or federal law prohibits or substantially changes the operation of red light photo enforcement systems, (including legistation rendering Redflex systems evidence inadmiss'ible in a court of competent jurisdiction) and .(iiF) ; following ,an audit of the revenue generated during any 12 consecutive month period after the installation date, and costs ineiyixed by City; utilizing st.andard accounting procedures, the results thereof establish that Citys net recovery after deducting all of system [ease payments paid, to Redflex during the said twelve manth period is less than 1006/o 'of the amount of revenue collected during said period, then both parties shall meet and confer in good faith witiun thirty (30) days and.shall make reasonable efforts to agree upon a new compensation formula. If after 90 days subsequent to the parties use of, the new formula; the Ciry's net recovery continues to be less than 100% of the artiount of revenue collected for the 90 day period, the Ciry may ternunate this Agreement. The rights to ternunate this Agreement given in this Section 6.1 shall be without prejudice to any other right or remedy of either party in respect of the breach concerned ( if any) or.any other breach of this Agreement.
6.2 PROCEDURES UPON TERIIIVATION. The ternunation of this Agreement shall not relieve either ,party of any liability that acciuetl prior to such termination. Except as set forth in Section 6.3, upan the termination of this Ageement, all ofthe provisions of this Agreement shall terminate and:
io
oi/o7ioa
27 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 159 of 287
I
I
I
6.2. 1 Redflex shall (i) immediateiy cease to provide services, including but not limited to work in connection with the construction or installation of Intersection Approaches and services in connection with the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, (ii) promptly deliver to the City any and all Proprietary Property of the City provided to Redflex pursuant to this Agreement, (ui) promptly deliver to the City a final report to the City regarding the collection of data and the issuance of Citations in such format and for such periods as the City may reasonably request, and which final report Redflex shall update or supplement from time to time when and if additional data or information becomes available; (iv) promptly deliver to City a final invoice stating all fees and charges properly owed by City to Redflex for work performed and Citations issued by Redflex prior to the terminatioq and v) provide such assistance as the City may reasonably request fcom time to time in connection with prosecuting and enforcing ..Citations issued prior to the termination ofthis Agreement.
6.22. The City shall (i) unmediately cease using the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, accessing the Redflex System and using any other Intellectual Property of Redflex, (ii) prornptly de(iver to Redflex any and all Proprietary Property of Redflex provided to the City pursuant to this Agreement, and (iii) promptly pay any and all fees, charges and amounts properly owed by City to Redflex for work performed and Citations issued by Redflex piior. to the termination.
6.2. 3 Unless the City and Redflex have .agreed to..enter into a new ageement relating to the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.or have agreed to extend the Term of tlus Agreemerit, Redflex shall remove a.ny and a(1 Equipment or other materials of Redflex instailed in connection with Redflex's performance of its obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to housings, poles and carriera systems; and.Redflex shall restore the Designated Intersection Approaches. to substantially the same condition such Designated Intersection Approaches were in immediately prior to this Agreement.
6.3 SURVIVAL. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the definitions and each of the following shall survive the ternunation of this Agreement: Sections 4.2 Reservation of Rights), 5.1 (Redflex Representa#ions and Warranties), 5.2 (City Representations and Warranties), 5.3 (Limited Warranty),. 7(Confidentialiiy), 8 Indemnification and Liability), 9(Notices),. 10 ( Dispute Resolution), 11.1 Assignment), 11.17 (Applicable Law), 11.16 (Injunctive Relief; Specific Performance) and 11.18 (Jurisdiction and Venue), arid those provisions, and the rights and obligations therein, set forth in this Agreement vvhich either by their terins state; or evidence the intent of the parties, that the provisions survive the expiration or ternunation of the Agreement, or must survive to give effect to the. provisions of this Ageement.
7. CONFIDENTL4LIT': During the term of this Agreement and for a period of three (3) years thereafter,- neither party shall disclose to any third person, or use for itself in any way for pecuniary gain, . any Confidential Information learned from the other party during the course of the negotiations for this _Agreement or during the Term of this Agreement unless otherwise required by law. Upon ternunation of this Agreement, each party shall return to the other a11 tangible Confidential Information of such party. Each party shall retain in confidence and Oll07/04
28 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 160 of 287
not disclose to any third party any Confidential Information without the other party's express written consent, except (a) to its employees who are reasonably required to have the Confidential Information, (b) to its agents; representatives, attorneys and other professional advisors that need to know such Confidential J
Infornnation, provided that such parties undertake in writing (or are otherwise bound by rules of professional conduct) to keep such information strictly confidential, and (c) . pursuant to, and to the extent of, a request or order by any
Governmental Authority, including laws relating to public records.
8. INDEMNMCATION AND LIABILITY.
8.1 Indemnification by Redflex. Redflex hereby agees to defend and indemnify the City and its affiliates, shareholders or other interest holders, managers, officers, elected offcials, employees, directors; agents, representatives and successors; pernutted assignees and "each of their afl'iliates, and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or ariy of them (individually a Ci P and collectively, the "City Parties") agairist, and to protect, save and keep harmless the City Parties from, and to pay on behal€ of or reimburse the City parties as and when incurred for, any and all ~.liabilities, obligations, losses, damages, penalties, demands, claims, actions,, stop notices or meehanics ( iens, • suits; judgments, settleinents, ' costs, expenses and disbursements ( including reasonable attomeys' aecountants' and expert witnesses' fees)~ of whatever kind and nature Fcollectively, "Losses" which may be asserted against, imposed on or incurred by any City Party arising out of _ or related to (a) any material inisrepresentatioq inaccuracy or breach of any covenant, warranty or. representation of RedfleX contained in Agreement; or failure by Redflex to pay any supplier of materials or labor in connection with its performance of tkus Agreement; (b) the acts or onissions, or the willfut misconduct of Redflex, its employees or agents which resulf in death or liodily injury to any natural person including third parties) or any damage to any real oi- tangible personal praperty including the personal property of third parties); eiccept to the extent caused by the willful miseonduct of any City Party.
8.2 indemnification by City. Subject to Section 8.3, the City hereby agrees to defend and indemnify Redflex and its affiliates, shareholders or other interest holders, managers, officers, directors, employees, agents; representatives and successors, permitted assignees and all persons acting by, through, under or in concert with them, or any of them (individually a- "Redflex . Party" and collectively, the "Redflex Parties") against, and to protect, save.and keep harmless the Redftex Parties fi-om, and to pay on behalf of or reimburse the Redflex Parties as and when incurred for, any and aIT Losses which may be imposed on or incurred by any Redflex Party arising out of or in any way related to (a) any material misrepresentation, inaccuracy or breach of any covenant, wananty or representation of the City contained in this Ageement, (b) the negligent or wiIlful misconduct of the City, its employees, contractors or agents which result in death or bodily injury to any aatural person (including third parties) or any damage to any real or tangible personal property (including the personal property of third parties), except to the extent caused by the negIigent or willful misconduct of any iz
oiio7ioa
29 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 161 of 287
i
Redflex Party, (c) any claim, action or demand not caused by Redflex'sfailure to perform its obGgations under this Agreement, or (d) any claim, action or demand challenging the City's use of the Redflex System or any portion thereof; the validity of the results of the City's use of the Redflex System or any portion thereof, or the validity of the Citations issued; prosecuted and collected asa result of the City's use ofthe Redflex System or.-anq portion thereof.
8.4 LIlVIITED LIABILITY. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, neither patty sfia11 be 6able to the other, by. reason of , any representation or express :or implied warranty, condition or other term or any duty at common or civil law, for :any indirect, incidental; special, lost profits or consequential damages, houwever-aaused and on any theory of liability arising out of or relating to this Agreement.
9. NOTICES Any nofiices to be given hereunder shall be in writing, and shal} be deemed to have been given (a) upon delivery, if delivered by hand, :(b) three (3) days after being mailed -Jirst class, certified mail, return receipt requested,.postage and registry fees prepaid, or. (c). one. Business Day after •being. delivered to a reputable. overnight .courier service, excluding the U:S. Postal Service, prepaid, marked foc next day delivery, if the courier secvice obtains •a signature acknowledging receipt, in each case addressed.or sent to.such party as follows:
9.1 Notices to Redflex:
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc,
15020 North 7e Street
Scottsdale, .AZ 85260
Attention: Ms. Karen Finley
Facsimile: (480) 607-0752
With a
copy to:
Alschuler Grossman.Stein & Khan.LLP
2049 Century Park East
39~' Floor
Los Angeles, CA ..90067
Attn: Steve Penden, Esq. .
Facsimile: (310) 552-6077
9.2 No#ices to the City: .
City ofEnciriitas .
505 S. Vulcan Avenue
Encinitas, CA 92024
Attention: Kerry L. Miller,. City Manager
Facsimile: (760) 633-2627
13 01/07/4
30 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 162 of 287
i
I
10.DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Upon the occurrence of any dispute or disageement between the parties hereto arising out of or in connection with any term or. provision of this Agreement, the subject matter hereof~ or the interpretation or enforcement hereof (the Dispute"), the parties shall engage in informal, good fa.ith discussions and attempt to resolve the Dispute. In connection therewith, upon wriiten notice of either party, each of the parties will appoint a designated. officer whose task it shall be to meet for the purpose of attempting to resolve such Dispute. The designated officers shall meet as often as the parties shall deem to be reasonably necessary. Such officers will discuss the Dispute. If the parties are unable to resalve the Dispute in accordance with this Section 10, and in the event tliat either of the parties concludes in good faith that amicable resolution through coritinued negotiation with respect to the Dispute is not reasonably likely, then the parties may mutua]ly agree to submit to binding or nonbinding arbitration or mediation.
11. MISCELLANEOUS.
11.1 Assignment. Neither . party may assign all or any portion of #his Ageement without the prior written consent of the other, provided, however, the City hereby acknowledges and agrees that the execution ( as outlined in Exhibit I'), delivery and performance of Redflex's rights pursuant to this Agreement sha11 require a significant investment by Redfl'ex, and that in order to ftnance such investment, Redflex inay be required to enter into certain agreements or arrangements Financing Transactions") with equipment lessors, banks, financial. institutions or other similar persons. or entities (each,. a"Financial Institution" and collectively, Financial Institutions").. The City tiereby agrees that Redflex shall have the i-ight, to assign, pledge, hypothecate or otherwise transfer ("Transfer") its rights, or any of them, under this Agreement to any Financial Institution in connection with any Financing Transaction .between Redflex and any such Financial Institution, subject to the City's prior written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. or delayed. The City further acknowledges and agees that in the event that Redflex provides written notice to the City that it intends to Transfer all or any of Redflex's rights pursuant to this Agi-eement, and in the event that the City fails to provide such approval oi fails to object to such Transfer within forty-five (45) business days after its receipt of such notice from Redflex, for the purposes af this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to have consented to and approved such Transfer by Redflex.
Notwithstanding the above, this Agreement sha inure to the benefit of, and 6e binding upon, the parties heretq and their respective successors or assigns.
11.2 MOST FAVORElll CUSTOMER
For the complete period covered by this Agreement, Redflex represents that all of the .prices, terms, warranties, benefits and conditions granted by Redflex herein are comparable to or better than the same offered by it to any present or future Customer of Redflex wittun San Diego County. In the event the City in its sole discretion deternunes otherwise, the City may compel Redflex to execute an amendment to this Ageement so that City may receiye the same price, term, warranty, benefif or condition enjoyed by said present or future customer.
11.3. RELATIONSHIl' BETWEEN REDFLEX AND TIIE CITY. Nothing in this Agreement shall create, or be deemed to create, a partnership, joint venture or the relationship of principal and agent or employer and employee between the parties. The relationship between the parties shall be that ofindependent contractors, 14 Qll07/04
31 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 163 of 287
and nothing contained in tlus Agreement shatl create the relationship of principaI and agent or otherwise permit either party to incur any debts or liabilities or obligations on behalf ofthe other party (except as specifcally provided herein).
11.4 AUDIT RIGHTS. Each of parties hereto sha.ll ha've the right to audit the books and records of the other party hereto (the "Audited Part~') solely for the purpose of verifying the payments, if any, payable pursuant to this Agreement.
Any such audit shall be conducted upon not less than forty-eight (48) hours' prior notice to the.Audited Party, at mutually convenient times and during the Audited Party's
normal business hours. Except as otherwise provided in this Ageement, the cost of any such audit shall be borne by the non-Audited Party. In the event any such audit establishes any underpayment of any payment payable. by the Audited Party to the non-Audited Pacty pursuant to this Agreement, the Audited Party shall promptly pay the amount of the. shortfall, and in the event that any such audit establishes that the Audited Party has underpaid any payment by more than twenty five percent (25%) of the amount ofactually owing, the cost of such audit shall be borne by the. Audited Party: In the event any such audit establishes any overpayment by the Audited Party of any payment made pursuant to this Agreement, non-Audited Party shall promptly refund to the Audited Party the amount ofthe excess.
11.5 FORCE MAJEURE. Neither party will be.liable . t.o. the other o.r be deemed to be in breach of.tlus -Agreement for any failure or delay in r.endering performance arising out of causes, beyond its. reasonable control and without its fault or negligence. Such causes may include but. are not limited to, acts of God or the public enemy, terrorism, significant fires, floods, earthyuakes, epidemics, q.uarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, or Governmental Authorities approval delays which are not caused. by any act .or omission by Redflex, and unusually severe wea.ther.. The party whose performanee is affected agrees to notify the other promptly of:the existence and nature of any delay.
11.6 ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between the partieS, and there are no other agreements _(other than invoices and purchase orders), whether written or ora1, which affect its tecros.
This Agreement may be .amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both .parties.
11.7 SEVERABILITY. If any provision of this Agreement is held by any court or other competent authority.tobe void or unenforceable in whole or part, this Agieement shall continue to be valid as to the other provisions thereof and the remainder ofthe affected provision.
11.8 W.AIVER. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreemeat shall not be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision thereo£
17.9 CONSTRUCTION Bxcept as expressly otherwise provided 'in this Ageement, this Agreement shall . be construed as having been fully and completely negotiated and neither. the Agreement nor any provision thereof shall be construed more strictly against either party.
11.10 HEADINGS. The headings of the sections contained in tl2is Agreement are included herein for reference purposes only, solely for the convenience of the is
ova7ioa
32 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 164 of 287
II
II
parties heretq and shall not in any way be deemed to affect the meaning, I interpretation or applicability of this Agreement or any term, condition or provision hereof. I
11.11 EXECiTTION AND COUNTERPARTS. This Ageement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which when so 'executed and delivered shall be deemed an original, and such counterparts together shall constitute only .one instniment. Any one of such counterparts shall be sufficient for the purpose. of proving the existence and terms of ttus Agreement, and no party shall be required to produce an original or all of such counterparts in making I such proof.
11.12 COVENANT OF FURTHER ASSURANCES: All parties to this Ageement sha11, upon request, perform any and all acts and execute and deliver any and all certificates, instruments and other documents that may be necessary or appropriate to carry out-any of the terms, conditions and provislons hereof or to carry out the intent ofthis Agreement.
11.13 REMEDIES CUMULATiVE. Eaeh and all of the several rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement •shall be construed as being cumulative and no one of theiri shall be deemed to be exclusive of the others or of any right or remedy allowed by law or equity, and pursuit o;f any one :remedy shall not 'be deemed to be an election of such remedy, or a waiver of any other remedy.
11.14 BFNDING EFFECT: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit df and be binding upon all. of the . parties hereto and their resgective executors, admuustr.ators, successors and pernutted. assigns.
11.15 COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. Nothing contained in this
Agreement shall be construed to require the commission of any act contrary to law, and whenever there is a conflict between any term, condition or provision of this Agreement and any present or future statute, law, ordinance or regulation contrary to wtuch fhe parties have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail, but in such event tfie term, condition. or provision of this Agreement affected shall be curtailed and limited only to the. extent necessary to bring it within the requirement of the law, .provided that such construction is consistent with the intent ofthe Parties as expressed in this Agreement.
11.16 NO TFIIRD PARTY BEIVEFIT. Notlung contained in this Agreement shalt be deemed to confer any right or benefit on any Person who is not a party to this Agreement.
11.17 INJiINCTIVE RELIEF; SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE. The parties hereby agree and acknowledge that a breach of Sections 4,1 (License), 4.3 (Restricted iJse) or 7 Confidentia.lity) of this Agreement would result in severe and irrep,arable injury to the other party, which injury couid not be adequately compensated by an award of money damages, and the parties therefore agree and acknowledge that they shalt be entitled to injunctive relief in the event of any breach of any material term, condition or provision of this Ageement, or to enjoin vr prevent such a breach, including without limitation. an action for specific performance hereof
11.18 APPLICABLE LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in all respects sole(y in accordance with the laws of the State of California, United States.
16 01/07/4
33 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 165 of 287
i
I
I
11.19 IURISDICTION AND VENUE. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of 'the I courts located in the County of San Diego, California and both parties specifically I agree to be bound by the jurisdiction and venue thereof. i I
The remainder of this page is left intentionally blank) I
I
17 oirovoa .
