Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRedflex Traffic Systems, Inc. - 2009-03-02 Ji �• CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Fred Wilson, City Administrator FROM: Kenneth W. Small, Chief of Police W SUBJECT: Photo Enforced Red Light Violations DATE: May 27, 2009 On March 2, 2009 the city council approved an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. to install red light camera systems at selected intersections in the City of Huntington Beach. Approval of the agreement initiated phase one of the project which was to conduct a survey of the highest priority intersections to determine which ones might be appropriate for automated red light enforcement. After a thorough review of all the information provided, it was determined that no intersections are appropriate for automated enforcement of red light violations. Therefore, the city has initiated action to terminate the agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. at no cost to either party pursuant to Exhibit A of the agreement. Because police department staff has determined that no intersections are appropriate for installation of this equipment, there is no need for further action by the city council. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please let me know. June 1, 2009 Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc 15020 North 741h Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Attention: Ms. Karen Finley Re: TERMINATION OF CONTRACT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. FOR PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM Dear Ms. Finley: Thank you for working with the city during our consideration of implementing the Redflex Traffic System Photo Red Light Enforcement Program. After consideration, the City of Huntington Beach has determined that there are no intersections within the city that are appropriate for the Redflex Photo Red Light System or Program. Therefore, the City is terminating this agreement at no cost to either party pursuant to Exhibit A of the Agreement. Sincerely, Kenneth W. Small Chief of Police KWS/rw Council/Agency Meeting Held: O Deferred/Continued to: A. �, A rove - lConditio aIlyDp � ❑ Denied e "`�'�- City Ier�s Signatu e Council Meeting Date: 3/2/2009 Department ID Number: PD-09-003 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY OUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, City Adminis PREPARED BY: KENNETH W. SMALL, Chief of P lice SUBJECT: RED-LIGHT CAMERA ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM CONTRACT Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Submitted for your consideration, this contract proposal to install red light cameras at selected intersections in the City of Huntington Beach. Approval will initiate Phase 1 of this process. This includes a survey to determine desirable intersections for an automated red light enforcement system. Funding Source: Total appropriation for fiscal year 2008-09 will be determined after Phase 1. Approval of this action will not require a new appropriation. Recommended Action: Motion to: • Approve and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. for Photo Red Light Enforcement Program. • Authorize the City Administrator to negotiate and execute an agreement with Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. to survey, install, support and maintain an automated red light photo enforcement system at intersections designated by the City. Alternative Action(s):Do not approve the contract; reject the project, and direct staff accordingly. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PD-09-003 Analysis: According to the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), each year red light violations cause as many as 200,000 traffic collisions and 1,000 fatalities. More than half of the fatalities resulting from traffic collisions caused by red light violations are suffered by pedestrians and motorists other than the violator. From November 1, 2007 through November 1, 2008, the Police Department investigated 3,038 traffic collisions, of which 553 were found to have been caused by red light.violations. The goal of the automated red light enforcement program is to improve the safety of the community for vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian traffic by reducing the incidence of vehicles failing to stop for red traffic signals. Typically enforcement of red light violations by officers is very difficult because they have to be in a position behind the red light to view the violation. Once the violation is observed, officers must navigate through the red light to try to apprehend the violator. This action puts both the officer and the motorist at risk, and often prevents a large number of citations being issued for red light violations. The use of automated red light enforcement technology enhances traffic safety, while providing a clear proactive and preventative measure consistent with the Police Department's traffic enforcement mission. Automated red light enforcement programs have a proven track record demonstrating that they consistently reduce red light violations where cameras have been installed, as well as having a deterrent effect throughout the city. Jurisdictions using automated red light enforcement have realized a reduction in red light violations ranging from 10 to 40 percent. The red light photo enforcement cameras operate 24-hours a day, providing traffic enforcement in a more consistent, strategic, safe and efficient manner. During the process to select the most responsive and qualified vendors, the Police Department researched automated red light photo enforcement systems currently in use in California. We found these systems are very unique and the vendors offer a variety of services and support. Based on the vendor evaluation process, staff selected Redflex Traffic System, Inc. as the most qualified vendor for the red light enforcement project using the interagency purchasing process. In order for the City to implement the automated red light enforcement program, certain mandated criteria must be met. California State Law and the California Vehicle Code: Section 21455.5 allows for automated enforcement systems that meet the following requirements: 1. Signage identifying the presence of such systems at intersection approaches. 2. Public announcement of such system at least 30 days prior to enforcement. 3. Commence the program with a 30 day period of issuing only warning notices. 4. Establish guidelines for locations selection. 5. Maintaining controls necessary to assure that only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement are delivered to violators. -2- 2/16/2009 12:52 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PD-09-003 Section 21455.6 requires the City Council to conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of such systems, prior to entering into a contract for the use of such systems. Location Selection: Phase #1 Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. will be provided with a list of highest priority intersections and will conduct surveys to determine if these intersections will be viable for a system. The contract is for the implementation of up to 20 intersections. Identification of enforced intersection will be based on mutual agreement between Redflex and the City as warranted by community safety and traffic needs. The survey will commence upon request and the estimated time for completion is four to six weeks. Upon collecting the data, staff will present the results of the survey to Council for consideration. Below is a listing of the intersections throughout the city with the number of collisions and the number of collision with the primary collision factor (PCF) is running a red light from January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2008. This list also has the number of red light citations that have been issued at the intersection. They are listed in order of highest to lowest occurrence. Location # of collisions Red light PCF Citations issued Beach Blvd at 27 5 22 Edinger Ave Beach Blvd at Stark 22 1 2 St Beach Blvd at 21 2 10 Talbert Ave Beach Blvd at Ellis 20 2 22 Ave Beach Blvd at 20 4 16 Warner Ave Slater Ave at Beach 18 0 11 Blvd Beach Blvd at Heil 17 4 14 Ave Yorktown Ave at 17 1 20 Beach Blvd Beach Blvd at 16 4 10 Garfield Ave Brookhurst St at 15 6 4 Adams Ave The fee for service is $5,879 for each designated approach camera per month. If it is determined by the City of Huntington Beach, at its sole discretion, that there are no intersections that are appropriate for the Redflex Photo Red Light System or Program, then either party may terminate this agreement at no cost to either party. -3- 2/16/2009 12:52 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/2/2009 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PD-09-003 Staffinq: Once the intersection survey is completed and recommendations of approaches are rendered, staff will be able to determine staffing needs. If a significant number of intersection approaches are implemented, then additional staffing may be required to facilitate the operation of the program. Strategic Plan Goal: Provide quality public service with the highest professional standards to meet community expectations and needs, assuring that the City is sufficiently staffed and equipped overall. