Zuniga, Diana
From: pjl <
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 11:48 AM
To: eComment
Subject: April 21 Council meeting
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.
Discuss and Consider Directing the City Manager to Direct Staff to Draft and Bring Back a Resolution for Council Consideration That Would be Sent to Assemblymember Avelino Valencia and Senator Tom Umberg, Requesting27.
That the State Legislature Amend AB 645 ( Friedman) to Allow the City of Santa Ana to Establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program As Soon As Possible— Councilmember Bacerra Item 27 " speed cameras".... Please affirm this. We have had no fewer than 7 deaths on Segerstrom East of Bristol because of speed. Two adults in one crash, 4 teenagers and a 20 yo in another. We need to stop these needless crashes injuries, and deaths.
Pete
So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it, for him it is sin." James 4: 17 Please help prevent spam. Use the BCCfeature if you need to broadcast a mail. Please do not forward this e mail address. If you have received this in error, please notify sender and delete the original. This message is confidential and should not be rebroadcast without permission.
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Ann A Crane <
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 12:23 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Traffic cameras
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of SantaAna. Use caution when opening attachmentsor links.
I recommend we add them on streets that have seen accidents and/ or deaths due to soeeding or other unsafe driving.
Pinewoods resident
i
Flores, Dora
From: JayBeeber <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April21, 20269:34AM
To: eComment
Subject: AgendaItem27
Attachments: NMACommentsonAgendaItem27.pdf
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
AttachedaremycommentsregardingAgendaItem27andtheproposalfor SantaAnato seekinclusioninthe AB 645speedcamerapilotprogram.
Pleaseincludethisletterinthepublicrecordandcirculateit to thefull Council.
JayBeeber
ExecutiveDirector - Policy
818-205-4790Cell
NationalMotoristsAssociation | 1-800-882-2785
1001ArboretumDr Ste120 | Waunakee, WI 53597
NMA istheVoiceof Reasonfor DrivingFreedom
1 Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is JayBeeber, Executive Director of Policy for the National Motorists Association. I appreciate the opportunity to submit these written comments on Agenda Item 27, Councilmember Bacerra’s request to consider the use of speed cameras in Santa Ana.
I have worked on the issue of automated enforcement since 2010 and have extensive experience in this area. Before considering a resolution asking the state legislature to amend AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana to participate in the speed camera pilot program, Council members should be aware of the following:
Elected Officials Must Honor their Agreements
The speed camera pilot program authorized under AB 645 was the product of extensive negotiations over multiple legislative sessions. Those negotiations produced a specific agreement: a maximum of six participating cities, each with a defined number of camera installations. Numerous stakeholder groups negotiated in good faith with the bill’s author, Assemblymember Friedman, and relied on those terms when deciding how to invest their time and effort during the legislative process.
Even before the pilot program began, legislators approved an expansion to PCHin Malibu. Now additional cities, possibly including Santa Ana, are asking legislators to set aside agreements that were negotiated in good faith. That is a mistake. If legislators can so easily discard negotiated limits before the pilot is even underway, why should the public trust similar commitments in the future? Public confidence in our institutions is already dangerously low. When legislators walk away from prior agreements, that confidence erodes even further. The City of Santa Ana should not be asking the legislature to break the deal that made AB 645 possible in the first place.
The Vast Majority of Speed Camera Tickets are Issued to Motorists Traveling at the Natural Speed of the Roadway
The speed limit on a number of streets in Santa Ana is unrealistically low for the roadway design. With a few outliers, this is why drivers “speed” on these roadways, not because they are a group of wanton scofflaws.
For example, the operational speed of free-flow traffic on Main Street between Washington Avenue and 1st Street is 40 mph at the 85th percentile, while the posted speed limit is 30 mph. Automated tickets issued under AB 645 begin at 11 mph over the posted speed limit. If speed cameras were placed on this segment, drivers would be ticketed for traveling just 1 mph over the natural speed of the roadway. Similarly, the operational speed on multi- lane Harbor Boulevard from MacArthur Boulevard to the north city limits is 47 to 48 mph, while the posted speed limit is 40 mph. Under the speed camera pilot program, drivers going just 3 to 4 mph above that natural speed would be ticketed.