34. 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 166 of 287
I
i
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement-as of the day . and year first set forth above. "
City" Redflex"
CITY OF EN INREllFLEXTRAFFIC SYST'EMS, INC.,
a Delaware corporation
By:
Name: er By: A Lf,
Tit(e: Ciry Manager Name: .AAtt...s ?~ tErue,ce ^
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BY:
ia
DI/07104
35 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 167 of 287
I
i
I
EXMIT "A„
Designated Intersection Approaches
The contract is for the implementation of up to 10 intersections with up to 20 approaches.
Identification of enforced intersection will be as directed by the City, as warranted by eommunity safety and traffic needs, as well as Engineering intersection anatysis.
The primary intersections ander consideration for automated enforcement include, but are not limited to:
1. Encinitas Blvd. Westlake/Quail Gardens
2. El Camino Real Old Tar et Ctr
3: Enciivtas Blvd. Vulcan Ave:.
4. EI Camino Real Eneuutas Blvd.
5. Encinitas Blvd. Via Cantebria
6. Enciriitas Blvd. Galle Ma dalena
7. ET Camiiio Real Oliverifiain Road
8. El Camino Rea1 M'tn. Visfa Dr.
9. Ma:nchester Ave. 1Vlira Costa Colle e
10. LeucadiaBlvd. Town Center"Pl.
19 Ol/ 0407/
36 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 168 of 287
I
EXHIBIT
Construction and Installation Obli ations
Timeframe for Installation
Redflex will have ea.ch specified intersection installed and activated in phases in ascordance with an implementation plan to be mutually ageed to by Redflex Traffic Systems and the Municipality.
Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install the system in accordance with the schedule set forth in the implementation ,plari that will be fonnalized upon projecf . commencement.
Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts,to install and activate the first specified intersection ( with a minimum of 2 approaches) within the first sixty (60) days subsequent to the date of this contract: Redflex will conduct video monitoring, of intersections and/or approaches, analyze the number of violations, and provide the City with such data and analysis within 30 days of receiving a
request for. same from the City. Redflex will use
reasonable efforts to install and actiyate all other intersections and/or approaches within 60 days of issuance. of a Notiee to Proceed (Change Order) by the City. The IVlunicipality agrees that the estimated timeframe for installation and activation are subject . to conditions beyond the controt of Redflex and are not guaxariteed.
1. Redflex Obligations. Redflex shall do or cause to be done each of the following (in each. case, unless otherwise stated below, at Redflex's sole .expense):
1.1: Appoirit the Redflex Project Manager and a project implementation team consisting of between one ( l) and four (4) people to assist the Redflex Project Manager;
12. Request current " as-built" engineering drawings for the Designated Intersection Appr.oaches (the "Drawings") from the ciry traffic engineer;
1.3. Develop and submit to the City for approval construction and installation specifications in reasonable detail for the Designated Intersection Approaches, including but not limited to specificafions for all radar sensors, pavement loops, electrical connections and traffic. controller connectioris, as required;
1.4. Seek approval from the relevant Governmental Authorities having authority or jurisdiction over the construction and instaIlation specifications for the Designated Intersection Approaehes (collectively, the "Approvals"), which will include compliance with City peimit applications.
1.5. Finalize the acquisition ofthe Approvals;
1.6. Submit to the City a public awareness strategy for the City.'s consideration and approval, which strategy shall inc(ude media and educational materials for the City's approval or amendment (the "Awareness Strategy');
1.7. Develop the Redlight Violation Criteria in consultation with the City;
1.8. Develop the Enforcement Documentation for approval by the City, which approval shall not be unreasonably withlield;
1.9. Camplete the installation and testing of all necessary Equipment, including hardware arid software, at the Designated Intersection Approaches (under the supervision ofthe City);
so
Dl/ 0407/
37 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 169 of 287
i
1.10: Cause an electrical sub-contractor to complete . all reasonably necessary electrical work at the Designated Intersection Approaches, including but not limited to the installation of all related Equipment and otfier detection sensors, poles, cabiing, telecommunications equipment and wiring, which work shall be performed in compliance with all applicable local, state and federai laws and regulations;
1.11. Install and tesC the functionality of the Designate.dIntersection Approaches with the Redflex System and establish. fully operational Violation processing capability with the Redflex System;
1.12. Implement the use of the. Redflex System at each- of the Designated Intersection Approaches;
1.13. Deliver the.Materials to the City;
1.14. Issue. "warning letters" for Authorized Violations which occurred at each Designated Intersection Approach during the Warning Period;
1.15. During the VVarning. _Periodz Redflex sha1l pro.vide trapning (i) for up to fifteen (15) personnel of the City, including but not limited to the persons who City shall appoint as Authorized Officers and other persons - involved in the administration of the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program, (ri) for at least sixteen (16) hours in the aggregate,. (ui) regarding the operation of the Redflex System and the Redlight Photo. Enforcement Program, which training sha11 include training with respect to the Redflex System and its operations, strategies for presenting Violations Data in court and judicial proceedings and a review, of tfie Enforcement Documentation;
1.16. Interact with court and judicial. personnel to address issues regarding the implementation of the Redflex System, the development of a subpoena processing timeline that will pernut the offering of Violations Data in court and judicial proceedings, the establishment of a court hea.ring schedule for adjudieating upon Citations, and coordination between Redflex, the City and juvenile court personnel; acxd
1.17. Provide reasonable public relations resources and media materials to the City in the event that the City elects to conduct. a pubGc launch of the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.
2. CITY OBLIGATIONS. the City shall do or cause to be done each of the following in .each case, unless otherwise stated below, at City's sote expense):
2.1. 1 Appoint the Project Manager and Authorized Officer;
2.. 1 Assist Redflex in obtaining the Drawings from the relevant Governmental Authorities;
2.1. 3 Notify Redflex of any specific requirements relating to the construction and installation of any Intersection Approaches or the implementation of the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program;
2.4. 1. Provide assistance to Redflex in obtaining access to the records data of the Department of Motor Vehicles in Redflex's capacity as an independent coritractor to the City;
2.1. 5 Assist Redflex in seeking the Approvals
zi
o iio7ioa
38 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 170 of 287
2.1. 6 Piovide reasonable access to the City's properties and facilities in order to pernut Redflex to install and test the functionality of the Designated Intersection Approaches and the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program;
2.1. 7 Provide reasonable access to the personnel of the City and reasonable information about the specific operational requirements of such personnel for the purposes of performing training;
2.8. 1: Provide the services of necessary personnel during the Warning Period;
2.9. 1. Seek approval or amendment of Awareness Strategy and provide written notice to Redflex with respect to the quantity of inedia and program materials (the "Materials") ttiat the City will require in order to implement the Awareness Strategy during the period commencing on the date on which Redflex begins the installation of any of the Designated Intersection Approaches and ending one (1) month after the Installation Date;
2.1.10 Assist RedQex in developirig the Redlighf Violation Criteria; and 2:1. 11. Seek approval of the Eriforcement Documentation. 22 Ol/ 0407/
39 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 171 of 287
i
i
EXfiBIT "C"
MAINTENANCE
1. All repair and maintenance of camera systems and all related equipment will be the sole responsibility of Redflex, including but not lunited to maintaining the casings of the cameras included in the Redflex System and all other Equipment in reasonably clean and graffiti-free condition..
2. Redflex shall not open.the Traffic Signal Controller Boxes without arepresentative of City Traffic Engineering pFesent.
3. The provision of. all _ necessary electrical. and telephone services to the Designated Intersection Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the City. 4 The Redflex Project Manager (or a reasoriabie alternate) shall be available to the Project Manager each day, on a reasonable best efforts basis. 23 Ol/ 0407/
40 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 172 of 287
I
I
i
E7MIT "D»
COMPENSATION & PRICING
Compensation shall be in the form of a Fixed Fee of $5,370 per month per rntersection Approach beginning at the conclusion of the 30-day Wariung Period and. continuing until contract expiration or ternunation, in accordance with the provisions as set forth herein.
Redflex sha11 invoice the City monthly. The montlily fee shatl be redueed on a prorated basis for any hours oi days when any system is not fully operational. 24 O1/ 0407/
41 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 173 of 287
1 I
I
BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL PRIGING OPTIONS:
1. Redflex construction will be able to utilize existing conduit for installation where space is available. Where it is determined by both parties that additional conduit is necessary, the cost shall be born by Redflex, however, the City shall provide at no cost the necessary encroachment pernuts.
2. The City agees to pay Redflex within thirty (30) days after the invoice is received.
A monthly late fee of 1.5% is payable for payments past due 60 days.
3. Prices do riot include supply of power and supply of DSL, cable or other broadband services. The City shall be . solely responsible for power and communication in&astructure.
4. .Once each:year on the anniversary date of the contract,. the pricing wi]I increase by the CPI. CPI will be derived from the publication of the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Price Index for U.S. City average. The index to be used is the `West A", 1, 00050,residents or more)
5. An 8% annual downtime will be pernutted for regularly scheduled _ routine ma'tntenance- by Provider, . so lqng, as _.. such maintena.nce is performed on, non- eak, p. midweek :days .(Tuesday through : Thursday).. Any pro-rata ratc adjustment will not apply to. the 8% downtime..for regular maintenance. Redflex shall provide said schedule to Project Manager no later than:the last day of each calendar montb; for the follqwing months regularly scheduled: maintenanee.
25 01/407/
42 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 174 of 287
i
Exhibit "E"
Additional Rights and Obli atgions
1. Redflex and the City shall respectively have the additional rights and obligations set forth below:
2. Redflex shall assist the City in public information and education efforts, including but not limited to the development of artwork for utility bill inserts, press releases and schedules for any gublic launch of ttie Redlight Photo Enforcement Program (actually print and production costs are the sole responsibility ofthe City).
3. The City shall be solely responsible for the fabrication of any signage, notices or other postings required pursuant #o
any law, rule or regulation of any Governmental
Aathority ("Signage"), including but not limited to the Vehicle Code; and shall assist in determining the placement of such Sigriage, and the City hereby aeknowledges and agrees that the City shall be solely responsible for installing such Signage.
4. The City shall be solely responsible for the installation of LED lights at enforced intersections.
5. The Redflex Project Mariager, the Authorized Officer; and fhe:Project Manager shall meet on a weekly basis during the period commencing as of the date of execution hereof and ending on the Installation Date,. arid on a inonthly basis for• the reirxainder . of the Term, at suefi times and places as the Redflex Manager and the Ciry 1VTanager shall mutually agree in 'the City ofEnc'initas:
b. The City sha11 not access the Redflex System or use the Red'light Photo Enforcement Program in any manner other than prescribed by law and which restricts or inhibits any other Person from using the Redflex System .or the Redflex Photo Enforcement Program with respect to any Intersection Approaches constructed or maintained by Redflex for such Person, or which could damage, disable, impair or overburden the Redflex 5ystem or the RedIIex Photo Enforcement Program, and the City shall not attempt to gain unauthorized access. to (i) any account of any other Person, (u) any camputer system.s or netvvorks connected to the Redflex Sys#em, or (iu) any materials or information nof intentionally made available by Redflex to the City by means of hacking, password miimng or any other method whatsoever, nor sha11 the City cause any other Person to do any of the foregoing.
7. The City shall maintain the confidentiality of any username, password or other process or device for accessing the Redflex System or using the Redlight Photo Enforcement Program.
8. Each of Redflex and the City shall advise each other in wxiting with respect to any applicable rules or regulations governing the conduct of the ather on or with respect to the property of such other party, including but not limited to rules and regulations relating to the safeguarding of confidential or proprietary information, and when so advtsed, each of Redflex and the City shall obey any . and all such rules and regulations.
9. The City shall promptly reimburse Redflex for the cost of repairing or replacing any portion of the Redflex System, or any property or equipment related thereto, damaged directly or indirectly by the City, or any of its employees, contractors or agents. 26 Ol/07l04
43 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 175 of 287
Insurance
i. During the Term, Redflex shall procure and maintain and Redflex's sole cost and expense the following insurance coverage with respect to claims for injuries to per.sons, errors and ommissions, or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of work or services pursuant to this Agreement by Redflex, and each of Redflex's subcontractors, agents, representatives and employees:
2. Commercial General Liability Tnsurance. Commercial General Liability Insurance with coverage of not less than One Million Dollars ($1, 000) 000, combined single limit per occurrenee foi bodily injury, enors and ommissions, and property damage;
3: Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance. Commercial Autamobile Liability Insurance with coverage of not less than One Ni(lion Dollars ($1, 000) 000, coinbined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury or pr. etyop: damage, including but not limited to coverage for all automobiles owned by Redflex, hired by Redflex, and owned by- parties; . third.
4. Professiona.lLiability (Errors and Qmissions) Insurance. Redflex. will procure and maintain Frof.essiQnal Liability :(Errors .and Qmissions) Insuranee with cover.age of not less than One Million Dollars ($1, 0.000,0) . per occurrence and in the aggregate.
5. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability Insurance. Workers' Compensation Insurance with coverage of not less than the limits required by the Labor Code of the State of California, EmpIoyer's Liability Insurance with coverage of not less than One M'illion Dollars ($1, 000) 00,per occurrence.
6. With respect ta the insurance described in Exhibit E, any deductibles or selfinsured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City; and any changes to such . deductibles or self-insured retentions during the Term must be approved in advance in writing by the City.
7. With respect to the Commercial General Liability Insurance described in this Exhibit, the following additional provisions shall apply:
8. The City Parties shall be covered as additional insureds with respeet to any liability arising from any act or omission of any Redflex Parties on the premises upon which any such Redflex Parties may perform services pursuant to this Agreement, liability and property coverage and such coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to such additional insureds.
9. The insurance coverage procured by Reciflex and described above shall be the primary insurance with respect to the City Parties in connection with this Agreement, and any insurance or setf=insurance maintained by any of the City Parties shal( be in excess, and not in contribution to, such insurance.
10. Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the various insurance policies described above shall not affect the coverage provided to the City Parties, and such insurance policies shall state that such insurance coverage shall apply separately with respect to each additional insured against whom any. claim is made or suit is brought. The lapse of any required insurance or insurance which is inadequate pursuant to this Agreement shall not relieve Redflex of any liability whatsoever.
27 oiio7ioa
44 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 176 of 287
II
I
11. With respect to fhe insurance described in this Exhibit, each such insurance policy I shall be endorsed to state that the coverage provided thereby shall not be I cancelled except after thirty (30) calendar days' prior written_notice to the City. If any of the Redflex Parties are notified by any insurer that any insurance coverage will be cancelled, Redflex shall immediately provide written notice thereof to the City and shall take all necessary actions to correct such cancellation in coverage I limits, and shall provide written notice to the City of the date and nature of such correction. If Redflex; for any reason, fails to maintain the insurance coverage required pursuant to this Agreement, such failure shall.be deemed a material breaeh of this Agreement, and the Gity shall have the riglit, but not the obligation and exercisable in its sole discretioq to either (i) terminate this Agreement and seek darnages from Redflex for such breach, or (u) purchase such required insurance, and without further notiee to Redflex, deduct from any amounts due to Reriflex: pursuant to this Ageement, any premium costs adva. bynce.the City for such irisurarrce.
12. Redflex shall provide certificates of insurance and additional insured endorsements evidencing -the insurance. required pursuant to, the terms of this Agreement, which cert•ificates shall bs: executed by an. authorized representative. of . the` applicable insurer; and which certificates and additional insured endorsements shall be delivered to the City prior to Redflex commencing any work pursuant to tfie terms ofthis Agreement.
28 U1/ 0407/
45 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 177 of 287
I
i
ExWbit F
rORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT
THIS ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT is entered into by and
between the City of Ekv- rti~iui- the "City") and Redflex i Traffic Systems, Inc. ("Redflex"), dated rebru ar~i i joa , related to that certain Agreement dated Fe6r Nar zoo A , by and between the City and Redflex (the "Agreement") hich hereby acknowledges, consents' and agrees to the following (the "Consent"):
1. Redflex has financed certain operations and equipment related to its business, including but not limited to carnera systems, housing and poles (the "Equipment") through certain lenders (the "Lenders"). Redflex has granted to Lenders a s.ecurity interest in the Equipment, related property including soflware and proceeds thereto as collateral for the performance when due of its obligations to Lenders.
Redflex desires to assign a11 of its righfs, but none of its liabilities or obligations under thp Agreement (the "Assignment") to [Insert Name], as collateral agent' for. the Lenders ( the °Collateral Agent"). Redflex will not, by virtue of the Assignment, be relieved of any liability or obligation. under •the Agreement: or otherwise,. and neither Collateral Agent nor Lenders are assuming any liabilities or obligations under the Agreement. City hereby acknpwledges notice of the Assignment` and hereby consents thereto and to assignmerit to any similar subsequent financing party, of Redflex, and further acknowledges that Collaterat Agent or Lenders, and their respective successors and assigns, and any other subsequent future lender, may assign the rights received from Redflex.
2. Redflex hereby authorizes City upon Cotlateral Agent's written request to make
any payments due to Redflex under the Agreement directly to Collateral Agent, c/o [Insert Address], or to whomever Collateral Agent may from time to time direct in writing.