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachment(s): City Clerk's . . . - Description 1 Agreement Between The City Of Huntington Beach And Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. For Photo Red Light Enforcement Program 2 Staff Report, Red Light Cameras, June 2007 3 Red Light Cameras Fines and Penalties Distribution Breakdown 4 The Redflex Methodology —Video Survey/Calculator Model -4- 2/16/2009 12:52 PM ATTACH M ENT # 1 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AND REDFLEX TRAFFIC SYSTEMS, INC. FOR PHOTO RED LIGHT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM This Agreement (this "Agreement") is made as of this Ak) day of m4AC-111-k , 200� by and between Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. with offices at 6076 Bristol Parkway, Suite 106, Culver City, California 90230 ("Redflex"), and The City of Huntington Beach a municipal corporation, with offices at 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (the "Customer" or"City"). RECITALS WHEREAS, Redflex has exclusive knowledge, possession and ownership of certain equipment, licenses, applications, and citation processes related to digital photo red light enforcement systems; and WHEREAS, the Customer desires to engage the services of Redflex to provide certain equipment, violation processing system and services so that sworn peace officers of the Customer are able to monitor, identify and enforce red light running violations; and WHEREAS, it is the objective of the Customer to reduce the incidence of vehicle collisions at the traffic intersections and City streets that will be monitored pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and for other valuable consideration received, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,the parties agree as follows: AGREEMENT 1. DEFINITIONS. In this Agreement, the words and phrases below shall have the following meanings: I.I. "Authorized Officer" means the Police Project Manager or such other individual(s) as the Customer shall designate to review Potential Violations and to authorize the Issuance of Citations in respect thereto, and in any event, a sworn peace officer or a qualified employee of the Police Department. 1.2. "Authorized Violation" means each Potential Violation in the Violation Data for which authorization to issue a citation in the form of an Electronic Signature is given by the Authorized Officer by using the Redflex System. 1.3. "Citation" means Notice to Appear prescribed by the California Vehicle Code for violations recorded by an automated enforcement system, except during the Warning Period. . 29919 1 1.4. "Confidential or Private Information" means, with respect to any Person, any information, matter or thing of a secret, confidential or private nature, whether or not so labeled, which is connected with such Person's business or methods of operation or concerning any of such Person's suppliers, licensors, licensees, customers or others with whom such Person has a business relationship, and which has current or potential value to such Person or the unauthorized disclosure of which could be detrimental to such Person, including but not limited to: 1.4.1. Matters of a business nature, including but not limited to information relating to development plans, costs, finances, marketing plans, data, procedures, business opportunities, marketing methods, plans and strategies, the costs of construction, installation, materials or components, the prices such Person obtains or has obtained from its clients or customers, or at which such Person sells or has sold its services; and 1.4.2. 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, compilations of information, test results and research and development projects. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "trade secrets" shall mean the broadest and most inclusive interpretation of trade secrets. 1.4.3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Confidential Information will not include information that: (i) was generally available to the public or otherwise part of the public domain at the time of its disclosure, (ii) became generally available to the public or otherwise part of the public domain after its disclosure and other than through any act or omission by any party hereto in breach of this Agreement, (iii) was subsequently lawfully disclosed to the disclosing party by a person other than a party hereto, (iv) was required by a court of competent jurisdiction to be described, or (v)was required by applicable state law to be described. 1.5 " Designated Intersection Approaches" means the Intersection Approaches as Redflex and the Customer may mutually agree in writing. 1.6 Electronic Signature" means the method through which the Authorized Officer indicates his or her approval of the issuance of a Citation in respect of a Potential Violation using the Redflex System. 1.7 Enforcement Documentation" means the necessary and appropriate documentation related to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program, including but not limited to warning letters, citation notices using the specifications of the Judicial Council and the City, 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 information regarding the viewing of images and data collected by the Redflex 29919 2 System), chain of custody records, criteria regarding operational policies for processing Citations (including with respect to coordinating with the Department of Motor Vehicles), and technical support documentation for applicable court and judicial officers. 1.8 "Equipment" means any and all cameras, sensors, equipment, components, products, software and other tangible and intangible property relating to the Redflex Photo Red Light System(s), including but not limited to all camera systems, housings, radar units, severs and poles. 1.9 "`Fine"means a monetary sum assessed for Citation, 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, commission or organization, and any subdivision, branch or department of any of the foregoing. 1.11 "Installation Date of the Photo Red Light Program" means the date on which Redflex completes the construction and installation of the first Intersection Approach in accordance with the terms of this Agreement so that such Intersection Approach is operational for the purposes of functioning with the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program. The Installation Date will be marked by the day the first Intersection Approach begins the Warning Period phase. 1.12 "Intellectual Property" 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 copyrights, 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, contract, license, or otherwise, and (f) all registrations, initial applications, renewals, extensions, continuations, divisions or reissues hereof now or hereafter in force (including any rights in any of the foregoing), of such Person. 1.13 "Intersection Approach" means a conduit of travel with up to four (4) contiguous lanes from the curb (e.g., northbound, southbound, eastbound or westbound) on which at least one (1) system has been installed by Redflex for the purposes of facilitating Red-light Photo Enforcement by the Customer. 1.14 "Malfunction" means any equipment related failure of the Redflex System to capture a clear photographic image of any given incident." 1.15 "Material Malfunction" means any equipment related failure of the Redflex System where the system is unable to capture clear photographic images for a minimum of forty-eight (48) or more hours. 29919 3 1.16 "Operational Period" means the period of time during the Term, commencing on the conclusion of the Warning Period, during which the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program is functional in order to permit the identification and prosecution of Violations at the Designated Intersection Approaches by a sworn peace officer of the Customer and the issuance of Citations for such approved Violations using the Redflex System. 1.17 "Person" means a natural individual, company, Governmental Authority, partnership, firm, corporation, legal entity or other business association. 1.18 "Police Project Manager" means the project manager appointed by the Customer in accordance with this Agreement, which shall be a sworn peace officer and shall be responsible for overseeing the installation of the Intersection Approaches and the implementation of the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program, and which manager shall have the power and authority to make management decisions relating to the Customer's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, subject to any limitations set forth in the Customer's charter or other organizational documents of the Customer or by the City Council or other governing body of the Customer. 1.19 "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 Red Light Violation has occurred. 