In effect, the government builds roadways that encourage drivers to feel comfortable traveling above the desired speed, then installs ticketing cameras to cite drivers for doing exactly what the roadway design encourages. That is a classic speed trap.
If officials set speed limits more realistically, or designed roadways to be self- enforcing at lower speeds, the vast majority of these violations would disappear overnight.
Proper Traffic Engineering Countermeasures are More Effective than Ticketing Cameras
Before considering additional enforcement in the form of automated ticketing machines, the City of Santa Ana should first take all reasonable measures to employ engineering safety countermeasures that naturally reduce speeds to desired levels.
Regardless of one’s general views about ticketing cameras, many other solutions are at least as effective, if not more effective. A study in Riverside, California, showed that speed feedback signs were not only more effective than speed cameras, but also more cost-effective. In another series of studies, field tests using driver feedback signs were conducted by the City of Clarksville, Tennessee, and the Maine Department of Transportation. Average speeds were reduced by up to 23%, 85th percentile speeds were reduced by up to 18%, and vehicles traveling 6+ mph over the posted speed limit were reduced by up to 62%. That is a far better result than what is typically seen with speed cameras, and speed feedback signs do not bring with them the economic and equity problems inherent in camera enforcement. Their effectiveness can also be enhanced when paired with speed limit signs equipped with flashing beacons.
It is almost certain that proper engineering will prove far more effective in improving real- time speed compliance than issuing automated tickets weeks after an alleged violation. Until these types of low- cost improvements are installed and evaluated throughout the city, it is premature to consider deploying speed ticketing cameras.
Speed Camera Ticketing Programs Excessively Burden Low Income and Minority Communities
A study by the Woodstock Institute, The Debt Spiral: How Chicago’s Vehicle Ticketing Practices Unfairly Burden Low-Income and Minority Communities, clearly shows how automated enforcement can have devastating effects on marginalized communities. 1
According to this study, in 2017, the City of Chicago issued over 3.6 million vehicle- related tickets and warnings. The vast majority of these tickets are issued through Chicago’s massive automated speed and red light camera ticketing 1 https:// woodstockinst. org/ wp- content/ uploads/ 2018/ 06/ The-Debt- Spiral- How- Chicagos- Vehicle-Ticketing- Practices- Unfairly- Burden- Low- Income- and-Minority- Communities- June-2018. pdf
programs. The largest number of tickets was for red light violations, 273,224, followed by speed violations of more than 11 mph over the limit, 250,238. 2 The study found that tickets were more likely to be issued to drivers from low- and moderate- income zip codes and to drivers from minority zip codes than to other drivers. This disparity persisted even though residents in low- and moderate- income areas were less likely than residents in non-LMI areas to commute by driving or to own a vehicle.
Figure 7 on page 6 of the study shows that significantly more speed and red- light camera tickets were issued per capita to drivers from low- and moderate- income zip codes than to drivers from higher- income zip codes.
Likewise, Figure 8 shows that significantly more speed and red- light camera tickets were issued per capita to drivers from minority zip codes than to drivers from non- minority zip codes.
2 In 2020, in an attempt to address a budget deficit, Chicago lowered the threshold for issuing automated speeding tickets to 6 mph over the speed limit, effectively tripling the number of tickets issued.
As to camera placement, Figure 9 shows that although LMI zip codes made up only 43% of Chicago’s zip codes, 54% of Chicago’s speed cameras were located in those zip codes. Similarly, Figure 10 shows that although minority zip codes made up 50% of Chicago’s zip codes, 59% of Chicago’s speed cameras were located there.
It is also important to note that even if the placement of ticketing cameras and the number of tickets issued were equal between minority and non- minority communities, or between lower- income and higher- income communities, these tickets would still have a disparate impact on the city’s most vulnerable residents.