3. City acknowledges that the attached Exhibit A is a true, correct and complete copy of the Agreement:
4. City agees that Citiy sha11 not assert against Collateral Agent and Lenders any right or claim of set of~ recoupznent, counterclaim or other defense in respect of amounts or obligations awed . by ,Collateral Agent. and Lenders to City against amounts or.otiligations that City owes Co Collateral Agent and I,enders under the Agreement:. -
5. In accordanee with this Agreement, this Consent shall 6e deemed to be notice to City. Tn the event that City fails to provide such approval or object to this Consent within a reasonable time which shall include at least three weeks prior to the next , City Council meeting; including this City Cnuncil meetizig; and three days foliowing the nneeting after its receipt of such notice from Redflex, for the 29 01/407/
46 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 178 of 287
purposes of this Agreement, the City shall be deemed to have consented to and approved this Consent.
IN WITNESS TBEREOF, each of the undersigned have caused this i Acknowledgment and Consent to be executed. by their duly elected officeis duly authorized as of the date first above writfen.
CITY OF ENCINITAS REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS INC.
By: Y:
t
Print ' ame:.1Xtr r i ef. Print Name: AA961 Rb_-
Title: CvfU M( mtr ° Ann4- Title: Vtc. StirTEVeLskc~,
Date: 04 iDate: 1-3ca• a~
Atidress: 5Q5 v ~.(: vn A~ e-. Address: - Le7 c)L- Wuw
CA 9' 1`~2D' LuwECZ Lrzy GA.
I, Deborah Cervooe,: lerkCiEy<~of yh% City o( €pcinifas, Gali(oroia do herCb. e0iJyurider y..pAally- perjuy-,qf, lhal ihe aDove and for. u~~g.. is; ag`a.:Uue and` co~cdrrecl' pr of_ ihis documenl nn'~ offi~ 6ntit~ e.., wttn~ yRss~: reaf, I haYe se( ~m!hand' 4 Ihe ~eal~ mah, 1r ~i;t
v't ulU G
Deborah Cervm, ~CilX.Clerk . '
30 Ol/ 0407/
47 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 179 of 287
I
FI'LEa
5upERCOUONYY 0F OORANC~BORMIA I
1 APPELLATE DIV1SION cENrw+Leus7icn cENrER
2 rdr.1V 211008 SUPERIOR CC3URT OF CALIFC)FtN3A
3'
RIAN CARL54N Cterk W the CCert
4 COUNTY OF Oi2ANGE
BY GGALON
5 THE PEOPl.E OF THE S7"A7L Case Na. 30- 93057 2008•
6 OF CALlFbRNIA,
7 JUDCyIUIENT ON Ai'PEAL
Plaintiff and Respondent, from the
g SUPERlqR COUR7
COUN'CY UF OFtANGE
vs.
NORTH JUS7lCE CENTER
14 H4N. ALLEN K,ELLFY STONE,
COMMl5510NEFt
1 ~ FRAh1GQ,
42 '
13 , Defentlant and Appeflant.
14 15 Appellant contends ev[dence from the City of Fulterton' Automated s' ie Enforcement System was inadmissible because the City's contract wifh the carriera 17 ! operator contains a prnvisian tying payment ta the operator to revenue'generated 18 by the system. This caui-t
agrees, anci orders the judgment reversed.
19 Vehicfe Code sectidn 21455. g) 8(pravides fha# a cuntract between a zo govemmenta6 agency and a manufacturer ar suppi9er of automateci ertfarcement 21 equipment may not fnclude a provision far payment af crsmpensatlan ta the zz xranufacfurer or suppliec based on the nurnber of cFtatians gen'orated or 23 ' percentage of revenue generated as a result of use of fho equipment T'he purpose 24 of the statute is to avotd an incentive to the camera dperatar, as a neutrat evaluafor 25 of evidence, to increase the number of citattc,ns issued arrd patd thraugh use of the 26 equipmenG
27 : The contract at issue provldes for payment mf a flat monthly fee, but aisa 28 provldesthat service fees can be negotiated'"down ar up,' but not to exCeed" the roonthfy rate "if it is determined that fees paid to hITS exceed net pragram 48 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 180 of 287
i
I
I
I revenues being realixed." 'fhe provision that fees can be nogati ted "up," is 2 sneaningtess in light of the provision that fees are "not to excee "the stated 3 monthly rate. Hnwever, the possibiliEy that fees coutd be negotiated " dawn" if it is 4 determined fees paid to NTS exceed "net prpgram revenues beirealized," 5 indirectly ties fees to NTS to theamount of revenue generated f~om the pr4gram. !f 6 fnsufficfent revenue is generated fo cover the monthly fee, the fie could be i 7"negotiated dawn." As such, NTS has an incentive to ensure suffictent revenues a are generated to caver the monthly fee. I
I
s Because the City's contract with NTS violated Vehicia Coide section 10 21455. g), 5(the trial court erred fn admitting evidence from the automated 1 ~ enforcement system.
12 The judgment of the trial court is reversed, with instructi ns to dtsmiss the 13 i
citation. People v. Kriss (1979) 96 CaLApp.3d 913, 921. Becaus~e the Judgment is
14 reversed for the reasan discussed above, this-court need notc~nsider the other 1s argurnents raised by appetiant.
18 17
1$ I
19 20 ROBER7 J. M S, Presiding Jadge
21 22 I
23 l
i
24 25
26 i
27 28 j
f
49 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 181 of 287
ûÕ×ÎØÛóÈ×Ï
CITYOFENCINITAS
CITYCOUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: May 12, 2010
TO: CityCouncil
VIA: PhilCotton, CityManager
Jennifer Smith, Director ofFinance
FROM: Peter Cota-Robles, Director ofEngineering Services RobBlough, Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Review ofRedLight Camera Operation andAuthorize CityManager toNegotiate andExecute aNewContract
BACKGROUND:
Inaneffort toreduce thenumber ofvehicles running redlights, theCityentered intoacontract with Redflex, Inc. onFebruary 9, 2004 tooperate redlight cameras atCityintersections. Redlight cameras have been operational attheintersection ofElCamino Real/Encinitas Boulevard since June 9, 2004. These cameras monitor thetwoeastbound leftturnlanes andtwoeastbound through lanes onEncinitas Boulevard, including theshared rightturnlane. Inthesouthbound direction the cameras monitor thetwoleftturnlanes andtwoinside through lanes onElCamino Real. Thered lightcameras have been operational attheintersection ofElCamino Real/Olivenhain RoadLeucadia Boulevard since November 12, 2005. These cameras monitor thetwowestbound leftturn lanes onOlivenhain Road. OnJanuary 21, 2009Council authorized twoone-year contract extensions. Theexisting contract termwillexpire onFebruary 8, 2011.
ANALYSIS
Thenumber ofcitations issued ateachintersection permonth along withthecostandrevenue ofthe system areshown inExhibit 1forthetimeperiod fromJune 9, 2004 toMarch 31, 2010. During thistime, there have been 12,348citations issued attheintersection ofElCamino Real/Encinitas Blvdand4,284citations issued attheintersection ofElCamino Real/Olivenhain Rd.-Leucadia Blvd.
Thetraffic collision history has been reviewed atthese twointersections priortoandafter installation ofthecameras. Thecollision history isfromJanuary 1, 2000 through February 28, 2010. Alltraffic collision reports wereindividually reviewed andthetypesofcollisions were documented. Ofparticular interest isthenumber ofcollisions involving redlightrunning before andafterthecameras wereinstalled andanyrearendcollisions thatmayhave been theresult of drivers stopping earlyontheyellow (induced byfearoftheredlight camera). 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 182 of 287
Exhibit 2shows agraph ofthecollision history attheintersection ofElCamino Real/Encinitas Blvd. Thisintersection hadatotalof39collisions inthe4.5yearperiod priortothecamera. Of these, 9were redlightrunning collisions. Inthe5.75yearperiod afterthecamera, therewereatotal of35collisions. Ofthese, 3were redlightrunning and3were rearendsduetoadriver stopping earlyontheyellow. Standardized peryear, theabove datareflects 8.7accidents peryearpriorto camera installation versus 6.1accidents peryearafter. This isa30percent reduction inthetotal number ofaccidents. Theredlightrunning accidents werereduced by74percent. Exhibit 3shows theseverity ofinjuries foreach year. Thesevere injury accidents havebeen reduced by50percent since thecamera was installed.
Exhibit 4shows agraph ofthecollision history attheintersection ofElCamino Real/Olivenhain Rd.-Leucadia Blvd. Thisintersection hadatotalof54collisions inthe5.9yearperiod priortothe camera. Ofthese, 11were redlightrunning collisions. Inthe4.3yearperiod afterthecamera, there were atotalof29collisions. Ofthese, 3were redlightrunning and1wasarearendduetoadriver stopping earlyontheyellow. Standardized peryear, theabove datareflects 9.2accidents peryear priortocamera installation versus 6.7accidents peryearafter. Thisisa27percent reduction inthe totalnumber ofaccidents. Theredlightrunning accidents were reduced by62percent. Exhibit 5 shows theseverity ofinjuries foreachyear. Total injury accidents havebeen reduced by15percent since thecamera was installed.
Insummary, thecamera system hasbeeninoperation for approximately 5years attwo intersections. Thesystem hasnotbeenafinancial burden ontheCity’sfinances asitsrevenues cover expenditures. TheCityhasalsoseen apositive safety benefit asthere hasbeen a30percent reduction inthetotalnumber ofcollisions anda70percent reduction intheredlightrunning collisions atbothofthese intersections combined since thecameras wereinstalled. Duetothe success oftheprogram, staffisrecommending thatanewcontract benegotiated withtheexisting vendor whichwillcommence attheendofthecurrent contract term.
FISCAL ANDSTAFF IMPACTS
Thecurrent contract withRedflex, Inc. costs $5,854percamera system approach permonth. The Citycurrently hasthree approaches installed, twoattheintersection ofElCamino Realand Encinitas Boulevard andoneatElCamino RealandLeucadia Boulevard/Olivenhain Road.
Additional cost associated withtheprogram isforaone-halftimeCommunity Service Officer CSO) at $2,509permonth toprocess thecitations andappear incourt andacostofapproximately 200permonth forpower andinternet service. Thisresults incurrent monthly costs totaling 20,271which arecovered bytickets receipts. Exhibit 6isagraph ofalltherelevant citation and revenue data.
RECOMMENDATION
Itisrecommended thattheCityCouncil receive thisreport, andauthorize theCityManager to conduct contract negotiations withRedflex, Inc. foracontract tocommence attheendofthe current contract term.
Lastprinted 5/5/2010 1:03:00PM AR0995T
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 183 of 287
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 184 of 287
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 185 of 287
NumberofCollisions
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 186 of 287
NumberofCollisions
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 187 of 287
NumberofCollisions
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 188 of 287
NumberofCollisions
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 189 of 287
RevenueorCost
Mar Feb Jan '10 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug
Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan '09 Dec
Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May
Apr Mar Feb Jan '08 Dec Nov Oct Sep
Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan '07
Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May
Apr Mar Feb Jan '06 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun May Apr Mar Feb Jan '05 Dec Nov Oct Sep Aug Jul Jun '04
NumberofCitationsIssued
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 190 of 287
CITY OF ENCINITAS
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Meeting Date: June 26, 2013
TO: City Council
VIA: Gus Vina, City Manager
FROM: Glenn Pruim, Director of Engineering and Public Works Rob Blough, City Traffic Engineer
SUBJECT: Red Light Photo Enforcement Program
BACKGROUND:
At their February 27, 2013 meeting, the City of Encinitas Council directed staff to bring back a report on the Red Light Photo Enforcement Program.
In an effort to reduce the number of vehicles running red lights, the City entered into an agreement with Redflex, Inc. on February 9, 2004 to operate red light cameras at City intersections. Red light cameras have been operational at the intersection of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard since June 9, 2004. These cameras monitor the two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound through lanes on Encinitas Boulevard, including the shared right turn lane. In the southbound direction the cameras monitor the two left turn lanes and two inside through lanes on El Camino Real. The red light cameras have been operational at the intersection of El Camino Real/Olivenhain RoadLeucadia Boulevard since November 12, 2005. These cameras monitor the two westbound left turn lanes on Olivenhain Road. These two intersection locations were selected after they were documented to have the highest number of red light running violations in the City. The most recent amendment to the agreement was signed on February 8, 2011 with Redflex, Inc. and the current cost for each of the three existing red light camera systems is a fixed fee of $3,863 per month. Since January 1, 2004, the law prohibits contracts with vendors based on a percentage or number of red light violations. The agreement is for a period of seven years plus three consecutive one-year extensions at the City’s option. The agreements are located in Attachment A.
In the last two years, approximately 20 cities in California have ended their photo enforcement programs. The reasons for ending the programs have been due to a variety of reasons. A few of the reasons include a marked reduction in violations which has put a financial burden on cities, little or no conclusive evidence of a reduction in collisions due to the presence of the cameras, public referendums to ban red light cameras, and Los Angeles County courts not reporting tickets to the 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 1 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 191 of 287 DMV. Locally, the City of San Diego ended their Red Light Photo Enforcement Program on February 1, 2013. In addition, the City of El Cajon and Poway have temporarily stopped the use of their cameras for a six-month trial period.
At their meeting on November 26, 2012, the Traffic Commission reviewed an informational report on the red light photo enforcement program as part of their routine periodic review of the program.
The report included a review of the historic data including citations, collisions, revenues, and expenditures. The report was for informational purposes. However, the Commission approved a motion to recommend that the Council continue to support the use of red light photo enforcement.
The minutes from this meeting are located in Attachment B.
ANALYSIS:
Citations/Cost/Revenue
Exhibit 1 shows the number of citations issued at each intersection per month along with the cost and revenue of the system from the inception of the program through December 31, 2012. During this period, there have been 18,412 citations issued at the intersection of El Camino Real/Encinitas Blvd and 5,558 citations issued at the intersection of El Camino Real/Olivenhain Rd.-Leucadia Blvd. The current cost of the red light photo enforcement program includes a fixed monthly fee of $3,863 to Redflex for each of the three intersection approaches. In addition, other costs associated with the program include for a Community Service Officer (CSO) who reviews the citations and attends court, City staff time involved with administering the program, and time involved with providing responses to numerous public records requests.
The total fine for failing to stop at a circular red or red arrow at a traffic signal is established by the State of California and is currently $490. Attachment C shows how the fine is calculated for this violation. The City has received over the term of this program an average of $92 per issued citation.
Since the start of the program on June 9, 2004 through December 31, 2012, the City has received $2,157,649 in revenues and has made $1,403,016 in payments to Redflex.
Traffic Safety
The traffic collision history has been reviewed at these two intersections prior to and after installation of the cameras. The collision history is from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2012. The year 2000 was selected as the base year for both intersections since the roadway conditions were significantly different than today before that year. Prior to 2000, the development of Encinitas Ranch required the connection of Leucadia Boulevard from I-5 to El Camino Real along with intersection widening at El Camino Real and Olivenhain Road. This new connection as well as other roadway improvements altered the traffic patterns in the City.
All traffic collision reports have been individually reviewed and the types of collisions were documented. Of particular interest is the number of collisions involving red light running before and after the cameras were installed and any rear end collisions that may have been the result of drivers stopping early on the yellow (induced by fear of the red light camera). 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 2 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 192 of 287 Exhibit 2 shows a graph of the collision history at the intersection of El Camino Real/Encinitas Blvd. This intersection had a total of 39 collisions in the 4.5 year period prior to the camera. Of these, 9 were red light running collisions. In the 8.5 year period after the camera, there were a total of 45 collisions. Of these, 3 were red light running and 5 were rear ends due to a driver stopping early on the yellow. Standardized per year, the above data reflects 8.7 accidents per year prior to camera installation versus 5.3 accidents per year after. This is a 39 percent reduction in the total number of accidents. The red light running accidents were reduced from a rate of 2 accidents per year to 0.35 accidents per year, an 82 percent reduction. It should be noted that based on the Caltrans statewide expected collision rate, this intersection should have approximately 10 collisions per year. Exhibit 3 shows the severity of injury accidents for each year at this intersection.
Exhibit 4 shows a graph of the collision history at the intersection of El Camino Real/Olivenhain Rd.-Leucadia Blvd. This intersection had a total of 54 collisions in the 5.9 year period prior to the camera. Of these, 11 were red light running collisions. In the 7.1 year period after the camera, there were a total of 51 collisions. Of these, 10 were red light running and 3 were rear ends due to a driver stopping early on the yellow. Standardized per year, the above data reflects 9.2 accidents per year prior to camera installation versus 7.2 accidents per year after. This is a 22 percent reduction in the total number of accidents. The red light running accidents were reduced from a rate of 1.9 accidents per year to 1.4 accidents per year, a 26 percent reduction. It should be noted that based on the Caltrans statewide expected collision rate, this intersection should have approximately 10 collisions per year. Exhibit 5 shows the severity of injury accidents for each year at this intersection.
In summary, the camera system has been in operation for approximately 9 years and is located at the intersections of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real/Olivenhain Rd.-Leucadia Blvd. The City has seen a 31 percent reduction in the total number of collisions and a 57 percent reduction in the red light running collisions at both of these intersections combined since the cameras were installed. In addition, the system has not been a financial burden on the City’s finances as its revenues cover expenditures.