1.20 "Proprietary Property" means, with respect to any Person, any written or tangible property owned or used by such Person in connection with such Person's business, whether or not such property is copyrightable or also qualifies as Confidential Information, including without limitation products, samples, equipment, files, lists, books, notebooks, records, documents, memoranda, reports, patterns, schematics, compilations, designs, drawings, data, test results, contracts, agreements, literature, correspondence, spread sheets, computer programs and software, computer print outs, other written and graphic records and the like, whether originals, copies, duplicates or summaries thereof, affecting or relating to the business of such Person, financial statements, budgets, projections and invoices. 1.21 "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 or in relation to Photo Red Light Enforcement at any time during the Term this Agreement, service marks, trade names, logos, brands and other marks owned by Redflex, and all modifications or adaptations of any of the foregoing. 1.22 "Redflex Project Manager" means the project manager appointed by Redflex in accordance with this Agreement, which project manager shall initially be Jack Weaver or such person as Redflex shall designate subject to the approval of 29919 4 Customer, by providing written notice thereof to the Customer from time to time, who shall be responsible for overseeing the construction and installation of the Designated Intersection Approaches and the implementation the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program, and who shall have the power and authority to make management decisions relating to Redflex's obligations pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to change-order authorizations. 1.23 "Redflex Photo Red Light System" means, collectively, the SmartCamTM System, the SmartOpsTM System, the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program, and all of the other equipment, applications, back office processes and digital red light traffic enforcement cameras, sensors, components, products, software and other tangible and intangible property relating thereto. 1.25 "Photo Red Light Enforcement Program" means the process by which the monitoring, identification and enforcement of Violations is facilitated by the use of certain equipment, applications and back office processes of Redflex, including but not limited to cameras, flashes, central processing units, signal controller interfaces and detectors (whether loop, radar or video loop) which, collectively, are capable of measuring Violations and recording such Violation data in the form of photographic images of motor vehicles. 1.26 "Photo Red-light Violation Criteria" means the standards and criteria by which Potential Violations will be evaluated by sworn peace officers of the Customer, 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 Violation 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 Violation, all of which shall be in compliance with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of Governmental Authorities. 1.27 "SmartCamTM System" means the proprietary digital red-light photo enforcement system of Redflex relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program. 1.28 "SmartOpsTM System" means the proprietary back-office processes of Redflex relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program. 1.29 "SmartSceneTM System" means the proprietary digital video camera unit, hardware and software required for providing supplemental violation data. 1.30 "Traffic Signal Controller Boxes" means the signal controller interface and detector, including but not limited to the radar or video loop, as the case may be. 1.31 "Violation" means any traffic violation contrary to the terms of the Vehicle Code or any applicable rule, regulation or law of any other Governmental Authority, including but not limited to operating a motor vehicle contrary to traffic signals, and operating a motor vehicle without displaying a valid license plate or registration. 29919 5 1.32 "Violations Data" means the images and other Violations data gathered by the Redflex System at the Designated Intersection Approaches. 1.33 "Warning Period" means the period of thirty (30) days after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach, during which warning violation notices only shall be issued by an Authorized Officer using the Redflex System. 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date first written above and shall continue for a period of five (5) years following the Installation Date of the first Intersection Approach. The Customer shall have the right, but not the obligation, to extend the term of this Agreement for up to two (2) additional, consecutive and automatic two (2) year periods following the expiration of the Initial Term (each, a "Renewal Term" and collectively with the Initial Term, the "Term"). The Customer may exercise the right to extend the term of this Agreement for a Renewal Term by providing written notice to Redflex not less than thirty (30) days prior to the last day of the Initial Term or the Renewal Term, as the case may be. 3. SERVICES. Redflex shall provide the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program to the Customer, in each case in accordance with the terms and provisions set forth in this Agreement. 3.1. Installation. With respect to the construction and installation of each of the Designated Intersection Approaches and the installation of the Redflex System at such Designated Intersection Approaches, the Customer and Redflex shall have the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit B attached hereto. 3.2. Maintenance. With respect to the maintenance of the Redflex System at the Designated Intersection Approaches the Customer and Redflex shall have the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit C attached hereto. 3.3. Violation Processing. During the Operational Period, Violations shall be processed as follows: 3.3.1.1.1. All Violations Data shall be stored on the Redflex System; 3.3.1.1.2. The Redflex System shall process Violations Data gathered from the Designated Intersection Approaches into a format capable of review by the Authorized Officer via the Redflex System; Redflex shall be responsible for establishing and maintaining procedures, to be approved by the Traffic Project Manager, for quality assurance of violation data. 3.3.1.1.3. The Redflex System shall be accessible by the Authorized Officer through a virtual private network in encrypted format by use of a confidential password on any computer equipped with a high-speed internet connection and a web browser; 3.3.1.1.4. Redflex shall provide the Authorized Officer with access to the Redflex System for the purposes of reviewing the pre-processed 29919 6 Violations Data within seven (7) days of the gathering of the Violation Data from the applicable Designated Intersection Approaches. 33.1.1.5. The Customer shall cause the Authorized Officer to review the Violations 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 an Electronic Signature to Redflex using the software or other applications or procedures provided by Redflex on the Redflex System for such purpose, and REDFLEX HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES AND AGREES THAT THE DECISION TO ISSUE A CITATION SHALL BE THE SOLE, UNILATERAL AND EXCLUSIVE DECISION OF THE CUSTOMER AND SHALL BE MADE IN SUCH CUSTOMER'S SOLE DISCRETION (A "CITATION DECISION"), AND IN NO EVENT SHALL REDFLEX HAVE THE ABILITY OR AUTHORIZATION TO MAKE A CITATION DECISION; Except during the Warning Period, Redflex must print and mail a Citation and other appropriate Enforcement Documentation, within six (6) days of Reflex's receipt of such authorization, to the vehicle's registered owner. The citation must include or be accompanied by, as appropriate: The location, date, and time of the Violation; the Number of seconds into the red traffic signal; the vehicle speed; One close-up view of the vehicle rear license plate; one close-up- frontal view of the vehicle driver; One view of the intersection and the vehicle, taken before the vehicle's front tires cross the limit line, showing the traffic signal in the red phase and the rear license plate of the vehicle; One view of the intersection and the vehicle, taken after the vehicle has passed the limit line; any other documentation deemed necessary by the Authorized officer for successful prosecution of violations that Redflex can reasonably provide; Any information or documents that may be required by federal, state , or local laws including but not limited to a certificate of mailing as required by Vehicle Code section 40518(a), and an affidavit of nonliability and information as to the effect of executing the affidavit, and instruction for returning as required by Vehicle Code section 40520. During the Warning Period for each Designated Intersection Approach, Redflex must print and mail a warning notice provided by the City to the registered owner of the vehicle following receipt of an Authorized Violation within the same time frames as required herein for Redflex to mail a Notice to Appear. 3.3.2. Redflex shall provide a toll-free telephone number for the purposes of answering citizen inquiries. 3.3.3. Redflex shall permit the Authorized Officer to generate monthly reports using the Redflex Standard Report System at no cost to Customer. 