It is well known that lower- income and minority communities are more likely to be financially burdened by these types of tickets. According to the Woodstock Institute study, tickets issued to drivers from LMI and minority zip codes were more likely to go unpaid, and therefore accrue additional fines, than those issued to drivers from non- LMI and non- minority zip codes. Drivers from LMI and minority zip codes were also more likely to have their driver’s licenses suspended for failure to pay tickets than drivers from non- LMI and non- minority zip codes.
As a result, ticket recipients from LMI and minority zip codes were twice as likely as recipients in non- LMI and non- minority zip codes to file for bankruptcy.
How Bad Could this Be in Santa Ana?
San Francisco’s speed camera program is on track to issue approximately $ 17 million in tickets per year. Based on Santa Ana’s potential camera allocation, the city could impose a devastating $ 10 million ticket burden on its residents and visitors. This would result in massive economic hardship, especially for those of lesser means, who could individually face hundreds of dollars in fines.
Worse, the huge economic damage caused by this new ticketing scheme likely will not make roadways safer. The Illinois Policy Institute found that, contrary to city officials’ claims of safety improvements, after years of issuing hundreds of millions of dollars in automated speeding tickets, the City of Chicago actually saw a 14% increase in traffic fatalities in 2021.[ 4] A 2017 study in Great Britain found that any potential safety effects from speed cameras were highly localized and that more collisions were induced as the distance from the cameras increased. A 2013 study in Arizona found that “highway speed cameras did not independently affect the incidence of motor vehicle collisions.”[5] University of Illinois- Chicago research also concluded that there was “little relationship between the number of tickets issued and the safety impact of cameras.”
What is especially troubling about the speed camera pilot program is that it is being promoted as a benefit to low- income communities and communities of color through claims that ticketing cameras are color- blind and would serve as an alternative to live police officers. By now, it should be clear that nothing could be further from the truth. Rather than replacing live police enforcement, automated ticketing cameras would be an additional form of enforcement, leading to a surge in the number of citations issued that would fall most heavily on marginalized communities. Nothing in the bill would prevent police officers from continuing to make stops as they do now. The cameras would simply issue a significantly higher number of citations than live officers, imposing an additional financial burden on top of any existing issues with live policing. As the University of Illinois- Chicago study stated, “The volume of automated tickets issued, the spatial location of cameras, and the structure of fines, fees and forfeitures may in fact reinforce racial and economic inequities.”
Moreover, a significant number of high- risk roads designed for higher speeds are located in minority neighborhoods, largely because of a long- standing lack of investment in road safety infrastructure. Under prior legislation, the government has been authorized to classify these high- speed thoroughfares as “safety corridors,” where the speed limit may be reduced by as much as 12 mph below the design speed. Automated cameras would then issue massive numbers of tickets to residents in these low- income communities for traveling 11 mph over this arbitrarily reduced limit, with the revenue used to fix the very problems created by the government’s historic lack of investment. In that sense, minority communities would suffer twice: first through disinvestment that produced higher fatality rates, and then through the imposition of millions of dollars in fines and fees to remedy that neglect.
There are better alternatives for reducing speed-related crashes without these negative impacts, including roundabouts, speed humps or speed tables, traffic circles, and other traffic- calming measures that do not require increased surveillance to automate enforcement and issue more tickets.
Automated Enforcement is Bad for the City’s Economy
While somemay relish the prospectof collecting millions of dollars in fine revenue, that is not how these programs usually work out. After paying the vendor, administration, and adjudication costs, the city receivesonly a small portion of the ticket revenue. While millions of dollars may be extracted from the local economy, far less actually accruesto the city. In addition to residentshaving lessmoney to spendat local businesses, it is well known that visitors who receive automated tickets often vow never to return.
Further, AB 645 requires revenuesto be usedfirst to recover program costs, and cities must also maintain their preexisting local funding commitment for traffic- calming measuresin order to remain eligible. Any excessrevenuemust go to traffic- calming measures, with unused excess eventually reverting to the Active Transportation Program. In other words, this is not a dependable general- fund revenue tool. Oakland now saysits program costsabout $1 million per year to operate.
Overall, using speedcamerasas a mechanismto generaterevenuefor desired government projects is not only bad for residents, it is self- defeating.