Contract Termination
The agreement with Redflex has a Termination Section that allows the City to terminate the agreement for convenience for any cause whatsoever upon a 60-day termination letter to Redflex.
FISCAL AND STAFF IMPACTS:
Should the program be terminated, there will be a projected revenue loss of approximately $85,000 each fiscal year. However, there may be an opportunity for savings since a portion of the CSO’s time will not be required for this program. To provide continued motorist safety, traffic deputies may need to return to monitoring the photo enforced intersections.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff. 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 3 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 193 of 287 Exhibits and Attachments
1- Red Light Camera Data Since Inception
2- Encinitas Blvd/El Camino Real Collisions
3- Encinitas Blvd/El Camino Real Severity of Collisions 4- El Camino Real and Leucadia Blvd/Olivenhain Rd Collisions 5- El Camino Real and Leucadia Blvd/Olivenhain Rd Severity of Collisions A- Agreements with Redflex for Photo Red Light Enforcement Program B- November 26, 2012 Traffic Commission Minutes
C- Example of Total Bail Calculation for Red Light Violation D- Correspondence
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 4 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 194 of 287 AR1115T
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
Jun '04
Aug '04
Oct '04
Dec '04
Feb '05
Apr '05
Jun '05
Aug '05
Oct '05
Dec '05
Feb '06
Apr '06
Jun '06
Aug '06
Oct '06
Dec '06
Feb '07
Apr '07
Jun '07
Aug '07
Oct '07
Dec '07
Feb '08
Apr '08
Jun '08
Aug '08
Oct '08
Dec '08
Feb '09
Apr '09
Jun '09
Aug '09
Oct '09
Dec '09
Feb '10
Apr '10
Jun '10
Aug '10
Oct '10
Dec '10
Feb '11
Apr '11
Jun '11
Aug '11
Oct '11
Dec '11
Feb '12
Apr '12
Jun '12
Aug '12
Oct '12
Dec '12
Revenue or Cost
Number of Citations Issued
Month
EXHIBIT 1 - Red Light Camera Data Since Inception
ECR/Encinitas Citations
ECR/Olivenhain-Leucadia Citations
Monthly Revenue from Citations
Monthly Cost for Cameras
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 195 of 287 Note: Camera was installed on June 9, 2004 for southbound and eastbound movements. There were 6 accidents in 2004, 4 before and 2 after camera was installed. The 1 red light running accident was before the camera was installed. AR1116T 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Collisions
Year
EXHIBIT 2 - Encinitas Blvd/El Camino Real Collisions
Total Collisions
Red Light Running Collisions
Red Light Camera Rear End Effect
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 6 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 196 of 287 AR1116T
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Collisions
Year
EXHIBIT 3 - Encinitas Blvd/El Camino Real Severity of Collisions No Injury
Complaint of Pain
Visible Injury
Severe Injury
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 7 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 197 of 287 Note: Camera was installed on Nov. 12, 2005 for westbound left turn. There were 8 accidents in 2005, 6 before and 2 after camera was installed. Both of the red light running accidents were before the camera was installed. AR1116T 0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Collisions
Year
EXHIBIT 4 - El Camino Real and Leucadia Blvd/Olivenhain Rd Collisions Total Collisions
Red Light Running Collisions
Red Light Camera Rear End Effect
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 8 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 198 of 287 AR1116T
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Number of Collisions
Year
EXHIBIT 5 - El Camino Real and Leucadia Blvd/Olivenhain Rd Severity of Collisions No Injury
Complaint of Pain
Visible Injury
Severe Injury
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 199 of 287 Attachment A
Photo Red Light Enforcement Agreements
• Agreement Between City of Encinitas and Redflex, February 9, 2004 • First Extension to Contract and Amendment to Agreement, January 28, 2009 • Second Extension to Contract to Agreement, January 25, 2010 • Second Amendment to Agreement, February 8, 2011
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 10 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 200 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 11 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 201 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 12 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 202 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 13 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 203 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 14 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 204 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 205 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 16 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 206 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 17 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 207 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 18 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 208 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 19 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 209 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 20 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 210 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 21 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 211 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 22 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 212 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 23 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 213 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 24 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 214 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 25 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 215 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 26 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 216 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 27 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 217 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 28 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 218 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 29 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 219 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 30 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 220 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 31 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 221 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 32 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 222 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 33 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 223 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 34 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 224 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 35 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 225 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 36 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 226 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 37 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 227 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 38 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 228 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 39 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 229 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 40 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 230 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 41 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 231 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 42 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 232 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 43 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 233 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 44 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 234 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 45 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 235 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 46 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 236 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 47 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 237 of 287 Attachment B
November 26, 2012 Traffic Commission Minutes
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 48 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 238 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 49 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 239 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 50 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 240 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 51 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 241 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 52 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 242 of 287 Attachment C
Example of Total Bail Calculation for Red Light Violation 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 53 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 243 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 54 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 244 of 287 Attachment D
Correspondence
06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 55 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 245 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 56 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 246 of 287 06/26/2013 Item #07 Page 57 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 247 of 287
MEETING DATE: August 22, 2018
PREPARED BY: Christopher Magdosku,
City Engineer
DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR:
Brenda Wisneski
DEPARTMENT: Development Services CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT:
Report on Red Light Photo Enforcement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive an analysis report on Red Light Photo Enforcement operation of the City and direct staff on continuing the Red Light Camera (RLC) program of the City of Encinitas. If directed by Council to continue the program, staff will bring a contract for the future operator of the program to the City Council in September for approval.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This project aligns with the Strategic Plan goals for Public Safety, by creating a safe and secure environment.
FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS:
There is no fiscal impact associated with staff recommendation.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to reduce the number of vehicles running red lights, the City entered into a contract with Redflex in February 2004 to operate red light camera systems at designated City intersections. Red light cameras have been operational at the intersections of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road since June 2004 and November 2005, respectively. At El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard intersection, cameras monitor the two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound through lanes on Encinitas Boulevard, including the shared right turn lane. In the southbound direction, the cameras monitor the two left turn lanes and two inside through lanes on El Camino Real. The red light cameras at El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard monitor the two westbound left turn lanes on Olivenhain Road. The current contract with the RLC program operator expires on October 9, 2018.
ANALYSIS
Red Light Camera Programs
In the last five years, some cities in California have ended their photo enforcement programs.
There were a variety of reasons, including a marked reduction in violations creating a financial burden on cities, little or no conclusive evidence of a reduction in collisions due to the presence 2018-08-22 Item 10A 1 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 248 of 287 of the cameras, public referendums to ban red light cameras, and Los Angeles County courts not reporting citations to the California Department of Motor Vehicles. Locally, the City of San Diego, El Cajon, Poway, Oceanside, Escondido, and Vista have ended their programs. Solana Beach, Del Mar and Encinitas are the cities in San Diego County that continue to utilize the red light camera systems.
City of Encinitas Red Light Camera Program
Since the start of the program in 2004, periodically both the Traffic and Public Safety Commission and City Council have reviewed informational reports on the red light camera program. These reports included a review of the historic data, including citations, collisions, revenues and expenditures. Following these reviews, both the Commission and City Council have continued to support the red light photo enforcement program. Former Sheriff Captain John Maryon (recently promoted) and Community Service Officers supporting the City with the program have also stated that the cameras are beneficial to public safety. Currently, the base fine for failing to stop at a red light is $100. Added to that is a penalty assessment and surcharge of $310, a court operations fee of $40, a criminal conviction fee of $35, an emergency medical program fee of $4 and a night court fee of $1 for a total cost of $490. This does not include the cost for traffic school.
Operation
Nearly one million vehicle movements are detected by the cameras at the three approaches each month. Approximately 0.05% of those are flagged as red light violations. However, each detected violation is reviewed and records show that on average, notices are only issued for approximately one third of the violations that are detected (multiple reasons such as cases with very small or fraction of a second violations or cases that stop soon after crossing the stop bar of the intersection).
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.
The most recent data available shows that during Fiscal Year (FY) 2016/2017, the average number of printed notices was 348 notices per month. The data available from the first 10 months of FY 2017/2018 shows that the average number of printed notices has gone down to 324 notices per month, indicating the effectiveness of the program.
Collision history
The traffic collision history from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2016 has been reviewed at these two intersections prior to and after installation of the cameras. All traffic collision reports have been individually reviewed and the types of collisions were documented.
Of particular interest was the number of collisions involving red light violators before and after the cameras were installed and any rear end collisions that may have been the result of drivers stopping early on the yellow (possibly induced by fear of the red light camera).
The data for the intersection of El Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd. reflects a total of 8.7 accidents per year prior to camera installation versus 4.8 accidents per year after. This is a 45 percent reduction in the total number of accidents. The red light related accidents were reduced from a rate of 2 accidents per year to 0.32 accidents per year or 84 percent reduction.
The data for the intersection of El Camino Real and Olivenhain Rd.-Leucadia Blvd. reflects a total of 9.2 accidents per year prior to camera installation versus 6.3 accidents per year after. 2018-08-22 Item 10A 2 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 249 of 287 This is a 32 percent reduction in the total number of accidents. The red light related accidents were reduced from a rate of 1.9 accidents per year to 1.2 accidents per year or 37 percent reduction.
It should be noted that based on the Caltrans statewide expected collision rate, each intersection is expected to have approximately 10 collisions on an average per year. A summary of accident history at both intersections is outlined in the following table:
Collision history at the two intersections with RLC system Intersection
Accident Rate Prior
to Installation of the
RLC system*
Accident Rate After
Installation of the
RLC system**
Change in
Accident Rate
El Camino Real/
Encinitas Blvd
8.7 accidents per
year
4.8 accidents per
year
45% reduction
El Camino Real/
Olivenhain Rd.- Leucadia Blvd
9.2 accidents per
year
6.3 accidents per
year
32% reduction
* 4.5 years average prior to installation of the cameras ** 12.5 years average after installation of the cameras Yellow intervals
The yellow intervals at the intersections were calculated based on the guidelines of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). The dedicated yellow intervals for different approaches and the assumed 85th percentile speeds are as follows:
El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard intersection:
- Two eastbound left turn lanes: 3.2 sec (based on a 30 mph approach speed) - Two eastbound through lanes: 4.7 sec (based on a 50 mph approach speed) - Two southbound left turn lanes: 3.2 sec (based on a 30 mph approach speed) - Two southbound inside through lanes on El Camino Real: 4.3 sec (based on a 45 mph approach speed)
El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard:
- Two left turn lanes on Olivenhain Road: 3.6 sec (based on a 35 mph approach speed) The current CA-MUTCD minimum required yellow interval is 3 seconds. All of the above approaches exceed the minimum required. The calculation of a yellow interval for these intersections follows the same process as every other intersection in the City and yellow intervals are selected based on the geometry of the intersection and the 85th percentile speeds of different approaches.
Revenue/Expenditure
The current contract fee is $3,920.95 per approach per month, plus the expenses for communication services. However, if the RLC program is continued, the cost will be reduced to $3,000 per camera system approach, per month, plus the expenses for communication services. Additional costs associated with the Red Light Camera (RLC) program are for a onehalf time Community Service Officer (CSO) at $3,697 per month to process the citations and appear in court. Attorney costs for processing subpoenas on red light cameras are approximately $3,350 per month. Total costs to operate the program will be approximately $194,000 annually. A summary of the costs are outlined in the following table.
The total revenue generated by the program in FY 2016/2017 was $411,062 and is estimated to be $282,932 in FY 2017/2018. During the past 13 years, the total annual cost has been 2018-08-22 Item 10A 3 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 250 of 287 covered by the revenue generated from ticket receipts. A summary of the costs and revenues are outlined in the following table and chart:
Current costs associated with operating the RLC program Type of expense Monthly Cost Annual Cost
Operating the 3 cameras by the contractor $11,762.85 $141,154.20* Community Service Officers (CSO) processing fee $3,697 $44,364 Attorney fees for processing subpoenas $3,350 $40,200
Communication fee $155 $1,860
Total $18,964.85 $227,578.20**
* if RLC program is continued, this will be reduced to $108,000 ** if RLC program is continued, this will be reduced to $194,424.20 Review by Traffic and Public Safety Commission
Considering the importance of the topic and the amount of public feedback received, staff prepared a summary report. The information on the RLC program operation, citation process, statistics and effectiveness of the City’s RLC program was presented to the Traffic and Public Safety Commission during a special Commission meeting on July 23, 2018.
The Traffic and Public Safety Commission expressed strong support for the program and recommended the program be continued even if the revenue generated from the program does not cover the costs associated with it at some point in the future. The staff report presented to the Traffic and Public Safety Commission is attached to this agenda report as Attachment 1.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) because it is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
This item is not related to the Climate Action Plan.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Agenda Report for City of Encinitas RLC system presented to Traffic and Public Safety Commission Special Meeting on July 23, 2018.
2018-08-22 Item 10A 4 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 251 of 287 AR1387T
MEETING DATE: July 23, 2018
PREPARED BY: Abraham Bandegan,
City Traffic Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
DEPARTMENT:
Chris Magdosku, City Engineer
Development Services
SUBJECT:
City of Encinitas Red Light Camera (RLC) Photo Enforcement System RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive and discuss the information about City’s RLC system provided by staff, receive and discuss public input on the subject and provide input to staff on how to proceed with the program.
BACKGROUND:
In an effort to reduce the number of vehicles running red lights, the City entered into a contract with Redflex Inc. in February 2004 to operate red light camera systems at two key City intersections. Red light cameras have been operational at the intersections of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road since June 2004 and November 2005, respectively. At El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard intersection, these cameras monitor the two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound through lanes on Encinitas Boulevard, including the shared right turn onto southbound El Camino Real. Also in the southbound direction, the cameras monitor the two left turn lanes and two inside through lanes on El Camino Real. The red light cameras at El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard monitor the two westbound left turn lanes on Olivenhain Road.
ANALYSIS:
Operation
Nearly one million vehicle movements are detected by the cameras at the three approaches each month. Approximately 0.05% of those are flagged as red light violations. However, each detected violation is reviewed and records show that on average, notices are only issued for approximately one third of the violations that are detected (multiple reasons such as cases with very small or fraction of a second violations or cases that stop soon after crossing the stop bar of the intersection).
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 red-light violators have not repeated the violation at these locations. 2018-08-22 Item 10A 5 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 252 of 287 AR1387T
Operating the RLC system will cost the City $3,000.00 per camera system approach per month which equates to an annual cost of $108,000.00. The $3,000 per approach per month fee is a fixed amount and independent of the number of violations detected or notices printed.
There is also a per-month communication fee of $155 for all cameras for all approaches. An additional cost associated with the program is for a one-half time Community Service Officer (CSO) at $3,696.83 per month to process the citations and appear in court. Attorney fees for processing subpoenas on red light cameras are approximately $3,350 per month. Total cost to operate the program is approximately $194,000.00 per year. During the past 13 years, the total annual cost has been covered by the revenue generated from ticket receipts. A summary of the costs are outlined in the following table:
Type of expense Monthly Cost Annual Cost
Operating the 3 cameras by the contractor $9,000 $108,000 Community Service Officers (CSO) processing fee $3,697 $44,364 Attorney fees for processing subpoenas $3,350 $40,200
Communication fee $155 $1,860
Total $16,202 $194,424
20%
80%
Notices Issued to Encinitas Residents vs.
Non-Residents
Encinitas Residents
Non-Encinitas Residents
99%
1%
Encinitas Repeat Offenders
Single Violations
Multiple Violations
2018-08-22 Item 10A 6 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 253 of 287 AR1387T
Collision history
The traffic collision history from January 1, 2000 through December 31, 2016 has been reviewed at these two intersections prior to and after installation of the cameras. All traffic collision reports have been individually reviewed and the types of collisions were documented. Of particular interest was the number of collisions involving red light violators before and after the cameras were installed and any rear end collisions that may have been the result of drivers stopping early on the yellow (possibly induced by fear of the red light camera).
Based on the collision history available, the intersection of El Camino Real/Encinitas Blvd had a total of 39 collisions in the 4.5 year period prior to installation of the camera. Of these, 9 were red light running collisions. In the 12.5 year period after camera installation, there were a total of 60 collisions. Of these, only 4 were red light violators and 6 were rear ends due to a driver stopping early on the yellow. Standardized per year, the above data reflects 8.7 accidents per year prior to camera installation versus 4.8 accidents per year after. This is a 45 percent reduction in the total number of accidents. The red light related accidents were reduced from a rate of 2 accidents per year to 0.32 accidents per year or 84 percent reduction. It should be noted that based on the Caltrans statewide expected collision rate, this intersection should have approximately 10 collisions per year.
