P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Jestin D. Johnson FROM: Josh Rowan
City Administrator Director of Transportation
Acting Director, Public
Works
SUBJECT: Speed Safety Camera System
Contract Award
DATE: May 26, 2025
City Administrator Approval Date:
RE
COMMENDATION
S
taff Recommends That The City Council Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator To Enter Into A Professional Services Agreement With Verra Mobility To Implement And Operate A Speed Safety Camera System Under Assembly Bill 645 For A Six-Year Term Supporting Five Years of Camera Operations In An Amount Not To Exceed Four Million, Eight-Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($4,865,000); Adopt the Speed Camera Use Policy and Impact Report; Waiving the Arizona Boycott Policy, Resolution 82727 C.M.S.; And Adopting Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings.
EXEC
UTIVE SUMMARY
A
ssembly Bill (AB) 645, a state law passed in October 2023, authorizes Oakland and five other California cities – San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Glendale – to implement and oversee a five-year pilot of automated speed safety cameras. Oakland has identified 18 candidate locations for camera placement based on criteria outlined in AB 645 and the city’s High Injury Network. Following a competitive Request for Proposals (RFP) process, Oakland seeks authority to enter into a six-year professional services agreement with Verra Mobility in an amount not to exceed $4,865,000 to implement and operate a speed camera system. The City anticipates the start of camera operation before the end of 2025, beginning with a 60-day warning period.
BAC
KGROUND / LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
The S
afe Oakland Streets (SOS) Initiative aims to prevent severe and fatal traffic crashes, eliminate injury inequities, and carefully assess and mitigate equity impacts resulting from safety measures. Speeding is a leading cause of serious injuries and fatalities in Oakland. Every week, two Oaklanders, on average, are killed or seriously injured by traffic violence, and these crashes disproportionally impact people of color, seniors, and people with disabilities. Speeding is a primary factor in approximately 1 in 4 traffic collisions that kill or seriously injure Oaklanders.
Pedestrians are especially vulnerable to speeding vehicles – while a pedestrian hit by a car Jestin Johnson (May 28, 2025 11:10 PDT)
May 28, 2025
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 2
Public Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
traveling 20 miles per hour (MPH) is 90% likely to survive, a pedestrian hit by a car traveling 40 MPH is only 10% likely to survive.
Speed safety cameras, or SSC, have proven highly effective at preventing traffic deaths and injuries in cities across the United States and around the world.1 Some examples include significant reductions of vehicles traveling more than 10 MPH over the posted speed limit in Portland, OR, Washington, DC, and Montgomery County, MD.2 SSC have also shown significant injury reductions in New York City and Chicago.3 Both the National Transportation Safety Board and the California State Transportation Agency have acknowledged the effectiveness of SSC in reducing speeding and enhancing road safety. SSCs are also an important supplement to traditional traffic enforcement because they operate 24 hours a day, reduce the potential for harmful interactions between officers and members of the public, and free limited law enforcement resources for other purposes.
Oakland’s leadership has supported the multi-year effort to implement SSC through changes to state law. The Mayor and City Council adopted a supportive position for proposed legislation in 2021 (AB 550, Chiu), and the Mayor and Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Commission (BPAC) adopted support positions in 2022 (AB 2336, Friedman and Ting). In 2023, automated speed enforcement was included on the city’s state and federal legislative agenda and supported by the Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission at their April 20, 2023, meeting. City staff presented an overview of camera sites at the July 23, 2024, Public Works and Transportation Committee. Staff also presented the draft Surveillance Use Policy and Impact Report at the August 3, 2024, meeting of the Privacy Advisory Commission, which forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to approve the draft documents.
ANALYSIS AND POLICY ALTERNATIVES
1 See https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-studies/Documents/SS1701.pdf for a survey of automated speed enforcement in the United States. SSC discussion begins on page 34 (PDF page 46). 2 Portland – 94% reduction of vehicles traveling 11 mph or more over the speed limit based on four corridors where PBOT had speed safety cameras installed. https://www.portland.gov/transportation/news/2023/10/5/pbot-begins-installing-new-safety-cameras- across-portland-milestone?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery.