3.3.4. Upon Redflex's receipt of a written request from the Customer and in addition to the Standard Reports, Redflex shall provide, without cost to the Customer, reports regarding the processing and issuance of Citations, the maintenance and 29919 7 downtime records of the Designated Intersection Approaches and the functionality of the Redflex System with respect thereto to the Customer in such format and for such periods as the Customer 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 Customer. 3.3.5. During the six (6) month period following the Installation Date and/or upon Redflex's receipt of a written request from the Customer at least fourteen (14) calendar days in advance of court proceeding, Redflex shall provide expert witnesses at no cost to Customer (for the first 6 months) for use by the Customer in prosecuting Violations; provided, however, the Customer shall use reasonable best efforts to seek judicial notice in lieu of requiring Redflex to provide such expert witnesses. Following the initial six (6) month period, Redflex will provide expert witnesses to the Customer at no charge for the first three (3) requests in a calendar year. Additional request for expert witness requires Customer to pay all travel related expenses. 3.3.6. During the three (3) month period following the Installation Date, Redflex shall provide such training to law enforcement personnel as shall be reasonably necessary in order to allow such personnel to act as expert witnesses on behalf of the Customer with respect to the Red-light Enforcement Program. 3.4. Compensation. Redflex shall have the right to receive, and the Customer shall"be obligated to pay, the compensation set forth on Exhibit D attached hereto. 3.5. Other Rights and Obligations. During the Term, in addition to all of the other rights and obligations set forth in this Agreement, Redflex and the Customer shall have the respective rights and obligations set forth on Exhibit E attached hereto. 3.6. Change Orders. The Customer may from time to time request changes to the work required to be performed or the addition of products or services to those required pursuant to the terms of this Agreement by providing written notice thereof to Redflex, setting forth in reasonable detail the proposed changes (a "Change Order Notice"). Upon Redflex's receipt of a Change Order Notice, Redflex shall deliver a written statement describing the effect, if any, the proposed changes would have on the pricing terms set forth in Exhibit D (the "Change Order Proposal"), which Change Order Proposal shall include (i) a detailed breakdown of the charge and schedule effects, (ii) a description of any resulting changes to the specifications and obligations of the parties, (iii) a schedule for the delivery and other performance obligations, and (iv) any other information relating to the proposed changes reasonably requested by the Customer. Following the Customer's receipt of the Change Order Proposal, the parties shall negotiate in good faith and agree to a plan 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 proposed changes; provided, however, in the event that any proposed change involves only the addition of equipment or services to the existing 29919 8 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. 4. LICENSE,RESERVATION OF RIGHTS. 4.1. License. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, Redflex hereby grants the Customer, and the Customer 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 Huntington Beach, 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 Agreement, and to print copies of any content posted on the Redflex System in connection therewith, (b) disclose to the public that Redflex is providing services to the Customer in connection with Photo Red Light Enforcement Program pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, and (c) use and display the Redflex Marks on or in marketing, public awareness or education, or other publications or materials relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program, so long as any and all such publications or materials are approved in advance by Redflex. 4.2. Reservation of Ri hg_ts. The Customer hereby acknowledges and agrees that: (a) Redflex is the sole and exclusive owner of the Redflex System, the Redflex Marks, all Intellectual Property arising from or relating to the Redflex System, and any and all related Equipment, (b)the Customer neither has nor makes any claim to any right, title or interest in any of the foregoing, except as specifically granted or authorized under this Agreement, and(c) by reason of the exercise of any such rights or interests of Customer pursuant to this Agreement, the Customer shall gain no additional right, title or interest therein. 4.3. Restricted Use. The Customer 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 Redflex therein, (d) use any trademarks or other marks other than the Redflex Marks in connection with the Customer's use of the Redflex System pursuant to the terms of this Agreement without first obtaining the prior consent of Redflex, or (e) disassemble, de-compile or otherwise perform any type of reverse engineering to the Redflex System, the Redflex System, including but not limited to any Equipment, or to any, Intellectual Property or Proprietary Property of Redflex, or cause any other Person to do any of the foregoing. 4.4. Protection of Rights. Redflex shall have the right to take whatever action it deems necessary or desirable to remedy or prevent the infringement of any Intellectual 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 other 29919 9 applications or filings with appropriate Governmental Authorities. The Customer shall not take any action to remedy or prevent such infringing activities, and shall not in its own name make any registrations or filings with respect to any of the Redflex Marks or the Intellectual Property of Redflex without the prior written consent of Redflex. 4.5. Infringement. The Customer shall use its reasonable best efforts to give Redflex prompt notice of any activities or threatened activities of any Person of which it becomes aware that infringes or violates the Redflex Marks or any of Redflex's Intellectual 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 Customer shall render to Redflex such reasonable 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 Customer for any reasonable costs incurred in providing such cooperation and assistance. 4.6. Infringing Use. The Customer shall give Redflex prompt written notice of any action or claim action or claim, whether threatened or pending, against the Customer alleging that the Redflex Marks, or any other Intellectual Property of Redflex, infringes or violates any patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret or other Intellectual Property of any other Person, and the Customer 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 Customer for any reasonable costs incurred in providing such cooperation and assistance. If such a claim is made and Redflex determines, in the exercise of its sole discretion, that an infringement may exist, Redflex shall have the right, but not the obligation, to procure for the Customer the right to keep using the allegedly infringing items, modify them to avoid the alleged infringement or replace them with non-infringing items. 4.7. Patent and Copyright Indemnification. Redflex at its own expense shall defend any action brought against Customer to the extent that it is based on a claim that any Software Product used within the scope of the license hereunder infringes a patent or copyright, In the event any Software Products become, or in the opinion of Redflex are likely to become, the subject of a claim of infringement of a patent or copyright, Redflex may at its option either secure the Licensee's right to continue using the Software Products, replace or modify them to make them non-infringing, or if neither of the foregoing alternatives is reasonably available to Redflex, discontinue the Software Product upon three month's written notice. Should Redflex discontinue use as described herein, Licensee shall be entitled to receive any and all fees paid to Redflex up to such time. 29919 10 5. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES. 5.1.1. Redflex Representations and Warranties. 5.1.1.1. Authority. Redflex hereby warrants and represents that it has all right,power and authority to execute and deliver this Agreement and perform its obligations hereunder. 5.1.1.2. Professional Services. Redflex hereby warrants and represents that any and all services provided by Redflex pursuant to this Agreement shall be performed in a professional and workmanlike manner and, with respect to the installation of the Redflex System, subject to applicable law, in compliance with all specifications provided to Redflex by the Customer. 5.1.1.3. Maintenance and Support Warranty. Redflex warrants that for the Term of. this Agreement, Redflex will provide ongoing support and product enhancements at the same or greater level than the previous year on all Redflex System components. If it is mutually agreed that available upgrades will materially improve the effectiveness of the program, Redflex will perform said modification, upgrade or replacement and install those components at no additional cost to the Customer. 