The Speed Camera Program is Legally Suspect
Cities considering whether to operate a speed camera program under AB 645 should understand that they would be stepping into a pilot program with real litigation risk, not a settled enforcement model. AB 645 raises serious legal questions because it applies existing California speed laws through a stripped- down camera process that gives motorists fewer practical protections than ordinary traffic enforcement, while still imposing liability and collecting money. That design creates serious due process and equal protection vulnerabilities. Participating cities could be forced to defend costly lawsuits, unwind their programs, and refund large sumsthat may already have beenspenton vendors and operating costs.
That risk is not hypothetical. In March 2026, a Florida court dismisseda red-light cameracitation after holding that the statutory schemewas unconstitutional asapplied becauseit treatedthe registeredowner asresponsibleand shifted the burden away from the government to prove the actual violation. California’s statuteraisessimilar issuesbecauseit also usesa registered-owner ticketing model to enforce driver-based traffic laws through documentary presumptions and a thinner hearing process. That is more than enough to invite expensive test-caselitigation againstany city that jumps in early.
Cities should also rememberwhat happenswhen cameraprograms unravel after money has already been collected and spent. On Long Island, Suffolk County has faced potential refund exposure of roughly $ 91 million over illegal red- light camera add-on fees, while Nassau has faced litigation over far larger sums tied to unlawful camera charges. The financial and political damage is real. AB 645 itself requires participating jurisdictions to track revenues, costs, dismissals, and delinquent violations, which means the exposure will be visible if the legal foundation cracks. The prudent course is to wait until the pilot cities have absorbed the first round of legal hallenges and courts have had time to sort out whether this program is actually defensible.
I thank you for your consideration.
Jay Beeber
Executive Director - Policy
National Motorists Association
Member - ITE
[email protected]
818-205-4790
Flores, Dora
From: VenessaVargas <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April21,
To: eComment; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil; Amezcua, Valerie Subject: SpeedSafetySystempilotProgram
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
I'min favorof anythingthatwill finallystopthestreetracing, illegalminibikes, anddrunkanddruggeddrivers onMainandWarnerandFlower.
Ohman, I wouldloveto nothaveto seebabiesinthebackof vehicleswhiletheirparentsarebehindthewheel knockingbackbudlights, tallboys, smokingweedandmeth.
Itssooutandproudinmyward (PENALOZA) I wonderwheretheenforcementis. EspeciallyafterMother's AgainstDrunkDrivingwasatacouncilmeetingnotfarback. AndthenI seemendrinkinganddrivingwith theirbabiesin thecar. That'snotallI see.
Boyohboy, wouldI loveto seeSAPDenforcingin thisneighborhood. I wouldreallyloveto notfeellikeI live inthecenterof aNascartrack. EspeciallywhenI seebabiesinmovingvehiclesthatarebeingdrivenbymen chuggingdownbeer.
Sapd, despitewhatcertaincommanderskeepfromyou, we'd loveto seeyouinthiscommunity. Drivingupand downtheresidentialstreets. Theparentsof thosebabieswouldloveto seeyoutoo. 1 Flores, Dora
From: KatieDillard <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April
To: eComment
Subject: Pleasereadaloud, PublicComment: VotenoonamendmentstoAB645thatincrease automatedsurvelliancesystems
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
I amwritingtodaybecauseI havebeenmadeawarethatit it stheintentionof Councilmember Bacerra's reuqestto amendAB645to addautomatedsurveillancesystemsto the survillancenetwork in the city and throughoutOrangeCounty. I vehementlysay thatthe communitydoesnotwantthese camerasandaskyou to voteno on this addition. Thesecamerasandthe networksthatsupportthem are not secureandcreatemoresafetyandliabilityissuesfor the communityandyouas a council thanany benefittheymayhavefor survelliance. Thefacevalidityof theiruseisn't eventhereas just havingvideosdoesn't improvepublicsafety. Pleaseuseanyadditionalfundsfor safetyservicesto increaseservicesto peoplelivingin povertyor enhancingcommunitysafetypatrolsfocusedon watch doggingaggressiveuseof forceinappropriatelyby currentsafetyworkers. Useanyfundingsavedto provdieenhancedtrainingto currentsafetystaffaroundmentalhealthdeescalationor community focusedrelationshipand engagementsupport. Anythingthatis evidencebasedandsciencebacked for actuallycreatingincreasedsafetyin our OCcommunitybut not increasedcamerasurvelliance that's onlybenefitis to line the pocketsof thesystemdevelopers, furtherremovehyperlocalsafety effortsANDdecreasesupportfromreal, trainedhumanbeingsneededin our community. thankyou,
concernedoc resident
1 Flores, Dora
From: BulmaroVicente <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April21, 202611:23AM
To: eComment
Subject: PublicCommentCC4.21.26 - Item27
Attachments: 4.21.26. SACC- ChispaItem27 .pdf
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hi,
Onbehalfof Chispa, pleasefindourletterfor item27.