Based on the collision history available, the intersection of El Camino Real/Olivenhain Rd.- Leucadia Blvd had a total of 54 collisions in the 5.9 year period prior to the camera. Of these, 11 were red light related collisions. In the 11.1 year period after the camera, there were a total of 70 collisions. Of these, 13 were red light running and 4 were rear ends due to a driver stopping early on the yellow. Standardized per year, the above data reflects 9.2 accidents per year prior to camera installation versus 6.3 accidents per year after. This is a 32 percent reduction in the total number of accidents. The red light related accidents were reduced from a rate of 1.9 accidents per year to 1.2 accidents per year or 37 percent reduction. It should be noted that based on the Caltrans statewide expected collision rate, this intersection should have approximately 10 collisions per year. A summary of accident history at both intersections is outlined in the following table:
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
20062007200820092010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Encinitas RLC system Annual Revenue (x1000)
2018-08-22 Item 10A 7 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 254 of 287 AR1387T
Intersection
Accident Rate Prior
to Installation of the
RLC system
Accident Rate After
Installation of the
RLC system
Change in
Accident Rate
El Camino Real/
Encinitas Blvd 8.7 accidents per year 4.8 accidents per year 45% reduction El Camino Real/
Olivenhain Rd.- Leucadia Blvd 9.2 accidents per year 6.3 accidents per year 32% reduction Some Public Questions and Concerns
Staff has received public comments, questions and concerns regarding the City’s RLC system through different sources. Below is a summary of those concerns and staff’s responses associated with those that were applicable.
- The RLC program is a profit scheme
Considering the revenue generated and the cost to operate the system, RLC cannot be a profit scheme and the revenue (after reducing the approximate $200k cost of the program) is negligible. - It’s to the benefit of the contractor to issue more and more tickets The contractor provides the information (photos and videos) and the decision to issue a notice is made by CSOs. Since January 1, 2004, the law prohibits contracts with vendors based on a percentage or number of red light violations. So the number of citations issued would not have any impact on the operating company’s revenue.
- RLC systems can increase crashes
Some studies exist that show RLC systems can increase back-end collisions. However, overall and considering all different types of collisions, studies have shown relative effectiveness of RLC programs.
- Yellow and all-red times need to be increased
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) has a standard methodology to calculate yellow times and all-red times and the cities need to implement the yellow and all-red intervals per national and state standards. Yellow and all-red times are not selected at the discretion of the City Traffic Engineer. - Local Economy will suffer
This comment is subjective in nature and cannot be appropriately evaluated or analyzed. There’s no clear proof or study that would suggest a negative economic impact associated with RLC programs.
- Less than one second into red should not be ticketed
CSOs who review each case consider several different aspects of the violation before issuing the citation including but not limited to speed of the vehicle, how soon after the red light the vehicle enters the intersection, condition of traffic, when and where the vehicle slows down, stops or makes certain maneuvers.
2018-08-22 Item 10A 8 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 255 of 287 AR1387T
- Other Cities have removed their RLC systems
In the last five years, some cities in California have ended their photo enforcement programs.
There were a variety of reasons, including a marked reduction in violations creating a financial burden on cities, little or no conclusive evidence of a reduction in collisions due to the presence of the cameras, public referendums to ban red light cameras, and Los Angeles County courts not reporting tickets to the DMV. Locally, the City of San Diego, El Cajon, Poway, Oceanside, Escondido, and Vista ended their programs. Solana Beach, Del Mar and Encinitas are the cities in San Diego County with red light cameras.
Summary and Conclusion
In summary, the camera systems have been in operation for approximately 13 years at the intersections of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real/Olivenhain Rd.- Leucadia Blvd. The City has documented a reduction in the total number of collisions at the two intersections. The number of red light running violations at both of these intersections has been relatively constant during the past couple of years but 2017/2018 year shows a significant reduction. In addition, the system has not been a financial burden on the City’s finances as its revenues cover expenditures. The City has met with the CSOs reviewing violations and they have provided positive feedback regarding the program and have expressed concerns that eliminating the program can lead to a dramatic increase in red light violation and collisions at the two locations.
Overall, staff considers the RLC system to be contributory and beneficial to the transportation and public safety in the city. It has reduced violations and collisions. The reductions in the number of violations and collisions might not be very significant. However, the program is self-sustaining and there is no clear disadvantage to the program.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because it is not a “project” under Section 15378(b)(5) of CEQA Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT:
- Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology, “Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras Executive Summary”, https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049 2018-08-22 Item 10A 9 of 9 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 256 of 287
MEETING DATE: December 11, 2019
PREPARED BY: Abraham Bandegan,
City Traffic Engineer
DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR:
Brenda Wisneski, AICP
DEPARTMENT: Development Services CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT:
Report on Red Light Photo Enforcement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report on Red Light Photo Enforcement (RLPE) operation and direct staff to return before April 2020 to extend the contract.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This project aligns with the Strategic Plan goals for Public Safety, by creating a safe and secure environment.
FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS:
There is no direct impact associated with the staff recommendation. The current contract of $ 10,200 per month is fully funded through May 2020. If the City Council elects to renew the contract in April 2020, costs are expected to be consistent with the current contract which is approximately $122,400 annually. Additional program costs are incurred for Sherriff’s Department and Attorney fees. Total program costs are approximately $208,824 annually. As detailed in Table 2 and Figure 2, program revenue has historically exceeded program costs.
BACKGROUND:
In February 2004, in an effort to reduce the number of vehicles running red lights, the City entered into a contract with Redflex to operate red light camera systems at designated City intersections. Red light cameras have been operational at the intersections of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road since June 2004 and November 2005, respectively. At the El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard intersection, cameras monitor the two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound through lanes on Encinitas Boulevard, including the shared right turn lane. In the southbound direction, the cameras monitor the two left turn lanes and two inside through lanes on El Camino Real. The red light cameras at El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road-Leucadia Boulevard monitor the two westbound left turn lanes on Olivenhain Road.
The current contract with Redflex expires in May 2020. During the August 22, 2018 meeting, Council expressed interest in revisiting the program and directed staff to return after a year with an analysis of accident trends on similar intersections. 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 257 of 287
ANALYSIS
Since the start of the program in 2004, periodically both the Traffic and Public Safety Commission (Commission) and City Council have reviewed informational reports on the red light camera program. These reports included a review of historic data, including citations, collisions, revenues and expenditures.
Currently, the base fine for failing to stop at a red light is $100. Added to the base fine is a penalty assessment and surcharge of $310, a court operations fee of $40, a criminal conviction fee of $35, an emergency medical program fee of $4 and a night court fee of $1 for a total cost of $490. Traffic school is approximately an additional $52, if the defendant chooses to attend.
The court does provide financial assistance in the form of:
• Payment plan with a one-time administrative fee of $30. • Reduced fine for financial hardship
• Community service in lieu of the fine.
While the use of red light cameras provides little or no effect to the operation of a signalized intersection, they do provide an enforcement tool to discourage and identify potential violators.
As discussed below, the current program is generally fiscally neutral and, as indicated by the Sherriff’s Department, has been successful in citing individuals violating the law with minimal impact to staff resources. Therefore, it is recommended that the program be extended. If directed to do so, staff will return before April 2020 to extend the contract.
Operation
Nearly one million vehicle movements are detected by the cameras, monthly and approximately
0.05 percent, or 500, of those are flagged as red light violations. Following review of each violation, approximately one third are confirmed violations and receive a citation. Various factors may rule out a justified violation, such as the vehicle is within the intersection for only a fraction of a second or the vehicle stops soon after crossing the stop bar of the intersection, or the driver’s face is not clearly shown in the picture. Figure 1 depicts the violations detected by the cameras as compared citations issued since 2014.
Figure 1
Violation Trend
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 258 of 287
Figure 2
Annual Program Revenue
During the past 5 years, 81 percent of the violations were issued to non-residents and only 19 percent were issued to Encinitas residents. Additionally, Ninety-nine percent of the notices were issued to first-time violators and only 1 percent had multiple violations on their records.
The lack of repeat violators may be considered a measure of program’s effectiveness.
Meaning, after being detected by the system and receiving their first notice, most have not repeated the violation at these locations.
During the past 6 fiscal years the average number of citations issued monthly is as follows.
Table 1
Average Monthly Citations
Fiscal Year 2013/2014 2014/2015 2015/2016 2016/2017 2017/2018 2018/2019 Average #
of citations
issued per
month
200 293 325 346 329 376
Revenue/Expenditure
Total costs to operate the program is approximately $208,824 annually, as outlined in the Table
2. During the life of the program, operating cost have been less than the revenue generated from ticket receipts. Program costs and revenue are compared in Figure 2. It should be noted that the costs associated with CSOs increases by 5% every year.
Table 2
Program Costs
Expense Monthly Cost Annual Cost
Operating the 3 cameras by the contractor $10,200 $122,400 Community Service Officers (CSO) processing fee $3,697 $44,364 Attorney fees for processing subpoenas $3,350 $40,200
Communication fee $155 $1,860
Total $17,402 $208,824
Annual
Cost
$209k
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 259 of 287
Collision History
The City Council directed staff to compare the collision rates of the red light enforcement intersections with similar intersections without red light enforcement. Staff compared the volume and patterns of traffic and lane configurations at several other intersections along El Camino Real in Encinitas and in Carlsbad to select the most similar intersections for the purpose of analyses. The selected intersections were La Costa Ave/El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Road/El Camino Real. The combined average daily traffic volume at these intersections are shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Red Light Related Collisions vs. Other Collisions (10 Years) Intersection
El Camino Real
and Encinitas
Blvd
El Camino Real
and Leucadia/
Olivenhain Rd
El Camino Real
and La Costa Ave
El Camino Real
and Palomar
Airport Rd
Red-Light
System Yes Yes No No
Average Daily
Traffic Volume 65,000 78,000 69,000 78,000
Red Light
Collisions vs.
Collision
2 of 31 10 of 33 10 of 34 17 of 74
% of Collisions
Related to Red
Light
6.5% 30.3% 29.4% 30.0%
Staff evaluated 10 years of recorded traffic collisions data from January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2018 at each intersection. As can be seen, the number of collisions at the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa are very close to Encinitas Intersections with the RLPE system, while the Palomar Airport Road intersection shows nearly double the number of collisions. Higher speeds and the larger footprint of the intersection at Palomar Airport Road can be contributing factors to this higher collision rate at this intersection.
Figure 3
Red Light Related Collisions vs. Other Collisions (10 Years) 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 260 of 287
The El Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd intersection shows the lowest number of collisions associated with Red Light Violations. That can be an indication of existing RLPE system effectiveness. However, the intersection of El Camino Real that has a RLPE system, shows very similar collision patterns and trends with the intersection of El Camino Real and La Costa Ave where no RLPE system exists. It should be noted that at the El Camino Real and Leucadia Blvd intersection, the RLPE system only detects and covers violations of one approach. The coverage at the intersection of El Camino Real and Encinitas Blvd is for four approaches.
Review by Traffic and Public Safety Commission
Information on the RLPE program operation, citation process, statistics and effectiveness of the City’s RLPE program was presented to the Traffic and Public Safety Commission on December 9, 2019. The Commission’s input will be presented to City Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) because it is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
This item is not related to the Climate Action Plan.
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 261 of 287
MEETING DATE: May 6, 2020
PREPARED BY: Abraham Bandegan,
City Traffic Engineer
ACTING DEPARTMENT
DIRECTOR:
Roy Sapa’u
DEPARTMENT: Development Services CITY MANAGER: Karen P. Brust SUBJECT:
Report on Red Light Photo Enforcement.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Receive report on Red Light Photo Enforcement (RLPE) operation and provide direction to staff.
2. Should City Council authorize the continuance of the program, authorize the City Manager or designee, in coordination with the City Attorney, to prepare and execute an amendment to the contract with Redflex for terms as determined by the City Council for a not-to-exceed annual amount of $122,400.
STRATEGIC PLAN:
This project aligns with the Strategic Plan goals for Public Safety, by creating a safe and secure environment.
FISCAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The current contract of $10,200 per month is fully funded through May 2020. If the City Council elects to renew the contract, costs are expected to be consistent with the current contract which is approximately $122,400 annually. Cost for the remainder of the current fiscal year FY19/20 can be assumed in the current budget. Additional costs into the new fiscal year FY20/21 will be incorporated into the City’s two-year budget revise. Additional program costs are incurred for Sherriff’s Department and Attorney fees. Total program costs are approximately $208,824 annually. As detailed in the following Table 1 and Figure 1, program revenue has historically exceeded program costs.
Table 1: Current costs associated with operating the RLC program Type of expense Monthly Cost Annual Cost
Operating the 3 cameras by the contractor $10,200 $122,400 Community Service Officers (CSO) processing fee $3,697 $44,364 Attorney fees for processing subpoenas $3,350 $40,200
Communication fee $155 $1,860
Total $17,402 $208,824
AGENDA REPORT
City Council
2020-05-06 Item #10A Page 1 of 5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 262 of 287 Figure 1
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Encinitas RLC System Annual Revenue
Three cities (Encinitas, Del Mar and Solana Beach) in the County of San Diego utilize the service of Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. for the purpose of red-light camera enforcement. Each city uses the service at two intersections. However, the volume of traffic and the number of violations detected in Encinitas are higher than the other two cities. Every detection is reviewed by Redflex personnel to validate the incident before it is sent to the Sheriff’s Department for review. If it is a valid incident, it is reviewed at three various stages. Also, a DMV look-up is conducted to gather the owner information, plus print and mailing. If the incident is not usable, it is still reviewed by one Redflex person to review and reject the incident.
Based on the language of the original agreement, Encinitas is supposed to be the most favored customer of Redflex and the service and price Encinitas receives should be comparable to or better than the same offered to any customer of Redflex within San Diego County. Although Encinitas pays a higher monthly rate per camera than Solana Beach or Del Mar, as indicated in the table below, it’s actual price per potential violation reviewed is the lowest.
Number of detections and service cost per month per approach in FY19 City Price Detections Cost Per Detection
Encinitas $3400 230 $14.78
Solana Beach $2386 154 $15.49
Del Mar $1577 86 $18.34
BACKGROUND:
In February 2004, to reduce the number of vehicles running red lights, the City entered into a contract with Redflex to operate red light camera systems at designated City intersections. Red light cameras have been operational at the intersections of El Camino Real/Encinitas Boulevard and El Camino Real/Olivenhain Road since June 2004 and November 2005, respectively. At the El Camino Real and Encinitas Boulevard intersection, cameras monitor the two eastbound left turn lanes and two eastbound through lanes on Encinitas Boulevard, including the shared right turn lane. In the southbound direction, the cameras monitor the two left turn lanes and two inside through lanes on El Camino Real. The red-light cameras at El Camino Real/Olivenhain RoadLeucadia Boulevard monitor the two westbound left turn lanes on Olivenhain Road. The current contract with Redflex expires in May 2020. During the August 22, 2018 meeting, Council expressed interest in revisiting the program and directed staff to return after a year with an analysis of accident trends on similar intersections.
$209k
2020-05-06 Item #10A Page 2 of 5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 263 of 287 At its December 2019 meeting, City Council directed staff to 1) not extend the contract at this time; 2) review and evaluate the current vendor and other vendors; 3) return with possible alternatives or methods for intersection control; and 4) determine if it is possible to issue a warning prior to a citation for red light camera violations.
ANALYSIS
Since the start of the program in 2004, periodically both the Traffic and Public Safety Commission (Commission) and City Council have reviewed informational reports on the red-light camera program. These reports included a review of historic data, including citations, collisions, revenues and expenditures.
Currently, the base fine for failing to stop at a red light is $100. Added to the base fine is a penalty assessment and surcharge of $310, a court operations fee of $40, a criminal conviction fee of $35, an emergency medical program fee of $4 and a night court fee of $1 for a total cost of $490.
Traffic school is approximately an additional $52 if the defendant chooses to attend. The court does provide financial assistance in the form of:
Payment plan with a one-time administrative fee of $30. Reduced fine for financial hardship.
Community service in lieu of the fine.
While the use of red-light cameras provides little or no effect to the operation of a signalized intersection, they do provide an enforcement tool to discourage and identify potential violators.
As discussed below, the current program is generally fiscally neutral and, as indicated by the Sheriff’s Department, has been successful in citing individuals violating the law with minimal impact to staff resources.
The four items requested to be analyzed by City Council are as follows:
1) Not extend the contract in December 2019.
The current contract with Redflex expires on May 13, 2020. Staff is requesting direction from the City Council regarding extending or terminating the contract based on the information provided in this report and the analysis provided in December 2019. The annual revenue loss based on the past five years’ average (2015-2019) would be approximately $100,000.
2) Direct staff to review and evaluate the current vendor and other vendors.
Staff requested more information regarding the current vendor’s operating policy and practices. The following information was provided to staff by Redflex. Redflex has made positive changes in response to the reported misconduct in Chicago and Ohio from seven years ago.
Former Redflex staff and management related to the matters of misconduct have not been employed by Redflex for around seven years now. The overwhelming majority of the people that currently work at Redflex (including all key decision makers) were not employed with Redflex when the issues in Chicago and Ohio occurred, and they have stated that those issues are completely unrepresentative of what Redflex’s employees stand for in their commitment to supporting cities in their road safety campaigns.
The Company implemented and continues to implement a strong and effective risk and compliance program, including a specific anti-bribery and anti-corruption compliance regimen combined with annual global staff training. 2020-05-06 Item #10A Page 3 of 5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 264 of 287 The Company was officially reinstated to the status of “responsible vendor” to the City of Chicago in February 2017 (nearly 3 years ago).