5.1.1.4. Limited Warranties. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS AGREEMENT, REDFLEX MAKES NO WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, 1NCLUDINQ BUT NOT LIMITED 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 THE RESULTS OF THE CUSTOMER'S USE OF ANY OF THE FOREGOING NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY SET FORTH HEREIN, REDFLEX DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ANY OF THE DESIGNATED INTERSECTION APPROACHES OR THE REDFLEX SYSTEM WILL OPERATE IN THE WAY THE CUSTOMER SELECTS FOR USE, OR THAT THE OPERATION OR USE THEREOF WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED. THE CUSTOMER HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE REDFLEX SYSTEM MAY MALFUNCTION FROM TIME TO TIME, AND SUBJECT TO THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT, REDFLEX SHALL DILIGENTLY ENDEAVOR TO CORRECT ANY SUCH MALFUNCTION IN A TIMELY MANNER. 6. TERMINATION. 6.1. Termination for Cause. Either party shall have the right to terminate this Agreement immediately by written notice to the other if(i) state statutes are amended to prohibit or substantially change the operation of photo red light enforcement systems; (ii) any court having jurisdiction over City rules, or state or federal statute declares, that 29919 11 results from the Redflex System of photo red light enforcement are inadmissible in evidence; or (ill) the other party commits any material breach of any of the provisions of this Agreement. In the event of a termination due to Section 6.1(i) or 6.1(ii) above, Customer shall be relieved of any further,obligations for payment to Redflex. Either party shall have the right to remedy the cause for termination (Sec 6.1) within forty-five (45) calendar days (or within such other time period as the Customer and Redflex shall mutually agree, which agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed) after written notice from the non-causing party setting forth in reasonable detail the events of the cause for termination. 6.2. Termination without Cause. The Customer may initiate termination of this Agreement without cause at any time by giving 10 days' written notice of termination to Redflex. Except as provided in Exhibit A, if the City exercises its right to terminate this Agreement in accordance with this paragraph, the City shall be obligated to pay Redflex for all services satisfactorily performed in accordance with this Agreement, through and including the initiation of termination date, but not to exceed the payments according to the rates specified in Exhibit D. 6.3. Procedures Upon Termination. The termination of this Agreement shall not relieve either party of any liability that accrued prior to such termination. Except as set forth in Section 6.3, upon the termination of this Agreement, all of the provisions of this Agreement shall terminate and the rights to terminate 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. 6.3.1.1. Redflex shall (i) immediately cease to provide services, including but not limited to work in connection with the construction or installation activities and services in connection with the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program, (ii) promptly deliver to the Customer any and all Proprietary Property of the Customer provided to Redflex pursuant to this Agreement, (iii) promptly deliver to the Customer a final report to the Customer regarding the collection of data and the issuance of Citations in such format and for such periods as the Customer 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 Customer a final invoice stating all fees and charges properly owed by Customer to Redflex for work performed and Citations issued by Redflex prior to the termination, and (v) provide such assistance as the Customer may reasonably request from time to time in connection with prosecuting and enforcing Citations issued prior to the termination of this Agreement. 6.3.1.2. The Customer shall (i) immediately cease using the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program, accessing the Redflex System and using any other Intellectual Property of Redflex, (ii) promptly deliver to Redflex any and all Proprietary Property of Redflex provided to the Customer pursuant to this 29919 12 Agreement, and (iii) promptly pay any and all fees, charges and amounts properly owed by Customer to Redflex for work performed and Citations issued by Redflex prior to the termination. 6.3.1.3. Unless the Customer and Redflex have agreed to enter into a new agreement relating to the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program or have agreed to extend the Term of this Agreement, Redflex shall remove any and all Equipment or other materials of Redflex installed in connection with Redflex's performance of its obligations under this Agreement, including but not limited to housings, poles and camera 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. Customer shall at its sole discretion determine if the Designated Intersection Approaches have been returned to substantially the same condition. In the event Customer determines the Designated Intersection Approaches have not been returned to the substantially same condition, Customer may perform the work or hire an third party to perform the work and Redflex shall be responsible for all cost to return the intersection to substantially the same condition. 6.4. Survival. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the definitions and each of the following shall survive the termination of this Agreement: (x) Sections 4.2 (Reservation of Rights), 5.1 (Redflex Representations and Warranties), 5.2 (Customer Representations and Warranties), 5.3 (Limited Warranty), 7 (Confidentiality), 8 (Indemnification and Liability), 11 (Notices), 12 (Dispute Resolution), 10.1 (Assignment), 10.17 (Applicable Law), 10.16 (Injunctive Relief, Specific Performance) and 10.18 (Jurisdiction and Venue), and (y) those provisions, and the rights and obligations therein, set forth in this Agreement which either by their terms state, or evidence the intent of the parties, that the provisions survive the expiration or termination of the Agreement, or must survive to give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. 7. CONFIDENTIALITY. 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. Upon termination of this Agreement, each party shall return to the other all tangible Confidential Information of such party. Each party shall retain in confidence and 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 have a need to know such Confidential Information, 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. 29919 13 8. INDEMNIFICATIONAND LIABILITY. 8.1. Indemnification by Redflex. Redflex hereby agrees to protect, defend, indemnify and hold harmless Customer, its officers, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from and against any and all, claims, damages, losses, expenses,judgments, demands defense costs, and consequential damage or liability of any kind or nature, including those resulting from death or injury to Redflex employees and damage to Redflex property, arising directly or indirectly out of the obligations or operations herein undertaken by Redflex, caused in whole or in part by any negligent act or omission of Redflex, any subcontractors, anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or anyone for whose acts any of them may be liable, including but not limited to concurrent active or passive negligence, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the Customer. 8.2. Indemnification by Customer. Customer 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 Redflex Parties from, and to pay on behalf of or reimburse the Redflex Parties as and when incurred for, any and all 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, warranty or representation of the Customer contained in this Agreement, (b) the willful misconduct of the Customer, its employees, contractors or agents which result in death or bodily injury to any natural 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 willful misconduct of any Redflex Party. City will conduct all defense at its sole cost and expense. 9. INSURANCE. In addition to the workers' compensation and employer's liability insurance and Redflex's covenant to defend, hold harmless and indemnify Customer, Redflex shall obtain and furnish to Customer, a policy of general .public liability insurance, including motor vehicle coverage covering the Project. This policy shall indemnify Redflex, its officers, employees and agents while acting within the scope of their duties, against any and all claims arising out or in connection with the Project subject to the policies terms, conditions and exclusions, and shall provide coverage in not less than the following amount: combined single limit bodily injury and property damage, including products/completed operations liability and blanket contractual liability, of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence. If coverage is provided under a form which includes a designated general aggregate limit, the aggregate limit must be no less than One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for this Project. This policy shall name Customer, its officers, elected or appointed officials, employees, agents, and volunteers as Additional Insureds, and shall specifically provide that any other insurance coverage which may 29919 14 be applicable to the Project shall be deemed excess coverage and that Redflex's insurance shall be primary. Under no circumstances shall said above-mentioned insurance contain a self-insured retention, or a"deductible" or any other similar form of limitation on the required coverage. 10. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE; ADDITIONAL INSURED ENDORSEMENTS. Prior to commencing performance of the work hereunder, Redflex shall furnish to Customer certificates of insurance subject to approval of the City Attorney evidencing the foregoing insurance coverages as required by this Agreement; the certificates shall: 1. provide the name and policy number of each carrier and policy; 2. state that the policy is currently in force; and 3. include a statement that the insurance carrier will endeavor to provide the Customer thirty (30) days notice in the event that such policies will be canceled. Redflex shall maintain the foregoing insurance coverages in force until the work under this Agreement is fully completed and accepted by Customer. The requirement for carrying the foregoing insurance coverages shall not derogate from the Redflex's defense, hold harmless and indemnification obligations as set forth under this Agreement. Customer or its representative shall at all times have the right to demand the original or a copy of all the policies of insurance. Redflex shall pay, in a prompt and timely manner, the premiums on all insurance hereinabove required. Redflex shall provide a separate copy of the additional insured endorsement to each of Redflex's insurance policies, naming Customer, its officers, elected and appointed officials, employees, agents and volunteers as Additional Insureds, to the City Attorney for approval prior to any payment hereunder. 11. NOTICES. Any notices to be given hereunder shall be in writing, and shall be deemed to have been given (a) upon delivery, if delivered by hand, (b) three (3) days after being mailed first 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 for next day delivery, if the courier service obtains a signature acknowledging receipt, in each case addressed or sent to such party as follows: 7.1. Notices to Redflex: Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. 15020 North 74th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 Attention: Ms. Karen Finley Facsimile: (480) 607-5552 29919 15 7.2. Notices to the Customer: Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Attention: Police Chief 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92647 12. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. Upon the occurrence of any dispute or disagreement 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 faith discussions and attempt to resolve the Dispute. In connection therewith, upon written 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 resolve the Dispute in accordance with this Section, and in the event that either of the parties concludes in good faith that amicable resolution through continued negotiation with respect to the Dispute is not reasonably likely, then the parties may mutually agree to submit to binding or nonbinding arbitration or mediation. The rights and obligations of the Parties under this section shall not limit any right of either party set forth in Section 6 to terminate this Agreement. 13. MISCELLANEOUS. 13.1 Assignment. The Customer hereby acknowledges and agrees that the execution (as outlined in Exhibit F), delivery and performance of Redflex's rights pursuant to this Agreement shall require a significant investment by Redflex, and that in order to finance such investment, Redflex may 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 Customer hereby agrees that Redflex shall have the right 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 Customer's prior written approval, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The Customer further acknowledges and agrees that in the event that Redflex provides written notice to the Customer that it intends to Transfer all or any of Redflex's rights pursuant to this Agreement, and in the event that the Customer fails to provide such approval or fails to object to such Transfer within forty-five (45) business days after its receipt of such notice from Redflex, for the purposes of this Agreement, the Customer shall be deemed to have consented to and approved such Transfer by Redflex. Notwithstanding the above, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the parties hereto, and their respective successors or assigns. Other than as expressly provided herein, this Agreement, and any portion thereof, shall not be assigned or transferred, nor shall any of Redflex's duties be delegated, without written consent of the City. A request by 29919 16 Redflex to assign or transfer any part of this agreement shall not be unreasonably withheld or delayed by the City. Any attempt to assign or delegate this Agreement without the written consent of the City shall be void and of no force and effect. Consent by the City to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. 13.2 Relationship between Redflex and the Customer. Redflex is, and at all times shall remain, an independent contractor solely responsible for all acts of its employees, agents, or subcontractors, including any negligent acts or omissions. Redflex is not the City's agent, and shall have no authority to act on behalf of the City, or to bind the City to any obligation whatsoever. Redflex is not an officer of employee of the City, and Redflex shall not be entitled to any benefit, right, or compensation other than that provided in this agreement.. 13.3 Audit Rights. Each of parties hereto shall have the right to audit the books and records of the other party hereto (the "Audited Party") 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 Agreement, 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 Parry to the non-Audited Party 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 of actually 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 of the excess. 13.4 Force Majeure. Neither party will be liable to the other or be deemed to be in breach of this Agreement for any failure or delay in rendering 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, earthquakes, epidemics, quarantine restrictions, strikes, freight embargoes, or Governmental Authorities approval delays which are not caused by any act or omission by Redflex, and unusually severe weather. The party whose performance is affected agrees to notify the other promptly of the existence and nature of any delay. 13.5 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 oral, which affect its terms. This Agreement may be amended only by a subsequent written agreement signed by both parties. 29919 17 13.6 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held by any court or other competent authority to be void or unenforceable in whole or part, this Agreement shall continue to be valid as to the other provisions thereof and the remainder of the affected provision. 13.7 Waiver. Any waiver by either party of a breach of any provision of this Agreement shall not be considered as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision thereof. 13.8 Construction. Except as expressly otherwise provided in this Agreement, 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. 13.9 Headings. The headings of the sections contained in this Agreement are included herein for reference purposes only, solely for the convenience of the parties hereto, and shall not in any way be deemed to affect the meaning, interpretation or applicability of this Agreement or any term, condition or provision hereof. 13.10 Execution and Counterparts. This Agreement 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 instrument. Any one of such counterparts shall be sufficient for the purpose of proving the existence and terms of this Agreement and no party shall be required to produce an original or all of such counterparts in making such proof. 13.10 Covenant of Further Assurances. All parties to this Agreement shall, 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 provisions hereof or to carry out the intent of this Agreement. 13.11 Remedies Cumulative. Each and all of the several rights and remedies provided for in this Agreement shall be construed as being cumulative and no one of them shall be deemed to be exclusive of the others or of any right or remedy allowed by law or equity, and pursuit of any one remedy shall not be deemed to be an election of such remedy, or a waiver of any other remedy. 13.12 Binding. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon all of the parties hereto and their respective executors, administrators, successors and permitted assigns. 13.13 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 which the parties 29919 18 have no legal right to contract, the latter shall prevail, but in such event the 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 of the Parties as expressed in this Agreement. 