In Solidarity,
Boomer
PolicyandPoliticalDirector | Chispa
e: [email protected]: 714.747.4271
1505E 17thStreetSuite117SantaAna, CA92705
Chispais building apolitical homefor youngLatinxsin OrangeCounty! Pleaseconsidermakinga donationto helpusbuild our casita. Chispais aprojectof TidesAdvocacy, a501c4non-profit organization.
2 Flores, Dora
From: HaleyHorton <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April
To: eComment
Subject: Item27
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Citycouncilandstaffmembers,
IhaveasonwhoisastudentinaSantaAnaschool, whoislearningtodrivethisyear. OfcourseIwantsaferstreets. But notatthecostofhisrighttoprivacy, andprotectionfromoutsidegroupswithpossibleillintentaccessinghis whereabouts.
WhenAB645waspassedin2023, it facedoppositionfrommajorcivilrightsandcommunityorganizations, including HumanRightsWatch, BlackLivesMatterCalifornia, andACLUCaliforniaAction. Thesegroupsinformedusallabout privacy, datacollection, potentialmisuse, andthedisproportionateimpactautomatedenforcementsystemscanhave onlow-income, andimmigrantcommunities. Therearealsoimplementationconcerns. CitieslikeSanFranciscohave experienceddelaysandchallengesinrollingoutspeedcameraprograms, andothercitieshavetopaytoremovetheir camerasafterthepubliclearnsofthemingreatnumbers, sothecostandwastearedouble.
Importantly, thereareproven, non-surveillancealternativestoimprovetrafficsafety. Measuressuchasspeedhumps, raisedcrosswalks, bulb-outs, lanereductions, chicanes, androundaboutscaneffectivelyslowtrafficandimprovesafety withoutrelyingondatacollectionorenforcementtechnology. TheCityhasinvestedinthesetypesofinfrastructure improvementsandshouldcontinueto. Wesupportimprovementsthatmakestreetssaferforallusers, especially pedestriansandcyclists.
ItiscriticalthattheCitytakeamoredeliberateandcommunitycenteredapproachbeforeprovidingdirectionthat wouldadvancetheestablishmentofaSpeedSafetyPilotProgram. WerespectfullyurgetheCounciltodirectstaffto:
ConductcomprehensiveresearchonhowothercitieshaveimplementedAB645, includingtimelines, costs, outcomes, andanychallengesorunintendedconsequences
Engageinrobustcommunityoutreach, particularlywithimmigrantcommunitiesandthosemostlikelytobeimpacted, beforepursuinglegislativechanges
DeterminethefiscalimpactofsuchaProgram, itsfundingsource, itsfeasibilityandprioritywithMeasureXbeginning tosunsetApril1, 2029. TheCouncilneedstobewaryofexpendituresthatmayoutlastrevenue IaskthattheCouncilpauseonadvancingthisresolutionandinsteadprioritizeresearch, transparencyandcommunity engagement.