All Chicago and Ohio investigation related matters in the U.S. are now officially closed and have been since December 2016. One (1) executive, Karen Finley, served a prison term in relation to the issues in Chicago and Ohio. Redflex has been transparent with this issue and has made many public ASX (Australian Securities Exchange) announcements related to this issue.
Based on the info provided by Redflex, several large jurisdictions have chosen Redflex after a competitive RFP in the last year.
Culver City CA
LA Metro CA
State of Pennsylvania DOT speed program
SGI Canada
Sacramento County CA
Toronto Canada speed program
Staff also checked the availability and possibility of using other vendors and it is possible to find another company to handle the red-light camera system operation if needed.
Several companies in the country currently provide similar services. The two other major firms are listed below.
- American Traffic Solutions, Inc. (Verra Mobility)
ATS operates the most number of red-light cameras in the country. It has revealed that its revenue from red light cameras, photo radar and bus cameras was $138 million in 2018. With Atlanta, Austin, Chicago, New York City, Seattle and Washington DC as its flagship clients, the firm had a 46 percent market share in red light cameras, 48 percent in bus cameras and 55 percent in speed cameras. The contracts it signs with municipalities generate approximately $46,200 per year from every red-light camera and $53,000 for each speed camera on average.
- Affiliated Computer Services
This former Fortune 500 Company is a subsidiary of the Xerox Corporation. It is based out of Dallas, Texas and now operates in over 100 countries. The company was bought out by Xerox in 2010 and provides red light cameras to cities all over North America through its Transportation Solutions Group. The company’s market share is limited compared to ATS and Redflex.
3) Direct staff to return with possible alternatives or methods for intersection control.
Staff has evaluated other measures that can affect preventing red light violation at these intersections. Potentially effective feasible measures are mentioned below. a. Increasing yellow intervals at the intersections for the major approaches. The current yellow intervals are set based on best practices and recommended guidelines defined by California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). However, CAMUTCD does allow using higher values for yellow intervals.
Practicing increases in yellow intervals can have the advantage of reducing red light violations. Potential disadvantages are confusing drivers, increased delay and inefficient intersection operation.
2020-05-06 Item #10A Page 4 of 5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 265 of 287 b. Increased enforcement efforts at the intersection has the potential to lower the violation rates.
c. Implementing traffic calming measures and lowering the speed limit on major roads.
By implementing traffic calming measures along El Camino Real, Encinitas Boulevard and Olivenhain Road and possibly lowering the speed limit justified by an Engineering and Traffic Survey, vehicles would have lower approach speeds which may lessen the violation of the red light than with the current higher approach speed. 4) Direct staff to determine if it is possible to issue a warning prior to a citation for red-light camera violations.
The following response was received from the Sheriff’s office regarding the direction mentioned above: “According to REDFLEX, warnings can be issued if the city desires. It would take some reprogramming on both sides. With that said, we can't necessarily determine how often that vehicle or person has violated.” The issuance of warnings would decrease the revenues received from the program and could result in a net cost of the program to the City.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS:
The action being considered by the City Council is exempt from the California Environmental Quality (CEQA) because it is not a “project” per Section 15378(b)(5) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The action involves an organizational or administrative activity of government that will not result in the direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
This item is not related to the Climate Action Plan.
2020-05-06 Item #10A Page 5 of 5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 266 of 287 SENATE BILL NO. 720
ENROLLED SEPTEMBER 18, 2025
PASSED IN SENATE SEPTEMBER 13, 2025
PASSED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 12, 2025
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 04, 2025
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 02, 2025
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 17, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 01, 2025
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 26, 2025
CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2025–2026 REGULAR SESSION
Introduced by Senator Ashby
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Pellerin and Wicks)
February 21, 2025
An act to amend Section 70615 of the Government Code, and to amend Sections 21455.5 and 21455.7 of, and to add Section 21455.9 to, the Vehicle Code, relating to vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 720, Ashby. Automated traffic enforcement system programs.
Existing law authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets certain requirements, including identifying the system with signs and ensuring that the system meets specified criteria on minimum yellow light change intervals. Existing law authorizes, until January 1, 2032, the Cities of Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland, Glendale, and Long Beach, and the City and County of San Francisco to establish a speed safety system pilot program for speed enforcement that utilizes a speed safety system in specified areas, if the system meets specified requirements. Existing law prescribes specified requirements for a notice of violation issued pursuant to these provisions, and requires a violation of a speed law that is recorded by a speed safety system to be subject only to a specified civil penalty.
This bill would additionally authorize a city, county, or city and county to establish an automated traffic enforcement system program to use those systems to detect a violation of a traffic control signal, if the system meets specified requirements. The bill would require a violation of a traffic control signal that is recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system to be subject to escalating civil penalties, as specified. The bill would, among other things, provide for the issuance of a notice of violation, an initial review, an administrative hearing, and an appeals process, as specified, for a violation under this program. The bill would clarify that a local jurisdiction may utilize an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to these provisions or the abovedescribed provisions authorizing the utilization of an automated traffic enforcement system. The bill would require a local jurisdiction utilizing the above-described provisions to take into account the relative risk to traffic and pedestrian safety posed by prohibited right turns on red compared to proceeding through the intersection against a red signal.
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 1/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 267 of 287
Existing law establishes a $25 filing fee for specified appeals and petitions.
This bill would require a $25 filing fee for an appeal challenging a notice of violation issued as a result of an automated traffic enforcement system.
Existing provisions require that a statute that limits the right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.
This bill would incorporate additional changes to Section 70615 of the Government Code proposed by AB 289 to be operative only if this bill and AB 289 are enacted and this bill is enacted last.
Digest Key
Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: no Bill Text
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) Red light running is a major factor in traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries. (b) State and local agencies employ a variety of methods to reduce red light running, including traffic engineering, education, and enforcement.
(c) Red light running enforcement is critical to efforts in California to reduce factors that contribute to traffic collisions that result in fatalities or injuries.
(d) However, traditional enforcement methods have had a well-documented disparate impact on communities of color, and implicit or explicit racial bias in police traffic stops puts drivers of color at risk. (e) Additional tools, including automated traffic enforcement systems, are available to assist cities and counties in addressing red light running and related crashes.
(f) Automated traffic enforcement systems offer a high rate of detection, and, in conjunction with education and traffic engineering, can significantly reduce red light running, improve traffic safety, and prevent traffic-related fatalities and injuries, including motorist, pedestrian, and bicyclist fatalities. (g) Multiple automated traffic enforcement system programs implemented in other states and cities outside of California have proven successful in reducing red light running and addressing traffic safety concerns. (h) The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) reports that 1,149 people were killed and more than 107,000 people were injured in red light running crashes in 2022. An IIHS study found that cameras reduced the fatal red light running crash rate of large cities by 21 percent, and the rate of all types of fatal crashes at signalized intersections by 14 percent.
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 2/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 268 of 287
(i) The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reports the use of camera systems for the enforcement of red light violations at signalized intersections is increasingly widespread in the United States.
State and local agencies have found that the use of red light camera systems can reduce red light running by motorists and, more importantly, reduce the number of crashes attributable to red light violations. (j) Automated traffic enforcement systems can advance equity by improving reliability and fairness in traffic enforcement while making enforcement of violations of traffic control signals more predictable, effective, and broadly implemented, all of which help change driver behavior. (k) Enforcing violations of traffic control signals at intersections where drivers create dangerous roadway environments is a reliable and cost-effective means to prevent further fatalities and injuries.
SEC. 2. Section 70615 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 2 of Chapter 631 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:
70615. The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation.
(c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database.
(e) An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code. (f) An appeal under Section 22438 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22435 of the Vehicle Code. (g) An appeal under Section 21455.9 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated traffic enforcement violation, as defined in Section 21455.9 of the Vehicle Code. (h) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 2.5. Section 70615 of the Government Code, as amended by Section 2 of Chapter 631 of the Statutes of 2024, is amended to read:
70615. The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation.
(c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database.
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 3/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 269 of 287
(e) An appeal under Section 22428 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22425 of the Vehicle Code. (f) An appeal under Section 22438 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22435 of the Vehicle Code. (g) An appeal under Section 21455.9 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated traffic enforcement violation, as defined in Section 21455.9 of the Vehicle Code. (h) An appeal under Section 22445.3 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated speed violation, as defined in Section 22445 of the Vehicle Code. (i) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2032, and as of that date is repealed.
SEC. 3. Section 70615 of the Government Code, as added by Section 3 of Chapter 808 of the Statutes of 2023, is amended to read:
70615. The fee for filing any of the following appeals to the superior court is twenty-five dollars ($25):
(a) An appeal of a local agency’s decision regarding an administrative fine or penalty under Section 53069.4. (b) An appeal under Section 40230 of the Vehicle Code of an administrative agency’s decision regarding a parking violation.
(c) An appeal under Section 99582 of the Public Utilities Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding an administrative penalty for fare evasion or a passenger conduct violation. (d) A petition under Section 186.35 of the Penal Code challenging a law enforcement agency’s inclusion of a person’s information in a shared gang database.
(e) An appeal under Section 21455.9 of the Vehicle Code of a hearing officer’s determination regarding a civil penalty for an automated traffic enforcement violation, as defined in Section 21455.9 of the Vehicle Code. (f) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2032.
SEC. 4. Section 21455.5 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21455.5. (a) The limit line, the intersection, or a place designated in Section 21455, where a driver is required to stop, may be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system if the governmental agency utilizing the system meets both of the following requirements:
(1) Identifies the system by signs posted within 200 feet of an intersection where a system is operating that clearly indicate the system’s presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all directions in which the automated traffic enforcement system is being utilized to issue citations. A governmental agency utilizing this type of system does not need to post signs visible to traffic approaching the intersection from directions not subject to the automated traffic enforcement system.
(2) Locates the system at an intersection and ensures that the system meets the criteria specified in Section 21455.7.
(b) Before issuing citations under this section, a local jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 30 days. The local jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days before commencing the enforcement program.
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 4/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 270 of 287
(c) Only a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency, may operate an automated traffic enforcement system. A governmental agency that operates an automated traffic enforcement system shall do both of the following:
(1) Develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations, including a violation for a prohibited right turn at a steady circular red signal, which shall take into account the relative risk to traffic and pedestrian safety posed by right turns on red compared to proceeding through the intersection against a red signal, and for the processing and storage of confidential information, and establish procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines.
(2) Perform administrative functions and day-to-day functions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Establishing guidelines for the selection of a location. Before installing an automated traffic enforcement system, the governmental agency shall make and adopt a finding of fact establishing that the system is needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety. (B) Ensuring that the equipment is regularly inspected. (C) Certifying that the equipment is properly installed and calibrated, and is operating properly. (D) Regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs placed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a). (E) Overseeing the establishment or change of signal phases and the timing thereof. (F) Maintaining controls necessary to ensure that only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered to violators. (d) The activities listed in subdivision (c) that relate to the operation of the system may be contracted out by the governmental agency, if it maintains overall control and supervision of the system. However, the activities listed in paragraph (1) of, and subparagraphs (A), (D), (E), and (F) of paragraph (2) of, subdivision (c) shall not be contracted out to the manufacturer or supplier of the automated traffic enforcement system. (e) The printed representation of computer-generated information, video, or photographic images stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code. (f) (1) Notwithstanding Article 1 (commencing with Section 7922.500) and Article 2 (commencing with Section 7922.525) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 10 of Title 1 of the Government Code, or any other law, photographic records made by an automated traffic enforcement system shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to governmental agencies and law enforcement agencies and only for the purposes of this article. (2) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration or enforcement of this article shall be held confidential, and shall not be used for any other purpose. (3) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, the confidential records and information described in paragraphs (1) and (2) may be retained for up to six months from the date the information was first obtained, or until final disposition of the citation, whichever date is later, after which time the information shall be destroyed in a manner that shall preserve the confidentiality of a person included in the record or information.
(g) Notwithstanding subdivision (f), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 5/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 271 of 287
(h) (1) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment shall not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section. (2) Paragraph (1) does not apply to a contract that was entered into by a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment before January 1, 2004, unless that contract is renewed, extended, or amended on or after January 1, 2004. (3) A governmental agency that proposes to install or operate an automated traffic enforcement system shall not consider revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to install or operate a system within its local jurisdiction. (i) A manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to this section shall, in cooperation with the governmental agency, submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that includes all of the following information if this information is in the possession of, or readily available to, the manufacturer or supplier:
(1) The number of alleged violations captured by the systems they operate. (2) The number of citations issued by a law enforcement agency based on information collected from the automated traffic enforcement system.
(3) For citations identified in paragraph (2), the number of violations that involved traveling straight through the intersection, turning right, and turning left.
(4) The number and percentage of citations that are dismissed by the court. (5) The number of traffic collisions at each intersection that occurred before and after the installation of the automated traffic enforcement system.
(j) This section does not affect a local jurisdiction that utilizes an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.9. A local jurisdiction may utilize an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to this section or Section 21455.9.
SEC. 5. Section 21455.7 of the Vehicle Code is amended to read:
21455.7. (a) At an intersection at which there is an automated traffic enforcement system in operation pursuant to Section 21455.5 or 21455.9, the minimum yellow light change interval shall be established in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. (b) For purposes of subdivision (a), the minimum yellow light change intervals relating to designated approach speeds provided in the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices are mandatory minimum yellow light intervals.
(c) A yellow light change interval may exceed the minimum interval established pursuant to subdivision (a).
SEC. 6. Section 21455.9 is added to the Vehicle Code, to read:
21455.9. (a) As used in this section, the following definitions apply:
(1) “Automated traffic enforcement system” or “system” means a fixed system that utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of a traffic control signal and obtains a clear photograph of the detected vehicle’s license and video recording of the violation. 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 6/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 272 of 287
(2) “Automated traffic enforcement violation” means a violation of a traffic control signal detected by an automated traffic enforcement system operated pursuant to this section. (3) “Designated jurisdiction” means any city, county, or city and county in the state. (4) A person is “indigent” if either of the following conditions is met:
(A) The person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code.
(B) The person receives public benefits from a program listed in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code.
(5) “Local department of transportation” means a designated jurisdiction’s department of transportation or, if a designated jurisdiction does not have a department of transportation, their administrative division, including, but not limited to, a public works department that administers transportation and traffic matters under this code.
(6) “Traffic control signal” means an official traffic control signal, as defined in Section 445. (b) (1) A designated jurisdiction may establish a program for traffic control signal enforcement that utilizes an automated traffic enforcement system, to be operated by a local department of transportation, at the limit line, the intersection, where a driver is required to stop, if the program meets all of the following requirements:
(A) (i) Identifies the system by signs that clearly indicate the system’s presence, are visible to traffic approaching from all directions in which the automated traffic enforcement system is being utilized to issue citations, and are posted within the following distances:
(I) On roads with speed limits of 45 miles per hour or less, one sign within 200 to 300 feet, inclusive, of an intersection where a system is operating. (II) On roads with speed limits over 45 miles per hour, two signs within 200 to 500 feet, inclusive, of an intersection where a system is operating, with at least 100 feet between the signs. (ii) A program does not need to post signs visible to traffic approaching the intersection from directions not subject to the automated traffic enforcement system. (B) Locates the system at an intersection and ensures that the system meets the criteria specified in Section 21455.7. A designated jurisdiction shall not reduce the yellow light interval durations after placement of the system.
(2) An automated traffic enforcement system program developed pursuant to paragraph (1) shall place the systems in locations that are geographically and socioeconomically diverse. The designated jurisdiction shall describe how it has complied with this provision in the automated traffic enforcement system impact report described in subdivision (c).
(3) A designated jurisdiction shall consider traffic data or other evidence supporting the installation and operation of each automated traffic enforcement system and determine that the intersection where an automated traffic enforcement system is to be placed or installed constitutes a heightened safety risk that warrants additional enforcement measures. A designated jurisdiction shall consider placing an automated traffic enforcement system on a street that has had a high number of incidents for motor vehicle contests or motor vehicle exhibitions of speed. For the purposes of this provision, a high number of incidents shall be calls for law enforcement to respond to the area for at least four separate incidences of a motor vehicle contest or motor vehicle exhibition of speed within the last two years before the placement of the automated traffic enforcement system.
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 7/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 273 of 287
(c) (1) For programs implemented after January 1, 2026, the governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall approve an automated traffic enforcement system impact report. The automated traffic enforcement system impact report shall include all of the following information:
(A) Assessment of potential impact of the automated traffic enforcement system on civil liberties and civil rights and any plans to safeguard those public rights.
(B) Description of the automated traffic enforcement system and how it works. (C) Fiscal costs for the automated traffic enforcement system, including program establishment costs, ongoing costs, and program funding.
(D) If potential deployment locations of systems are predominantly in low-income neighborhoods, a determination of why these locations experience high fatality and injury collisions due to traffic control signal violations at intersections.
(E) Locations where the system may be deployed and traffic data for these locations, including the intersection where the cameras will be located.
(F) Proposed purpose of the automated traffic enforcement system. (2) The automated traffic enforcement system impact report shall be made available for public review at least 30 calendar days prior to adoption by the governing body at a public hearing. (3) The governing body of the designated jurisdiction shall consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups, in developing the automated traffic enforcement system impact report. (d) (1) A designated jurisdiction that operates an automated traffic enforcement system shall do both of the following:
(A) Develop uniform guidelines, consistent with the provisions of this section, for both of the following:
(i) The screening and issuing of notices of violation.