Washington DC, 82% decrease as observed at seven sites selected randomly from 60 targeted enforcement zones in Washington DC, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.3141/1830- 05?journalCode=trra
Montgomery County, 64% decrease of vehicles traveling >10MPH over the speed limit. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2016.1189076
3 NYC – 17% reduction in total injuries. **USDOT, ITS Joint Program Office. See https://www.itskrs.its.dot.gov/2021-b01580
Chicago – over a two-year period, 36 fewer fatal and severe-injury crashes, 68 fewer moderate injury crashes, and 100 fewer minor-injury crashes over a two-year period. See https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/depts/cdot/Red%20Light%20Cameras/2022/Sutton+Tilahun_C hicago-Camera-Ticket_Exec%20Summary-Final-Jan10.pdf
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 3
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
Below are some of the key provisions of Assembly Bill 645 as they pertain to Oakland.
A
B 645:
• Authorizes a city of Oakland’s population size (between 300,000 and 800,000), to install a maximum of 18 speed safety systems;
• Authorizes OakDOT as the city’s department of transportation to operate, maintain, and ov
ersee the program (not OPD);
• Establishes that citations are issued to vehicle owners, not the driver, at the time of c
itation;
• Directs any excess revenue beyond the cost of program operations to be reinvested into tr
affic calming and spent within three years of collection.
AB 645 has several provisions related to equity, including:
• A 60-day no-fee warning period once the cameras are turned on; • Ticket fee reductions between 50% and 80% for low-income populations, based on state defi
nitions, as well as a diversion program;
• Defines penalties under AB-645 as civil penalties, not moving violations (i.e., there is no i
mpact to insurance or points on license);
• Establishes a fine violation structure starting at 11MPH (1-10MPH doesn’t get a ticket) that accounts for income, as detailed in the table below.
Figure 1. Citation structure under AB-645
Speed Violation
AB 645 Fine Indigent4
200% above
the poverty
level
4 An applicant who is receiving public benefits under one or more of the following programs:
(1) Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and State Supplementary Payment (SSP) (Article 5 (commencing with Section 12200) of Chapter
3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code). (2) California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids Act (CalWORKs) (Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 11200) of Part 3 of Di
vision 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code) or a federal Tribal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Tribal TANF) grant pr
ogram (Section 10553.25 of the Welfare and Institutions Code). (3) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Chapter 51 (commencing with Section 2011) of Title 7 of the United States Code) or the California Food Assistance Program (Chapter 10.1 (commencing with Section 18930) of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfar e an
d Institutions Code).
(4) County Relief, General Relief (GR), or General Assistance (GA) (Part 5 (commencing with Section 17000) of Division 9 of the W
elfare and Institutions Code).
(5) Cash Assistance Program for Aged, Blind, and Disabled Legal Immigrants (CAPI) (Chapter 10.3 (commencing with Section 18937)
of Part 6 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code). (6) In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) (Article 7 (commencing with Section 12300) of Chapter 3 of Part 3 of Division 9 of the W
elfare and Institutions Code).
(7) Medi-Cal (Chapter 7 (commencing with Section 14000) of Part 3 of Division 9 of the Welfare and Institutions Code). OR:
b) An applicant whose monthly income is 125 percent or less of the current poverty guidelines updated periodically in the Federal Register by the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the authority of paragraph (2) of Section 9902 of Title 42 of the United States Code.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 4
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
0-10 mph $0 $0 $0
11-15 mph $50 $10 $25
16-25 mph $100 $20 $50
26 mph and over $200 $40 $100
Speed greater
than 100 mph
$500 $100 $250
P
rior to implementing speed cameras, AB 645 requires that cities adopt a Speed Camera Impact Report (Attachment 1) and Speed Camera System Use Policy (Attachment 2). The Speed Camera Impact Report defines the purpose of the system, how it functions, how it will be paid for, and how the program affects civil liberties. The System Use Policy outlines what data is collected and other key provisions around data security and retention. Each policy must also be formally adopted by the Oakland City Council prior to speed cameras commencing operation.
Figur
e 2. Speed Camera Impact Report Summary
State Law Specification OakDOT’s Response
What is the purpose of the
system?
To enforce speed limits 24/7 at 18 locations to slow
vehicle speeds
How does the system work? Fixed camera system with radar to detect speeding violations, mailed notices of violation with messaging
and fines
How much will this cost, and
where is the money coming
from?