Thankyou,
HHorton
1 Flores, Dora
From: Fatima <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: eComment
Subject: AgendaItem27
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
My nameisFatimaandI writehereasanOCresidenturgingthecouncilto opposeagendaitem27. Across California, policehaveillegallysharedlicenseplatedatawithICEandBorderPatrol, thereforeimplementing ALPRsputsmuchof theSantaAnacommunityatrisk. Thisautomatedticketingalsofurthersstarkracial disparitiesin criminalizinglow-incomeLatino, Black, andimmigrantcommunities, asshownbyProPublica's Chicagocasestudies. Wecanandshouldprioritizesaferstreetswithoutincreasingsurveillance--forexample, thiscouldlooklikeimplementingspeedbumps, rethinkingurbanplanning, andincreasingavailabilityof public transportation.
2 Flores, Dora
From: KatherineDerrington <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, April21, 2026
To: eComment
Subject: SafeStreetswithoutSurveillance
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
DearSantaAnaCityCouncil,
IamwritingtoexpressourstrongconcernsregardingItem #27, whichproposesaresolutionrequestingamendmentsto AB645toallowtheCityofSantaAna (City) toestablishaSpeedSafetySystemPilotProgram (Program). Isupport prioritizingsafestreets, withoutsurveillance.
IappreciatetheCity’sinterestinimprovingtrafficsafetyandreducingharmonourstreets, Itoowanttoseesafe streets. However, IurgetheCityCounciltoproceedwithcautionandtakeadditionalstepstoevaluatealternative, non- surveillancebasedtrafficmeasuresbeforeprovidingdirectiontostaffthatwouldadvancetheestablishmentofaSpeed SafetySystemPilotProgram.
WhenAB645wasoriginallydebatedandpassedin2023, it facedsignificantoppositionfromcivilrightsandcommunity organizations, includingHumanRightsWatch, BlackLivesMatterCalifornia, andACLUCaliforniaAction. Thesegroups raisedconcernsaboutprivacy, datacollection, potentialmisuse, andthedisproportionateimpactautomated enforcementsystemscanhaveonlow-income, andimmigrantcommunities. Therearealsoimplementationconcerns.
CitieslikeSanFranciscohaveexperienceddelaysandchallengesinrollingoutspeedcameraprograms, raisingquestions aboutfeasibility, cost, andeffectiveness.
Importantly, thereareproven, non-surveillancealternativestoimprovetrafficsafety. Measuressuchasspeedhumps, raisedcrosswalks, bulb-outs, lanereductions, chicanes, androundaboutscaneffectivelyslowtrafficandimprovesafety withoutrelyingondatacollectionorenforcementtechnology. TheCityhasinvestedinthesetypesofinfrastructure improvementsandshouldcontinueto. Wesupportimprovementsthatmakestreetssaferforallusers, especially pedestriansandcyclists.
ItiscriticalthattheCitytakeamoredeliberateandcommunitycenteredapproachbeforeprovidingdirectionthat wouldadvancetheestablishmentofaSpeedSafetyPilotProgram. WerespectfullyurgetheCounciltodirectstaffto:
ConductcomprehensiveresearchonhowothercitieshaveimplementedAB645, includingtimelines, costs, outcomes, andanychallengesorunintendedconsequences
Engageinrobustcommunityoutreach, particularlywithimmigrantcommunitiesandthosemostlikelytobeimpacted, beforepursuinglegislativechanges
DeterminethefiscalimpactofsuchaProgram, itsfundingsource, itsfeasibilityandprioritywithMeasureXbeginning tosunsetApril1, 2029. TheCouncilneedstobewaryofexpendituresthatmayoutlastrevenue IaskthattheCouncilpauseonadvancingthisresolutionandinsteadprioritizeresearch, transparencyandcommunity engagement.
3 Thankyouforyourconsideration,
KatherineDerrington
4 Flores, Dora
From: LexxyS. <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday,
To: eComment
Subject: AgendaItem #27: PrioritizeSafeStreetswithoutSurveillance Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
IamwritingtoexpressourstrongconcernsregardingItem #27, whichproposesaresolutionrequestingamendmentsto AB645toallowtheCityofSantaAna (City) toestablishaSpeedSafetySystemPilotProgram (Program). Isupport prioritizingsafestreets, withoutsurveillance.