(ii) The processing and storage of confidential information and procedures to ensure compliance with confidentiality requirements.
(B) Perform administrative functions and day-to-day functions, including, but not limited to, all of the following:
(i) Establishing guidelines for the selection of a location. Prior to installing an automated traffic enforcement system after January 1, 2026, the designated jurisdiction shall make and adopt a finding of fact establishing that the system is needed at a specific location for reasons related to safety. (ii) Ensuring that the equipment is regularly inspected, but at least annually. (iii) Calibrating the equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions upon installation. (iv) Regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs placed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (b). (v) Overseeing the establishment or change of signal phases and the timing thereof. (vi) Maintaining controls necessary to ensure that only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by the issuing agency are delivered to violators. 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 8/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 274 of 287
(2) The activities listed in paragraph (1) that relate to the operation of the system may be contracted out by a designated jurisdiction, if it maintains overall control and supervision of the system. However, the activities listed in subparagraph (A) of, and clauses (iv), (v), and (vi) of subparagraph (B) of, paragraph (1) shall not be contracted out to the manufacturer or supplier of the automated traffic enforcement system. (e) (1) A contract between a designated jurisdiction and a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment or a company providing maintenance and processing services shall not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer, supplier, or company based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment authorized under this section.
(2) A designated jurisdiction that proposes to install or operate an automated traffic enforcement system shall not consider revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to install or operate a system within its local jurisdiction (f) A designated jurisdiction that operates an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to this section shall, in cooperation with the manufacturer or supplier, publish a report that includes, but is not limited to, all of the following information:
(1) The number of alleged violations captured by the systems they operate. (2) The number of citations issued by the issuing agency based on information collected from the automated traffic enforcement system.
(3) For citations identified in paragraph (2), the number of violations that involved traveling straight through the intersection, turning right, and turning left.
(4) The number and percentage of citations that are dismissed. (5) The funds generated from the automated traffic enforcement systems. (g) (1) Prior to issuing citations under this section, a designated jurisdiction utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall commence a program to issue only warning notices for 60 days. The designated jurisdiction shall also make a public announcement of the automated traffic enforcement system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program.
(2) A notice of violation issued pursuant to this section shall include a clear photograph of the license plate and rear of the vehicle only, and identify the specific section of the Vehicle Code violated, the camera location, and the date and time when the violation occurred. A notice of violation shall, when practical, exclude images inside of the rear window area of the vehicle. A notice of violation issued from an automated traffic enforcement system that was installed prior to January 1, 2026, may continue to include pictures of the driver at the discretion of the designated jurisdiction. (3) The photographic and video evidence stored by an automated traffic enforcement system does not constitute an out-of-court hearsay statement by a declarant under Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code.
(4) (A) Notwithstanding any provision of the California Public Records Act, or any other law, photographic, video, and administrative records made by a system shall be confidential. Public agencies shall use and allow access to these records only for the purposes authorized by this section or to assess the impacts of the system.
Data about the number of violations issued is not considered an administrative record required to be disclosed by this section.
(B) Confidential information obtained from the Department of Motor Vehicles for the administration of automated traffic enforcement systems and enforcement of this article shall be held confidential and shall 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 9/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 275 of 287
not be used for any other purpose. Designated jurisdictions agents shall establish procedures to protect the confidentiality of these records consistent with Section 1808.47. (C) Except for court records described in Section 68152 of the Government Code, or as provided in subparagraph (D), the confidential records and evidence described in subparagraphs (A) and (B) may be retained for up to 60 days after final disposition of the notice of violation. The designated jurisdiction may retain information that a vehicle has been cited and fined for a violation for up to three years. The designated jurisdiction may adopt a retention period of less than 60 days. Administrative records described in subparagraph (A) may be retained for up to 120 days after final disposition of the notice of violation.
Notwithstanding any other law, the confidential records and evidence shall be destroyed in a manner that maintains the confidentiality of any person included in the record or evidence. (D) Photographic and video evidence that is obtained from an automated traffic enforcement system that does not result in the issuance of a notice of violation shall be destroyed within five business days after the decision to not issue a citation has been made. The use of facial recognition technology in conjunction with an automated traffic enforcement system shall be prohibited. (E) Information collected and maintained by a designated jurisdiction to administer a program shall only be used to administer the program, and shall not be disclosed to any other persons, including, but not limited to, any other state or federal government agency or official for any other purpose, except as required by state or federal law, court order, or in response to a subpoena in an individual case or proceeding.
(5) Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the registered owner or an individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation shall be permitted to review and obtain a copy of the photographic or video evidence of the alleged violation. (h) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a violation of a traffic control signal law pursuant to this chapter that is recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system authorized pursuant to this section shall be subject only to a civil penalty, as provided in paragraph (3), and shall not result in the department suspending or revoking the privilege of a violator to drive a motor vehicle or in a violation point being assessed against the violator. (2) The automated traffic enforcement system shall capture images of the rear license plate of vehicles that are violating the traffic control signal, and a notice of violation shall only be issued to registered owners of those vehicles based on that evidence.
(3) (A) A civil penalty shall be assessed as follows:
(i) For a violation where no fine has been assessed within the previous three years, by a fine of one hundred dollars ($100).
(ii) For a violation that occurred within three years after a separate previous violation, by a fine of two hundred dollars ($200).
(iii) For a violation that occurred within three years after two separate previous violations, by a fine of three hundred fifty dollars ($350).
(iv) For a violation that occurred within three years after three or more separate previous violations, by a fine of five hundred dollars ($500).
(B) No additional processing fees, other than electronic payment processing fees, may be included. (C) Late fees for unpaid penalties shall not exceed fifty dollars ($50) for the first late fee and one hundred dollars ($100) for any subsequent late fees for the same violation. (4) A civil penalty shall not be assessed against an authorized emergency vehicle. 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 10/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 276 of 287
(5) A person shall not be assessed a civil penalty if they are subject to criminal penalties for the same act. (6) The notice of violation shall be in writing and issued to the registered owner of the vehicle within 15 calendar days of the date of the violation. The notice of violation shall include all of the following information:
(A) The violation, including reference to the traffic control signal law that was violated. (B) The date, approximate time, and location where the violation occurred. (C) The vehicle license number and the name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle. (D) A clear photograph of the traffic control signal and an internet address where they can access the video recording of the violation based on a unique citation number. (E) A statement that payment is required to be made no later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of the notice of violation, or that the violation may be contested pursuant to subdivision (j). (F) The amount of the civil penalty due for that violation and the procedures for the payment of the civil penalty or for contesting the notice of violation.
(G) An affidavit of nonliability, and information of what constitutes nonliability, information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instructions for returning the affidavit to the processor. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a written lease or rental agreement between a bona fide rental company, as defined in Section 1939.01 of the Civil Code, or a personal vehicle sharing program, as defined in Section 11580.24 of the Insurance Code, that identifies the renter or lessee, the processing agency shall serve or mail a notice of violation to the renter or lessee identified in the affidavit of nonliability. If the affidavit of nonliability is returned to the processing agency within 30 calendar days of the mailing of the notice of violation, together with proof of a copy of a police report indicating the vehicle had been stolen at the time of the violation, the processing agency shall not subject the registered owner to a civil penalty and may issue the notice of violation to the identified renter or lessee. (H) The processing agency shall mail to the registered owner of a vehicle committing a violation of the traffic control signal law a notice of violation by depositing the notice in the United States mail no later than 15 days after the date of the alleged violation. The processing agency shall maintain proof of mailing demonstrating that the notice of violation was mailed to that address. If the registered owner or coowner of the vehicle, or the person designated as having care, custody, or control of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation pursuant to subparagraph (G), initiates a proceeding to challenge the violation pursuant to subdivision (j), such person waives any challenge or dispute as to the delivery of the notice of violation. (I) An affidavit from a designated jurisdiction that the yellow light change interval was established in accordance with the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, as required by Section 21455.7.
(i) (1) Revenues derived from any program utilizing an automated traffic enforcement system shall first be used to recover program costs. Program costs include, but are not limited to, the construction of traffic-calming measures, the installation of automated traffic enforcement systems, the adjudication of violations, and reporting requirements, as specified in this section.
(2) Designated jurisdictions shall maintain their existing commitment of local funds for traffic-calming measures, and shall annually expend not less than the annual average of expenditures for traffic-calming measures during the 2020–21, 2021–22, and 2022–23 fiscal years. For purposes of this subdivision, in calculating average expenditures on traffic-calming measures, restricted funds that may not be available on an ongoing basis, including those from voter-approved bond issuances or tax measures, shall not be included. 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 11/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 277 of 287
Any excess revenue shall be used for traffic-calming measures within three years of the end of the fiscal year in which the excess revenue was received. If traffic-calming measures are not planned or constructed after the third year, excess revenue shall revert to the Active Transportation Program established pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 2380) of the Streets and Highways Code, to be allocated by the California Transportation Commission pursuant to Section 2381 of the Streets and Highways Code. (3) “Traffic-calming measures” include, but are not limited to, all of the following:
(A) Bicycle lanes.
(B) Chicanes.
(C) Chokers.
(D) Curb extensions.
(E) Median islands.
(F) Raised crosswalks.
(G) Road diets.
(H) Roundabouts.
(I) Speed humps or speed tables.
(J) Traffic circles.
(j) (1) No later than 30 calendar days from the date of mailing of a notice of violation, the recipient may request an initial review of the notice by the issuing agency. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person. There shall be no charge for this review. If, following the initial review, the issuing agency is satisfied that the violation did not occur, or that extenuating circumstances make cancellation of the notice of violation appropriate in the interest of justice, the issuing agency shall cancel the notice of violation.
The issuing agency shall advise the processing agency, if any, of the cancellation. The issuing agency or the processing agency shall mail the results of the initial review to the person contesting the notice within 60 days of receipt of the recipient’s request for an initial review, and, if cancellation of the notice does not occur following that review, include a reason for that denial, notification of the ability to request an administrative hearing, and notice of the procedures adopted by the designated jurisdiction for the administrative hearing, including for waiving prepayment of the civil penalty based upon an inability to pay pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2).
(2) (A) If the person contesting the notice of violation is dissatisfied with the results of the initial review, the person may, no later than 21 calendar days following the mailing of the results of the issuing agency’s initial review, request an administrative hearing of the violation. The request may be made by telephone, in writing, electronically, or in person.
(B) The person requesting an administrative hearing shall pay the amount of the civil penalty to the processing agency. The issuing agency shall adopt a written procedure to allow a person to request an administrative hearing without payment of the civil penalty upon satisfactory proof of an inability to pay the amount due.
(C) The administrative hearing shall be held within 90 calendar days following the receipt of a request for an administrative hearing. The person requesting the hearing may request one continuance, not to exceed 21 calendar days.
(3) The administrative hearing process shall include all of the following:
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 12/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 278 of 287
(A) The person requesting a hearing shall have the choice of a hearing upon written declaration, video conference, or in person. An in-person hearing shall be conducted within the jurisdiction of the issuing agency.
(B) If the person requesting a hearing is an unemancipated minor, that person shall be permitted to appear at a hearing or admit responsibility for the automated traffic enforcement violation without the appointment of a guardian. The processing agency may proceed against the minor in the same manner as against an adult.
(C) The administrative hearing shall be conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the issuing agency and approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency.
The hearing shall provide an independent, objective, fair, and impartial review of contested automated traffic enforcement violations.
(D) (i) The issuing agency’s governing body or chief executive officer of the designated jurisdiction shall appoint or contract with qualified independent examiners or administrative hearing providers that employ qualified independent examiners to conduct the administrative hearings. Examiners shall demonstrate the qualifications, training, and objectivity necessary to conduct a fair and impartial review, and shall meet the minimum requirements specified in clause (ii). The examiner shall be separate and independent from the notice of violation issuing and processing functions. An examiner’s continued employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits shall not, directly or indirectly, be linked to the amount of civil penalties upheld by the examiner or the number or percentage of violations upheld by the examiner. (ii) (I) Examiners shall have a minimum of 20 hours of training. The examiner, unless an employee of the designated jurisdiction, is responsible for the costs of the training. The issuing agency may reimburse the examiner for those costs. Training may be provided through any of the following:
(ia) An accredited college or university.
(ib) A program conducted by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training. (ic) A program conducted by the American Arbitration Association or a similar organization. (id) Any program approved by the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, including a program developed and provided by, or for, the agency. (II) Training programs shall include topics relevant to the administrative hearing, including, but not limited to, applicable laws and regulations, enforcement procedures, due process, evaluation of evidence, hearing procedures, and effective oral and written communication. Upon the approval of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, up to 12 hours of relevant experience may be substituted for up to 12 hours of training. Up to eight hours of the training requirements described in this clause may be credited to an individual, at the discretion of the governing body or chief executive officer of the issuing agency, based upon training programs or courses described in this subparagraph that the individual attended within the last five years. (E) The employee of the designated jurisdiction who issues a notice of violation shall not be required to participate in an administrative hearing. To establish a violation, the issuing agency shall not be required to produce any evidence other than, in proper form, the notice of violation or copy thereof, including the photograph of the vehicle’s license plate, a video recording of the violation, and information received from the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the registered owner of the vehicle. The documentation in proper form shall be prima facie evidence of the violation. If the designated jurisdiction meets its initial burden, the recipient of the notice of violation may present any evidence and argument in defense. (F) The examiner’s final decision following the administrative hearing may be personally delivered to the person by the examiner or sent by first-class mail within 60 days of the date of the conclusion of the 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 13/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 279 of 287
administrative hearing.
(G) Following a determination by the examiner that a person has committed the violation, the examiner may, consistent with the written guidelines established by the issuing agency, allow payment of the civil penalty in installments, or an issuing agency may allow for deferred payment or payments in installments, if the person provides evidence satisfactory to the examiner or the issuing agency, as the case may be, of an inability to pay the civil penalty in full. If authorized by the governing body of the issuing agency, the examiner may permit the performance of community service in lieu of payment of the civil penalty. (H) If a notice of violation is dismissed following an administrative hearing, any civil penalty, if paid, shall be refunded by the issuing agency within 30 days. (k) (1) Within 30 days after personal delivery or mailing of the final decision described in paragraph (3) of subdivision (j), the contestant may seek review by filing an appeal to the small claims division of the superior court or the traffic division of the superior court, where the case shall be heard de novo, except that the contents of the processing agency’s file in the case on appeal shall be lodged by the designated agency at the designated agency’s expense and be received into evidence. Notwithstanding any other law, a copy of the notice of violation shall be presumptively admissible as evidence of the facts stated in the notice. A copy of the notice of appeal shall be served in person or by certified first-class mail with return receipt upon the processing agency by the appellant. For purposes of computing the 30-day period, Section 1013 of the Code of Civil Procedure shall be applicable. A proceeding under this paragraph is a limited civil case. (2) The fee for filing the notice of appeal shall be as provided in Section 70615 of the Government Code.
Upon receipt of the notice of appeal, the designated jurisdiction shall lodge its administrative record for the case with the court within 15 calendar days. The court shall notify the appellant of the appearance date by mail or personal delivery. The court shall retain the fee under Section 70615 of the Government Code regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the appellant prevails, this fee and any payment of the civil penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance with the judgment of the court. (3) The conduct of the hearing on appeal under this section is a subordinate judicial duty that may be performed by a commissioner or other subordinate judicial officer at the direction of the presiding judge of the court.
(4) If a notice of appeal of the examiner’s decision is not filed within the period set forth in paragraph (1), the decision shall be deemed final.
(5) If the civil penalty has not been paid and the final decision is adverse to the appellant, the processing agency may, promptly after the decision becomes final, proceed to collect the civil penalty under subdivision (h).
(l) (1) A designated jurisdiction shall offer a diversion program for indigent automated traffic enforcement violation recipients, to perform community service in lieu of paying the penalty for an automated traffic enforcement violation.
(2) A designated jurisdiction shall offer the ability for indigent automated traffic enforcement system violation recipients to pay applicable fines and penalties over a period of time under a payment plan with monthly installments of no more than twenty-five dollars ($25) and shall limit the processing fee to participate in a payment plan to five dollars ($5) or less.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a designated jurisdiction shall reduce the applicable fines and penalties by 80 percent for indigent persons, and by 50 percent for individuals up to 250 percent above the federal poverty level.
(4) The person may demonstrate that they are indigent or make up to 250 percent above the poverty level or less by providing either of the following information, as applicable:
9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 14/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 280 of 287
(A) Proof of income from a pay stub or another form of proof of earnings, such as a bank statement, that shows that the person meets the income criteria set forth in subdivision (b) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, subject to review and approval by the processing agency or its designee. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval. (B) Proof of receipt of benefits under the programs described in subdivision (a) of Section 68632 of the Government Code, including, but not limited to, an electronic benefits transfer card or another card, subject to review and approval by the processing agency. The processing agency or its designee shall not unreasonably withhold its approval.
(m) This section does not affect a designated jurisdiction that utilizes an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to Section 21455.5. A designated jurisdiction may utilize an automated traffic enforcement system pursuant to this section or Section 21455.5.