13.14 No Third Party Benefit. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to confer any right or benefit on any Person who is not a parry to this Agreement. 13.15 Injunctive Relief, Specific Performance. The parties hereby agree and acknowledge that a breach of Sections 4.1 (License), 4.3 (Restricted Use) or 7 (Confidentiality) of this Agreement would result in severe and irreparable injury to the other party, which injury could not be adequately compensated by an award of money damages, and the parties therefore agree and acknowledge that they shall be entitled to injunctive relief in the event of any breach of any material term, ' condition or provision of this Agreement, or to enjoin or prevent such a breach, including without limitation an action for specific performance hereof. 13.16 Applicable Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in all respects solely in accordance with the laws of the State of California, United States. 13.17 Jurisdiction and Venue. Any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement shall be submitted to the exclusive jurisdiction and venue of the courts located in the County of Orange, CA and both parties specifically agree to be bound by the jurisdiction and venue thereof. 13.18 Attorney's Fees. In the event suit is brought by either party to enforce the terms and provisions of this agreement or to secure the performance hereof, each party shall bear its own attorney's fees. 13.19 Exhibits. All Exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto shall be incorporated as if fully set forth in the body of this Agreement. 13.20 SIGNATORIES Each undersigned represents and warrants that its signature hereinbelow has the power, authority and right to bind their respective parties to each of the terms of this Agreement. (The remainder of this page is left intentionally blank) 29919 19 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above. REFLEX, INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,a municipal corporation of the State of By: / _ � California print name ITS: (circle one)Chairrn reside t(Vice President AND / Mayor By: print name City Clerk 1� (circle one ecre !Chief Financial Officer/Asst.Secretary-Treasurer INITIATED AND APPROVED: Police Chief REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Administrator c�City Attomey COUNTERPART 29919 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above. REFLEX, INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of By: California print name ITS: (circle one) Chairman/President/Vice President AND ayor By: print name Clerk ITS: (circle one) Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary-Treasurer INITIATED AND APPROVED: 1 Po ice Chief _ 1 REVIEWit ROVED: A �-6�VED AS TO FORM: LL inistrator I ► 1 c gCityAttorney COUNTERPART 29919 20 EXHIBIT "A" Designated Intersection Approaches The contract is for the implementation of up to 20 intersections. Identification of enforced intersection will be based on mutual agreement between Redflex and the Customer as warranted by community safety and traffic needs. If it is determined by the Customer at its sole discretion that there are no intersections that are appropriate for the I2edflex Photo Red bight System or Program, then either party may terminate this agreement at no cost to either party. 29919 21 EXHIBIT`B" Construction and Installation Obligations Timeframe for Installation: Fixed Photo Red Light System Redflex will have each specified intersection constructed, installed and activated in phases in accordance with an implementation plan to be mutually agreed to in writing by Redflex Traffic Systems and the Customer. Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install the system in accordance with the schedule set forth in the implementation plan that will be formalized in writing upon project commencement. Redflex will use reasonable commercial efforts to install and activate the first specified intersection within sixty (60) days of the issuance of all required permits. The Customer agrees that the estimated timeframe for installation and activation are subject to conditions that may be beyond the control of Redflex and as such are not a guarantee as to specific dates if installation and implementation. 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): LL Appoint the Redflex Project Manager and a project implementation team consisting of between one (1) and four (4)people to assist the Redflex Project Manager; 1.2. Request current "as-built" electronic engineering drawings for the Designated Intersection Approaches (the "Drawings") from the city traffic engineer; 1.3. Develop and submit to the Customer for approval construction and installation specifications in reasonable detail for the Designated Intersection Approaches, including but not limited to specifications for all radar sensors, pavement loops, electrical connections and traffic controller connections, as required; and 1.4. Seek approval from the relevant Governmental Authorities having authority or jurisdiction over the construction and installation specifications for the Designated Intersection Approaches (collectively, the "Approvals"), which will include compliance with Customer permit applications. 1.5. Finalize the acquisition of the Approvals; 1.6. Submit to the Customer a public awareness strategy for the Customer's consideration and approval, which strategy shall include media and educational materials for the Customer's approval or amendment (the"Awareness Strategy"); 1.7. Develop the Red-light Violation Criteria in consultation with the Customer; 1.8. Develop the Enforcement Documentation for approval by the Customer, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld; 1.9. Complete the installation and testing of all necessary Equipment, including hardware and software, at the Designated Intersection Approaches (under the supervision of the Customer); 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 29919 22 installation of all related Equipment and other detection sensors, poles, cabling, telecommunications equipment and wiring, which work shall be performed in compliance with all applicable local, state and federal laws and regulations; 1.11. Install and test the functionality of the Designated Intersection 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 Customer; and 1.14. Issue citation notices for Authorized Violations; 1.15. Redflex shall provide training (i) for up to fifteen (15) personnel of the Customer, including but not limited to the persons who Customer shall appoint as Authorized Officers and other persons involved in the administration of the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program, (ii) for at least sixteen (16) hours in the aggregate, (iii) regarding the operation of the Redflex System and the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program, which training shall 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 the 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 permit the offering of Violations Data in court and judicial proceedings, and coordination between Redflex, the Customer and juvenile court personnel; and 1.17. Provide reasonable public relations resources and media materials to the Customer in the event that the Customer elects to conduct a public launch of the Red- light Photo Enforcement Program. 1.18. Citation processing and citation re-issuance. 1.19. Violation Review Stations. Redflex will provide two (2) laptop workstations and one (1) printer, to be used by the Customer for citation approval, Violation Video viewing appointments, and court hearings. The aggregate cost of the equipment described in this section shall not exceed $1,500. 2. Customer Obli ations. The Customer shall do or cause to be done each of the following (in each case, unless otherwise stated below, at Customer's sole expense): 2.1.1. Appoint the Project Manager;. 2.1.2. 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 Photo Enforcement Program; and 2.1.4. Assist Redflex in seeking the permit approvals. 2.1.5. Provide reasonable access to the Customer's properties and facilities in order to permit Redflex to install and test the functionality of the Designated Intersection Approaches and the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program; 29919 23 2.1.6. Provide reasonable access to the personnel of the Customer and reasonable information about the specific operational requirements of such personnel for the purposes of performing training; 2.1.7. Seek approval or amendment of Awareness Strategy and provide written notice to Redflex with respect to the quantity of media and program materials (the "Materials") that the Customer 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; 2.1.8. Assist Redflex in developing the Red-light Violation Criteria; and 2.1.9. Seek approval of the Enforcement Documentation. 2.1.10. Yellow Light Timing Review: The Customer is responsible to ensure that the yellow or amber light phase timing at all photo enforced intersections meets minimum standards according to Federal, State, and local laws, guidelines, and/or rules. 2.1.11. Provide on-going adequate electrical power in order to operate the systems. 