IappreciatetheCity’sinterestinimprovingtrafficsafetyandreducingharmonourstreets, Itoowanttoseesafe streets. However, IurgetheCityCounciltoproceedwithcautionandtakeadditionalstepstoevaluatealternative, non- surveillancebasedtrafficmeasuresbeforeprovidingdirectiontostaffthatwouldadvancetheestablishmentofaSpeed SafetySystemPilotProgram.
WhenAB645wasoriginallydebatedandpassedin2023, it facedsignificantoppositionfromcivilrightsandcommunity organizations, includingHumanRightsWatch, BlackLivesMatterCalifornia, andACLUCaliforniaAction. Thesegroups raisedconcernsaboutprivacy, datacollection, potentialmisuse, andthedisproportionateimpactautomated enforcementsystemscanhaveonlow-income, andimmigrantcommunities. Therearealsoimplementationconcerns.
CitieslikeSanFranciscohaveexperienceddelaysandchallengesinrollingoutspeedcameraprograms, raisingquestions aboutfeasibility, cost, andeffectiveness.
Importantly, thereareproven, non-surveillancealternativestoimprovetrafficsafety. Measuressuchasspeedhumps, raisedcrosswalks, bulb-outs, lanereductions, chicanes, androundaboutscaneffectivelyslowtrafficandimprovesafety withoutrelyingondatacollectionorenforcementtechnology. TheCityhasinvestedinthesetypesofinfrastructure improvementsandshouldcontinueto. Wesupportimprovementsthatmakestreetssaferforallusers, especially pedestriansandcyclists.
ItiscriticalthattheCitytakeamoredeliberateandcommunitycenteredapproachbeforeprovidingdirectionthat wouldadvancetheestablishmentofaSpeedSafetyPilotProgram. WerespectfullyurgetheCounciltodirectstaffto:
ConductcomprehensiveresearchonhowothercitieshaveimplementedAB645, includingtimelines, costs, outcomes, andanychallengesorunintendedconsequences
Engageinrobustcommunityoutreach, particularlywithimmigrantcommunitiesandthosemostlikelytobeimpacted, beforepursuinglegislativechanges
DeterminethefiscalimpactofsuchaProgram, itsfundingsource, itsfeasibilityandprioritywithMeasureXbeginning tosunsetApril1, 2029. TheCouncilneedstobewaryofexpendituresthatmayoutlastrevenue IaskthattheCouncilpauseonadvancingthisresolutionandinsteadprioritizeresearch, transparencyandcommunity engagement.
SentfrommyiPhone
5 Flores, Dora
From: [email protected]
Sent: PM
To: eComment
Subject: SpeedSafetyPilotProgram
Attention: ThisemailoriginatedfromoutsideofCityofSantaAna. Usecautionwhenopeningattachmentsorlinks.
Hi,
I’maconcernedOCresidentandwantedto urgeyouto notimplementmoresurveillancetechnologyto reduce speeding.
TheCityof SantaAnais consideringaskingour StateRepresentativesto amendAssemblyBill 645to allowthe Cityof SantaAnato establisha SpeedSafetyPilotProgram. I supportprioritizingsafe streets, withoutsurveillance.
A Programwouldrely on automatedcameraandradarsystemsthatcaptureimagesof vehiclesand licenseplatesto enforcespeedviolations. Whilethis mayofferoneapproachto addressingtraffic safety, it alsorepresentsan expansionof surveillancetechnologythatwarrantscarefulconsideration.
TheCityCouncilmustproceedwithcautionandtakeadditionalstepsto evaluatealternative, non- surveillancebasedtrafficmeasuresbeforeprovidingdirectionto staffthatwouldadvancethe establishmentof a SpeedSafetySystemPilot Program.
AtheCityconsidersadditionalautomatedenforcementtools, it is essentialto evaluatethe full impact of thesetechnologiesandensuretheyalignwiththe City’s valuesandcommitmentsto protectingour mostvulnerablecommunities.
It is criticalthatthe Citytakea moredeliberateandcommunitycenteredapproachbeforeproviding directionthatwouldadvancethe establishmentof a SpeedSafetyPilotProgram. TheCouncilmust pauseon advancingthis resolutionandinsteadprioritizeresearch, transparencyandcommunity engagement.
Thankyou!
1