OakDOT’s Operating Budget will fund the program, with
outside grants as available. The cost of staff labor and contract could be up to $1.75 million annually (see Fiscal Impact section for additional detail)
How will this program affect civil
rights, and how will those rights
be safeguarded?
Minimal (or positive) impacts to civil rights:
Unbiased enforcement reduces exposure to
discrimination; focus on license plate number minimizes the collection of personally identifiable information
Figur
e 3. Privacy Provisions & System Use Policy Summary
State Law Specification OakDOT’s Response
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 5
Public Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
What data is collected? Rear license plate images for speeding vehicles only. No video or facial recognition is allowed.
Who can access the data? Individuals in authorized City of Oakland job classifications and those specifically authorized by the vendor to provide technical support. All data collected is confidential and will be maintained in compliance with
applicable laws, including but not limited to AB-645 and the Oakland Municipal Code.
Who is the data shared with? No one outside of OakDOT (without a court order).
System security and data compliance will be monitored
by internal safeguards and vendor-maintained industry
standard practices for data management.
Where is the data stored? Locally & on the Software As a Service (SAAS) platform
Site Selection
OakDOT based its speed camera site selection off the specifications in AB 645. The chart below explains the agency’s response to the bill’s criteria.
Figure 4. Speed camera site selection
State Law Specification OakDOT’s Response
Cameras shall be located on a
high-injury street, a school zone
street, or a street with
documented speed racing
All proposed camera locations are on the high-injury
network; additionally, several proposed locations are
adjacent to schools and in locations with speed-related collisions
Cameras cannot be located on
state highways, freeways, or
expressways
All cameras will be located on city-owned streets. This restriction primarily excludes freeways and segments of International and San Pablo Blvd owned by Caltrans.
Cameras should be located in
areas that are “geographically
and socioeconomically diverse”
Camera locations will be spread throughout Oakland,
with at least 1 camera per City Council district
To keep a camera location after
18 months, there must be
measurable reductions in
speeding behavior
Proposed camera locations are prioritized in locations
with vehicle speeds exceeding 10 MPH over the speed
limit.
Building off state law as specified above, OakDOT initiated its site selection process with the 2024 High Injury Network (HIN), or street segments in Oakland with the highest density of fatal and severe collisions. The HIN is determined based on three separate mode-specific HINs:
pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle. Creating separate HINs allows the pedestrian and Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 6
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
bicyclist crash networks to be analyzed distinct from the motorist network, which might other
wise dominate the map. For speed camera site selection, the agency prioritized camera placement on streets with two or three overlapping modes. As another prioritization factor, OakDOT also identified street segments with high concentrations of serious and fatal injuries, with speed as a primary factor.
Fol
lowing this analysis, OakDOT collected data at 43 potential locations for speed cameras in the form of 72-hour tube counts to collect traffic speeds and volumes. These 43 locations were narrowed down to 18 proposed locations based on the following criteria:
• Number and percentage of daily vehicles traveling greater than 10 MPH over the spe ed
lim
it;
• Proximity to sensitive land uses (i.e, schools, senior centers, parks, commercial districts, unc
ontrolled crosswalks);
• Geography (i.e., avoiding concentrating too many cameras in one neighborhood as per AB 645 requirements);
• Planned capital projects; and
• Initial technical review for installation feasibility.