(n) The automated traffic enforcement system, to the extent feasible, shall be angled and focused so as to only capture photographs of the rear license plate and evidence that the vehicle violated the traffic control system and shall not capture identifying images of other drivers or vehicles. (o) A person shall not be accessed a civil penalty if they are subject to criminal penalties for the same act.
SEC. 7. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 6 of this act, which adds Section 21455.9 to the Vehicle Code, imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access to the meetings of public bodies or the writings of public officials and agencies within the meaning of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution. Pursuant to that constitutional provision, the Legislature makes the following findings to demonstrate the interest protected by this limitation and the need for protecting that interest:
To protect the privacy interests of persons who are issued notices of violation under an automated traffic enforcement system program, the Legislature finds and declares that the photographic, video, or administrative records generated by the program shall be confidential, and shall be made available only to alleged violators and to governmental agencies solely for the purpose of enforcing these violations and assessing the impact of the use of an automated traffic enforcement system, as required by this act.
SEC. 8. Section 2.5 of this bill incorporates amendments to Section 70615 of the Government Code proposed by both this bill and AB 289. That section of this bill shall only become operative if (1) both bills are enacted and become effective on or before January 1, 2026, (2) each bill amends Section 70615 of the Government Code, and (3) this bill is enacted after AB 289, in which case Section 2 of this bill shall not become operative. 9/8/26, 4:00 PM California-2025-SB720-Enrolled
https://legiscan.com/CA/text/SB720/id/3270271/California-2025-SB720-Enrolled.html 15/15 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 281 of 287
Task ID Source Project Initiation/ Approval Date Status Description Notes/History Scheduled Date WP-1 Implementing Standardized
Signage/Striping at Roundabouts Citywide
6/25/2025 Completed To work with staff on the standardization of signing and striping at roundabouts citywide based on state and national standards and, where feasible, ensure consistency with neighboring cities.
Recommendations received from MTSC in September, 2025. Approved by City Council in November, 2025.Workplan item complete. 09/08/2025
WP-2 Circulation Element/Mobility Review by
Schools
6/25/2025 Completed To evaluate the feasibility and prioritize the use of lower classification roads for active transportation in Encinitas by exploring alternative east-west routes to better separate main throughfares and bicyclists, and provide recommendations to staff / City Council.
Recommendations were made to City Council to direct traffic staff to review, develop, and implement the bikeway alignments developed by the subcommittee and presented to the MTSC. The city's circulation element proposes the development of a series of east-west cycle routes suitable for cyclists of all abilities as an alternative to the city's 6 major east- west arterials. The purpose of this project is to provide cyclists with safe, easy-to-follow alternative routes to high volume roadways. These routes would be shared by pedestrians, cyclists and motorists and would be designated by a series of signs. Signs would guide cyclists and inform motorists that cyclists may be using the road. Subcommittee proposed alignments are as follows: 1.) La Costa @ Hwy 101 to Orpheus Ave. @ Leucadia Ave.; 2.) South El Camino Real @ Crest Ave., to the Encinitas Library; 3.) Santa Fe Drive @ Lake Drive to San Elijo Ave. @ Liverpool Drive; 4.) Encinitas Blvd. @ S. Willowspring Drive to San Elijo Ave. @ Liverpool Drive. More detailed information has been provided to city staff.
Subcommittee formed in September 2025, Medak and Templin joined in February 2026. Update 3/9/2026, 4/13/2026 & 5/11/26, Update & Vote 6/8/26 WP-3 Birmingham Drive Pedestrian Mobility 6/25/2025 Completed To evaluate the feasibility and potentially design a marked and signed pedestrian crossing at the intersection of LeGaye and Birmingham.
Recommendations received from MTSC in October, 2025. Design was completed, and an additional crosswalk has been installed. An additional crosswalk at Birmingham and Freda has little or no impact on the intersection at Birmingham and Legaye where it was recommended. The concern is there is a sidewalk that ends to the west of Legaye and there is no safe way to cross the street because there is a large slope at its terminus. At that point the roadway becomes a horizontal and vertical curve. 10/13/2025, 3/9/2026
WP-4 Consider Opportunities to Fund Safer
Infrastructure through Additional Enforcement
6/25/2025 Completed To work with Staff and the Sheriff's Office to evaluate opportunities for additional enforcement or more targeted enforcement citywide using available resources. To evaluate the possibility of enhanced or automated enforcement.
MTSC recommendations submitted for additional enforcement through allocating more staff for enforcement within the city and 2 additional enforcement officers have been added. Recommended automated enforcement with red light cameras, see WP #5 below. 2/9/2026
WP-5 Assembly Bill 645 Pilot Program 6/25/2025 Completed To explore Assembly Bill No. 645 pilot program and make recommendations to City Council.
Subcommittee chose to utilize Senate Bill 720 rather than Assembly Bill 645 since both bills establish a method for automated speed enforcement and AB 645 addressed specific cities. With the passing of SB 720 in October 2025, extensive public comments from the local community, and overwhelming community support to address safety issues, traffic violations and deaths in our city, the MTSC supports SB 720 legislation. At our February 9th MTSC meeting, the commission voted in favor of recommending City Council review and consider a policy for the implementation of red-light cameras, including staff analysis, to identify the most suitable intersections. Community input was heard by public speakers as documented in our meeting minutes. SB 720 legislation creates an alternative approach for how cities can implement red-light camera programs.
Subcommittee formed in Sept. 2025; Gross, Duncan and Thile. Update 11/10/2025 & Update and Vote on 2/9/2026. A procedural item regarding the format of the recommendations was voted on in 3/9/26.
WP-6 Vulcan trail/Safe route 6/25/2025 In Progress To identify areas for improvement along Vulcan Avenue and create walkway continuity and connectivity on the west side of Vulcan Avenue.
Subcommittee formed Sept. 2025, by Gross and Trauth. Commissioner Eldon joined the subcommittee in March, 2026.
Update 6/8/2026
MTSC 2025-26 Work Plan and Follow-Up Tracker
Work Plan FY 25-26
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 282 of 287
Task ID Source Project Initiation/ Approval Date Status Description Notes/History Scheduled Date WP-7 Make New Encinitas more Pedestrian
Friendly, e.g. Mid-block Crosswalks
6/25/2025 Completed To identify opportunities to enhance pedestrian safety and accessibility along ECR by potentially adding additional mid-block crossings or other pedestrian improvements.
Recommendations were made to City Council to consider implementing a pilot program aimed at improving pedestrian safety with high visibility flags that would be installed at busy crosswalk intersections. A pedestrian takes a flag from a holder at the intersection, crosses the street holding the flag, and returns the flags to the holder on the other side of the street. This is a simple, cost-effective concept that 1.) Makes pedestrians more visible at crosswalks to the vehicular user, 2.) Increases the general visibility of pedestrian crosswalks, thus increasing public awareness, 3.) Works well with a sponsor for implementation, sponsor would monitor flag usage and determine when flags are needed. Subcommittee researched and chose this innovative approach which has been used by other cities (Salt Lake City, Berkely, Las Vegas, Seattle, Cupertino CA, Belmont, MA, and McCall ID, to name a few). 4.) Crosswalk flags would come from a sponsor, which could be a school, a community group, a business or an individual. The work plan item was focusing on intersections along El Camino Real, however, the MTSC sees this program being very effective at uncontrolled intersections with only stop signs.
Subcommittee formed Sept. 2025 by Johnson and Trauth, and Duncan joined in Feb. 2026. Update 3/9/2026; Update & Vote 4/13/2026 WP-8 Policy on Bike Parking at Commercial
Businesses
6/25/2025 Completed To work with Staff on evaluating needs and preparing guidelines and policies for bike improvements and facilities near commercial areas and parking areas.
MTSC recommendations were made to City Council to direct city staff to research policies for bike parking in commercial areas. With an increased number of people using traditional bikes, electric bikes, scooters and unicycles, the MTSC recommends planning for future use and developing a policy to provide parking for alternative modes of transportation. MTSC also recommends working with the planning and sustainability departments to standardize and implement bike parking in the city's rightof-way (ROW). Subcommittee met with Crystal Najera, the City Sustainability Manager regarding bike racks in the ROW to better understand the city process for implementing them. Subcommittee reviewed bike parking requirements for other cities such as Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Diego, Long Beach, Laguna Beach, and Santa Monica. WP-8 may need to be coordinated with the city planning department.
Subcommittee formed Sept. 2025: Johnson, Trauth, and Duncan. MTSC Update 3/9/2026, Update & Vote 4/13/2026 WP-9 Safety Education 6/25/2025 In Progress To provide recommendations to the City’s Mobility Manager on implementing citywide education efforts, including those related to electric bikes, and provide recommendations to City Council for potential state legislation concerning ebikes.
Subcommittee update at the April MTSC meeting. School district presentations occurred for May and June MTSC meetings. Item to be continued to 2026-27 work plan. Guest speakers from local school districts presented at the MTSC meetings (May 11th and June 8th meetings) as we continue to research this item.
Subcommittee formed Sept. 2025, Medak and Templin
joined in Feb. 2026. Update
3/9/2026, Update 4/13/2026
WP-10 Traffic Signal Timing Coordination 6/25/2025 Completed To explore traffic signal timing coordination between Encinitas and Caltrans.
City staff and City Council representative are coordinating with Caltrans. Update 3/9/2026 WP-11 Mobility Recommendations 6/25/2025 In Progress To provide recommendations to City Council to eliminate or minimize traffic deaths due to our transportation system via vehicle, pedestrian or bicycle. (This work plan item was put on the 2025-26 MTSC work plan as a result of City Council review last June.) The commission sees this item as a goal and will continue to strive to achieve it.
The MTSC continues to make recommendations for improvements and policies to the City Council that address the safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular users in our city.
Update 4/13/2026
F-36 Crosswalk Evaluation at La Costa and
Highway 101
1/7/2021 To evaluate the crosswalk operation at the intersection Pending final phase of Streetscape TBD F-53 Hygeia Roundabout Updates 3/11/2022 To provide regular updates to MTSC regarding implementation of the Hygeia Roundabout
Standing
F-58 At Grade Crossing Updates 5/9/2022 To provide periodic updates to MTSC In process StandingF-60 Signal Timing Evaluation for Bicycles 6/13/2022 To evaluate the signal timing for bicycles at City intersections Bike symbols being constructed with the LPI project. Timing will be adjusted as needed
TBD
F-57 Bike Loop Detection Signage 5/9/2022 To analyze the possibility of using additional signs for bike Funded under HSIP Cycle 10 LPI project - under construction TBD F-67 Report on Paul Ecke Elementary
evaluations and study
4/10/2023 Various options are being evaluated for potential improvements on Hermes Ave and Union St, Community meeting on 03/18/24 Data collection being conducted, meeting held with school, Sheriff's office and Councilmember Hinze, working on a plan for a new pick up/drop off pilot. Design funding provided by Council for a pathway for cyclist from the park to the school.
TBD
Follow-Up Log
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 283 of 287
CITY OF ENCINITAS
MOBILITY AND TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION MINUTES
MEETING DATE: February 9, 2026, 5:30 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER
Chair Patricia Trauth called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.
2. ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Patricia Trauth
Vice Chair Glen Johnson
Commissioner Chris Duncan
Commissioner Ron Medak
Commissioner Paul Templin
Commissioner David Thile
Absent: Commissioner James Gross
Also Present: Abe Bandegan, City Traffic Engineer
Dan Nutter, Director of Engineering/ City Engineer
Sergeant Kristy Trampus, North Coastal Sheriff’ s Dept
Amanda Bariteau, Commission Secretary
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
4. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, AND ANNOUNCEMENTS A. San Diego County Sheriff’ s Office Enforcement Report Sergeant Kristy Trampus presented an enforcement report and responded to questions and comments from the Commission.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Oral communications were provided by Abigail Brown and Steve Cesnauskas.
Docusign Envelope ID: DFB47D05- A76A-828C-83A5- 040406C48ED5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 284 of 287
6. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes made to the agenda.
7. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES
A. November 10, 2025, Regular Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the Minutes
Action: Vice Chair Johnson moved, Commissioner Templin seconded to:
approve the minutes. Motion carried. Ayes: Duncan, Johnson, Medak, Templin, Thile, Trauth. Nays: None. Absent: Gross. Abstain: None.
8. ACTION ITEMS
A. Mobility and Traffic Safety Chair and Vice Chair Election Recommended Action: Commission to elect a Chair and Vice Chair to serve one-year terms.
City Traffic Engineer Bandegan presented the item and responded to questions and comments from the Commission.
Action: Commissioner Templin moved, Medak seconded to: postpone the election to the March 9 meeting. Motion failed. Ayes: Medak, Templin. Nays:
Duncan, Thile, Trauth. Abstain: Johnson. Absent: Gross.
Action: Commissioner Medak moved, Commissioner Templin seconded to:
nominate Commissioner Templin as Chair. Motion failed. Ayes: Medak, Templin. Nays: Duncan, Johnson, Thile, Trauth. Abstain: None. Absent:
Gross.
Action: Commissioner Duncan moved, Vice Chair Johnson seconded to:
nominate Chair Trauth as Chair. Motion carried. Ayes: Duncan, Johnson, Templin, Thile, Trauth. Nays: Medak. Absent: Gross. Abstain: None.
Action: Commissioner Thile moved, Chair Trauth seconded to: nominate Commissioner Duncan as Vice Chair. Motion carried. Ayes: Johnson, Medak, Templin, Thile, Trauth. Nays: None. Absent: Gross. Abstain:
Duncan.
B. Adopt Speed Surveys and Revised AB43/ AB382 Streets List Recommended Action: Recommend to City Council.
City Traffic Engineer Bandegan presented the item and responded to Docusign Envelope ID: DFB47D05- A76A-828C-83A5- 040406C48ED5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 285 of 287
questions and comments from the Commission.
Action: Commissioner Duncan moved, Commissioner Thile seconded to: approve staff recommendation with the minor addition to apply AB 43 to Village Park Way from Willowspring Drive to Encinitas Boulevard and reduce the speed limit to 30 mph. Motion carried. Ayes: Duncan, Johnson, Medak, Templin, Thile, Trauth. Nays: None. Absent: Gross.
Abstain: None.
C. City of Encinitas On-Street Short-Term Parking Policy Recommended Action: Recommend to City Council.
City Traffic Engineer Bandegan presented the item and responded to questions and comments from the Commission.
Action: Commissioner Medak moved, Templin seconded to: approve staff recommendation. Motion carried. Ayes: Duncan, Medak, Johnson, Templin, Thile, Trauth. Nays: None. Absent: Gross. Abstain: None.
9. CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEER REPORT
A. Mobility and Traffic Safety Commission’ s FY 25-26 Work Plan City Traffic Engineer Bandegan presented the Work Plan and responded to Commission questions and comments.
Public comment was provided by Vijay Bhardwaj and Judy Berlfein.
B. Safety and Mobility Project Updates
City Traffic Engineer Bandegan presented the project updates and responded to Commission questions and comments.
10. COMMISSIONER MEMBER INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
A. Subcommittee Report on MTSC Work Plan Item 5: AB 645/720 Recommended Action: Discuss and provide recommendations Commissioner Chris Duncan presented the item on behalf of the subcommittee ( Duncan, Gross, Thile) and responded to comments and questions from the Commission.
Public comment was provided by Rhianna Glor, Leslie Engel, Laura van Dusen, Laura Grimmer, Mike Dobransky, Leigh Ratcliffe, Bridget Chalekian, Judy Berlfein, Steve Linke with time donation by Scott Campbell, Stacy Reddell, Aaron Hebshi and Brad Lefkowits.
Docusign Envelope ID: DFB47D05- A76A-828C-83A5- 040406C48ED5 2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 286 of 287
Abigail Brown, Kori Smith, Kendall Smith, Paula Toro, Katie Magnuson, Elizabeth Lawlor, Sierra Tzoore, Shane Loflen, Chad Loflen, Jessica Loflen, Claire Loflen, Diana Neebes, Elannie Noveski, Katelyn De Spain and Chris Giules registered support for the item, but chose not to speak.
Action: Commissioner Duncan moved, Thile seconded to: recommend that City Council review and consider a policy for the implementation of red light cameras, including staff analysis to identify the most suitable intersections. Motion carried. Ayes: Duncan, Johnson, Templin, Thile, Trauth. Nays: Medak. Absent: Gross. Abstain: None.
11. COMMISSIONER CORNER AND POTENTIAL FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
ADDED BY COMMISSION MEMBERS
A. Commissioner Templin- Initiated Discussion on Potential E-bike Regulations for the City of Encinitas
Commissioner Templin introduced the item. Commissioner Thile and Chair Trauth supported advancing the item for future consideration.
Public comment was provided by Aaron Hebshi.
12. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Trauth adjourned the meeting at 8:08 p.m.
Patricia Trauth, Chair Date
Amanda Bariteau, Commission Secretary Date
Docusign Envelope ID: DFB47D05- A76A-828C-83A5- 040406C48ED5 5/ 26/ 2026
5/ 26/ 2026
2026-09-16 Item #12B Page 287 of 287