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
Figure 6. List of automated speed enforcement locations Location
(Main Street)
Location (Cross
Streets)
Speed
Limit
85th
Percentile
Speed
Number of Daily
Vehicles >10 MPH
Over Posted Limit
% of Daily Vehicles
> 10 MPH Over
Posted Limit
Additional Reasoning for SSC
73rd Avenue Between Fresno and
Krause 35 MPH 41 MPH 1,514 6.2% High observed speed from vehicles adjacent to Markham Elementary and Eastmont Transit Center
7th St. Between Adeline St
and Linden St 30 MPH 39 MPH 1,760 14.6% Speeding from vehicles traveling to and from freeways; uncontrolled crossings, proximity to As-Salam Mosque
7th St. Between Broadway
and Franklin Streets 20 MPH 27 MPH 662 5.2% Concentration of seniors, children, and pedestrians in Chinatown
98th Avenue Between Blake Drive
and Gould Street 30 MPH 37 MPH 1,340 6.6% Proximity to speed related injury collisions; speeding observed from vehicles traveling to and from I-880
98th Avenue Between Cherry and
Birch 30 MPH 34 MPH 469 3.10% Adjacent to Elmhurst United Middle School; proximity to speed related injury collisions
Bancroft Ave Between 86th Ave
and Auseon Ave 30 MPH 38 MPH 1,247 8.10% Uncontrolled crosswalks; proximity to schools, churches Bancroft Ave Between 65th and
66th 30 MPH 34 MPH 266 2.90% Uncontrolled crosswalks; proximity to schools, churches Broadway Between 26th and
27th St 20 MPH 27 MPH 1,136 9.20% Concentration of speed related injury collisions; concentration of pedestrians on Broadway commercial corridor
Claremont
Avenue
Hillegass Avenue
and College Avenue 3030 MPH 37 MPH 636 5.8% Vehicles speeding to and from SR 24; new addition (2024) to High Injury Network
Foothill Blvd Between Irving and
24th 25 MPH 29 MPH 252 2.87% Proximity to speed related collisions; uncontrolled crosswalks Foothill Blvd. Between 19th and
20th 30 MPH 33 MPH 203 2.8% Proximity to speed related collisions; uncontrolled crosswalks; proximity to San Antonio Recreation Area
Fruitvale
Avenue
Between Galindo
Street and Logan
Street
25 MPH 30 MPH 458 3.60% Uncontrolled crosswalks; proximity to schools, churches Hegenberger
Road
Between Spencer
and Hawley 40 MPH 57 MPH 10,029 43% Freeway-like segment with four travel lanes in each direction; proximity to speed-related injury collisions
International
Blvd
Between 40th and
41st 25 MPH 29 MPH 767 4.9% High observed speeding from vehicles illegally using the transit lane; concentration of speed-related injury collisions MacArthur
Blvd.
Between Green Acre
Road and Enos Ave 30 MPH 38 MPH 667 8.0% High observed speeds from vehicles traveling to and from I- 580, long section of MacArthur without a traffic signal P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
Location
(Main Street)
Location (Cross
Streets)
Speed
Limit
85th
Percentile
Speed
Number of Daily
Vehicles >10 MPH
Over Posted Limit
% of Daily Vehicles
> 10 MPH Over
Posted Limit
Additional Reasoning for SSC
MLK Jr. Way Between 42nd and
43rd 30 MPH 37 MPH 540 7.43% High observed speeds with two travel lanes in each direction, uncontrolled crosswalks
San Pablo
Avenue
Between Athens and
Sycamore 25 MPH 32 MPH 585 6.72% Concentration of speed related injury collisions; uncontrolled crosswalks
West Grand Between Chestnut
and Linden 30 MPH 39 MPH 1,538 11.7% High observed speeds from vehicles traveling to and from freeways; preschool on the block
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 9
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
Request for Proposals (RFP) and Evaluation Process
O
n December 24, 2024, Oakland released a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking professional services to implement and operate a Parking & Citation Management System (PCMS), an Automated Speed Safety Camera System (SSC), and Related Solutions & Services. Vendors had the option of bidding on one or several of the RFP components. The RFP closed on February 21, 2025.
Oak
land received two proposals for the speed camera portion of the RFP:
• V
erra Mobility: $4,860,000 for a five-year operation period (six-year contract term), or $4,500 per camera per month of operation
• Elovate: $8,975,412 for a five-year operation period (six-year contract term), or $8,311 per
camera per month of operation
S
taff rated proposals based on the criteria outlined in the RFP, including experience, technical specifications, oral/solution demonstration (interviews), and cost. The availability analysis conducted by the Department of Workforce and Employment Standards (DWES) set local business enterprise/small local business enterprise (LBE/SLBE) participation to 0%, given the lack of local firms providing these highly specialized and technical systems. However, the evaluation criteria allowed a small number of bonus points for LBE/SLBE participation from subconsultants.
A
t the conclusion of the evaluation process, staff recommend awarding the contract to Verra Mobility under the following rationale:
• D
epth of experience globally
• Experience implementing a program under AB 645 criteria as the implementing partner for San Francisco
• Cost competitiveness
• Partnership with local subconsultants and a community-based organization S
ince Verra Mobility is headquartered in Arizona, award of the contract will require a waiver of the Arizona Boycott Policy, Resolution 82727 C.M.S., passed in 2010 in opposition to State Bill 1070. Resolution 82727 C.M.S. urges “City Departments…to the extent practicable, and in instances where this is no significant additional cost to the City or conflict with the law, to refrain from entering into any new or amended contracts to purchase goods or services from any company that is headquartered in Arizona.” In this case, staff believe a waiver justified given the significant additional cost of selecting another vendor, as well as the highly technical and specialized nature of the procurement.
S
hould the City Council decide not to award the contract to Verra Mobility due to Resolution 82727 C.M.S. or other factors, implementation of Assembly Bill 645, along with its life-saving benefits, would be delayed and potentially jeopardized. Moreover, the City would need to use additional transportation revenue that would otherwise go towards other transportation improvements in Oakland.
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 10
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
Project Schedule
The nex
t steps towards implementing speed safety cameras are as follows:
• Award a vendor contract, adopt the impact report and use policy, and take other necessary actions (June 2025)
• Initiate a broad public outreach campaign in advance of program start (summer/fa ll
2025)
• Ins
tall camera equipment at 18 locations (summer/fall 2025) • Begin camera operation with a 60-day warning period (fall/winter 2025) S
peed cameras support the following citywide priorities:
H
olistic community safety: SSC have improved transportation safety for users of all modes (walking, rolling, biking, driving, etc.) where implemented in other cities, and are likely to have similar impacts in Oakland.
V
ibrant, sustainable infrastructure: By slowing traffic on Oakland streets, SSC may encourage more people to use sustainable modes such as walking and biking.
R
esponsive, trustworthy government: SSC responds to a well-documented need for improved traffic safety on Oakland streets. They also provide a method of traffic enforcement that minimizes interaction with law enforcement personnel.
F
ISCAL IMPACT
The
City recommends moving forward with the contract bid from Verra Mobility of $4,860,000 for a five-year operation period (six-year contract term), or $4,500 per camera per month of operation. Monthly camera costs become payable once the sixty-day warning period commences, and cease after the 60th month of operation. Oakland has secured $2.7M to support the recommended contract cost from a grant from the Alameda Country Transportation Commission’s (Alameda CTC) Capital Improvement Program ($2M from Fund 2214, Project 1007571),P1007571 with matching funds from Alameda County CTC direct local distributions ($700,000 from Fund 2219, Project 1007571). Additional operations funding for three new positions to support citation processing is programmed in the proposed Fiscal Year 2025-2027 biennial budget.
The r
emaining $2.16M in funding to support contract costs and program operations is anticipated to come from citation revenue. This revenue will be placed in Oakland’s Traffic Safety Fund (Fund 2416). Surplus revenue must be dedicated to traffic calming improvements as per AB 645. Since this is a new program, actual revenue cannot be determined at this time.
Should revenue be insufficient to cover the remaining $2.16M in contract costs, the City will reallocate revenue from other transportation capital and operating sources; seek additional grant funding; or pause the program as an item of last resort.
P
UBLIC OUTREACH / INTEREST
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 11
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
The dev
elopment of AB 645 and prior bills related to automated speed enforcement included extensive public outreach and engagement with the public and stakeholders concerned with traffic violence throughout California. Oakland specific outreach included consultation with the Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, the Privacy Advisory Commission, and various advocacy groups.
To m
eet the provisions of AB 645, Oakland is required to “consult and work collaboratively with relevant local stakeholder organizations, including racial equity, privacy protection, and economic justice groups.” During 2024, Oakland staff briefed City Council, along with several commissions, on the speed camera program, including the Bicyclist and Pedestrian Advisory Commission, the Privacy Advisory Commission, the Mayor's Commission on Aging, and the Commission on Persons with Disabilities. City staff also met with several community and advocacy groups, including Bike East Bay, Transport Oakland, Trybe, Communities for Care for Lower Prescott, the Anti-Police Terror Project, the Traffic Violence Rapid Response Group, and the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. Some of the key themes and feedback that emerged from these sessions included:
• Support for implementation, along with urgency to begin the program as soon as possible • A desire to expand the pilot program beyond the 18 locations authorized for Oakland by AB-645
• Concerns around obscured license plates, stolen vehicles, and people not paying c
itations
• A preference for engineering projects over speed cameras, with several participants urging the department to pursue both
• Desire to see program data as soon as possible
Oa
kDOT will implement a public information campaign about SSC in advance of program rollout. Finally, OakDOT is required to complete several steps prior to March 1 of the fifth year in which the system has been implemented, including data on program implementation, a summary of costs and revenues, and a racial and economic equity impact analysis developed in collaboration with local stakeholder groups. This analysis will inform the potential continuation and/or expansion of the program beyond the fifth year. Beyond AB-645 requirements, Oakland is committed to publishing an interim report 18 months following implementation, in addition to sharing data at periodic intervals regarding the program.
CO
ORDINATION
Oa
kDOT is actively coordinating the rollout of speed safety cameras with internal and external stakeholders, including:
• The P
arking and Mobility Division within OakDOT on a combined Request for Proposals for parking citation management and speed safety cameras to be released this summer; • The Safe Streets Division within OakDOT to identify parallel investments that can i
ncrease the impact of speed cameras (e.g., citywide signage, signal retiming on other corridors, etc.);
Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 12
Public Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
• The Safe Oakland Streets (SOS) core team, including the Department of Race and Equity (DRE), the Oakland Police Department (OPD) and the City Administrator’s Office (CAO);
• The Oakland Public Library and Department of Public Works on potential fine diversion programs (e.g., community service); and
• AB 645 pilot cities – San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, Glendale, and Long Beach through monthly calls and frequent check-ins.
SUSTAINABLE OPPORTUNITIES
Economic: Speed-related collisions have tremendous economic costs at the individual and societal levels. Reducing collisions helps to minimize the burdens on individuals (car repair, healthcare costs) and the city (lawsuits).
Environmental: Speeding vehicles disincentivize people from using non-motorized modes, such as walking and biking, due to perceptions around safety. Speeding and the energy required to accelerate/decelerate from higher speeds are also typically less environmentally efficient than traveling at slower speeds.
Race & Equity: Given the distribution of Oakland’s High Injury Network, people with color are disproportionately impacted by speeding drivers. AB-645 contains several provisions that address race and equity, includinga 60-day no-fee warning period once the cameras are turned on; ticket fee reductions between 50% and 80% for low-income populations, as well as a diversion program; civil rather than criminal penalties; a fine violation structure starting at 11MPH (1-10MPH doesn’t get a ticket); and requirements to consult with racial and economic justice groups both prior to and after implementation.
AB-645 also includes an appeals process whereby people can contest notices of violation within 30 days of receiving a notice of violation. If recipients do not agree with the city’s initial response, they may request an administrative hearing conducted in accordance with written procedures established by the Department of Transportation (similar to the process for contesting a parking citation). Phone assistance will be available in English, Spanish, Cantonese, and Mandarin.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Speed camera project implementation is categorically exempt from CEQA per CA Code of Regs, Title 14, Article 19, Section 15301(c), minor alterations of existing streets, sidewalks, gutters, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and similar facilities.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff Recommends That The City Council Adopt A Resolution Authorizing The City Administrator To Enter Into A Professional Services Agreement With Verra Mobility To Implement And Operate A Speed Safety Camera System Under Assembly Bill 645 For A Six- Jestin D. Johnson, City Administrator
Subject: Speed Safety Camera Systems Contract Award
Date: June 10, 2025 Page 13
P
ublic Works and Transportation Committee
June 10, 2025
Year Term S upporting Five Years of Camera Operations In An Amount Not To Exceed Four Million, Eight-Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Dollars ($4,865,000; Adopt the Speed Camera Use Policy and Impact Report; Waiving the Arizona Boycott Policy, Resolution 82727 C.M.S.; And Adopting Appropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings.
For questions regarding this report, please contact Craig Raphael, Project Manager I, at [email protected] or 510-238-7229.
Respectfully submitted,
J
osh Rowan
Director, Department of Transportation
Acting Director, Department of Public Works
Reviewed by:
Jamie Parks, Assistant Director
P
repared by:
Craig Raphael, Project Manager I
Funding Strategy Team
A
ttachments (2):
1) S
peed Camera Impact Report
2) Speed Camera Use Policy
Josh Rowan (May 27, 2025 10:03 PDT)