2.1.12. The Customer will allow Redflex to use existing conduit space as available. 2.1.13. The Customer shall be responsible to provide and install LED traffic signal lights (yellow and red) at all enforced locations. 29919 24 EXHIBIT "C" Maintenance Unless otherwise stated below, all services described in this section shall be at Redflex's sole expense: 1. All repair and maintenance, including cost of Photo Red Light Enforcement systems and related equipment will be the sole responsibility and cost of Redflex, including but not limited 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 a representative of city Traffic Engineering present. 3. The provision of all necessary communication, broadband and telephone services to the Designated Intersection Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Redflex. 4. The provision of all necessary electrical services to the Designated Intersection Approaches will be the sole responsibility of the Customer. 5. In the event that images of a quality suitable for the Authorized Officer to identify Violations cannot be reasonably obtained without the use of flash units, Redflex shall provide and install such flash units. 6. The Redflex Project Manager (or agreed upon alternate) shall be available to the Police Project Manager each day. 7. Redflex must inspect the Equipment and the functionality of the Redflex System at every intersection approach no less than once every month with remote inspections weekly and automated camera checks on each business day. Redflex must respond to any Material Malfunction of any of the Redflex System within 24 hours of receiving malfunction notice from the Traffic Project Manager. In the event that the Redflex System suffers any damage from whatever cause, Redflex discovers material malfunction or defect, or Redflex receives a malfunction notice, Redflex shall use its best efforts to cause the damage malfunction or defect to be repaired within 48 hours of discovery by Redflex or receipt by Redflex of a Malfunction Notice. In the event that the damage, malfunction, or defect has not been substantially repaired within 48 hours, Redflex shall notify the Traffic Project Manager and Redflex's compensation shall be reduced according to Exhibit D Compensation & Pricing, 45 Credit for Malfunctioning or Non-operating Designated Intersection Approaches . 29919 25 EXHIBIT "D" COMPENSATION & PRICING Commencing on the expiration of the Warning Period for each Designated Intersection Approach, Customer shall be obligated to pay Redflex a fixed fee of Five Thousand Six Hundred and Seventy-nine ($5,679) Dollars per month for each Designated Intersection Approach with up to two (2) contiguous lanes and Five Thousand Eight Hundred and Seventy-nine ($5,879) Dollars per month for three (3) to four (4) contiguous lanes ("Fixed Fee") as full remuneration for performing all of the services contemplated in this Agreement. BUSINESS ASSUMPTIONS FOR ALL PRICING OPTIONS: 1. Redflex construction will be able to utilize existing conduit for installation where space is available. 2. Each year the pricing will increase by the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or any relevant successor for the Orange County area from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months. The percentage of increase in the Los Angeles-Anaheim-Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or any relevant successor for the Orange County area from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months 3 Except where a balance remains unpaid due to a deficit in the gross cash received as described herein, Customer agrees to pay Redflex within thirty(30) days after the invoice is received. A monthly late fee of 1.5% is payable for amounts remaining unpaid 60 days from date of invoice. 3 MATERIAL MALFUNCTION OR NON-OPERATING INTERSECTION APPROACHES. The Customer shall not be obligated to pay, and will not be billed, for each calendar day that a particular Designated Intersection Approach is not functioning for a period of 48 hours or more due to equipment related malfunction. The invoice for the relevant period will show a credit of 1/30th of the Fixed Fee for each day that the system was not functioning in that month. In any month where a Designated Intersection approach is non-functional for 24 or more days the Customer shall not be obligated to pay and will not be billed the monthly fee for that approach. 4. The Customer may request that equipment be relocated at any time following the first year anniversary of the "go live" date for the system in question. If the decision to relocate the system is not mutually agreed to by Redflex, the Customer will be solely responsible for all associated costs. 5. COST RECOVERY by REDFLEX UPON TERMINATION WITHOUT CAUSE by the Customer. In the event the Customer exercises its right to terminate this Agreement under Section 6.2, Redflex shall be entitled to a cancellation fee for each installed approach which reflects reimbursement of the direct labor costs and direct material costs (not including Equipment costs and salvageable material costs) solely associated with the 29919 26 installation of the Redflex Photo Red Light System at all Intersection Approaches where such system(s) have been installed prior to the effective date of Termination (the "Reimbursable Costs"). Redflex shall provide an itemization of the Reimbursable Costs, with supporting invoices and labor expense documentation, to the Customer within thirty (30) days of the completion of installation of the Redflex Photo Red Light System at each designated Intersection Approach. Said Reimbursable Costs are currently estimated to equal approximately $50,000 to $80,000 per Intersection Approach but, in no event, shall said amount exceed $80,000 per Intersection Approach. For the purpose of this section, the cancellation fee shall be derived in accordance with the following formula: The cancellation fee shall be derived in accordance with the following formula: X=the number of months remaining in the Agreement Y=the number of months of the Agreement X/Y=the percentage of remaining Agreement Z=the Reimbursable Costs per Installed Approach(not to exceed $80,000) (X/Y)*Z= amount to be paid as cancellation fee For example, if the Agreement ends on the last day of the 24th month and the Installed Approach was installed in month 12,the cancellation fee would be: X= 36 (60 months—24 months transpired under the Agreement). Y= 60 (number of months of the Agreement). Z= $60,000 (value of reimbursable costs) X/Y *Z = (36/60 * $60,000) Calculation of Fee =$36,000 29919 27 Exhibit"E" Additional Rights and Obligations Redflex and the Customer shall respectively have the additional rights and obligations set forth below: I. Redflex shall assist the Customer 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 public launch of the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program (actual print and production costs are the sole responsibility of the Customer). 2. Redflex shall be responsible for the cost of installing Signage. Redflex shall be solely responsible for the fabrication and cost of any signage, notices or other postings required pursuant to any law, rule or regulation of any Governmental Authority ("Signage"), including but not limited to the Vehicle Code, and if requested shall assist in determining the placement of such Signage. 3. Redflex shall be responsible for the cost of development of non-working media that includes the following scope of work: Public Service Announcement Copywriting; Media Trafficking (on three local radio stations during drive time); and a Draft Newsprint Advertisement. The Working Media consisting of four months of paid radio media and one month of paid print advertisements for the Customer of Huntington Beach during the first year of the program. This will consist of a multi-faceted campaign. The campaign will be centered on an in-depth radio campaign utilizing the radio stations agreed upon by Customer and Redflex. The Customer will work with Redflex in developing the non- working and working media, however, Customer at its sole discretion will approve all final media releases or otherwise. 4. The Redflex Project Manager and the Police 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, and on a monthly basis for the remainder of the Term, at such times and places as the Redflex Manager and the Customer Manager shall mutually agree. 5. The Customer shall not access the Redflex System or use the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program in any manner other than prescribe 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 System or the Redflex Photo Enforcement Program, and the Customer shall not attempt to gain unauthorized access to (i) any account of any other Person, (ii) any computer systems or networks connected to the Redflex System, or (iii) any materials or information not intentionally made available by Redflex to the Customer by means of hacking, password mining or any other method whatsoever, nor shall the Customer cause any other Person to do any of the foregoing. 6. The Customer shall maintain the confidentiality of any username, password or other process or device for accessing the Redflex System or using the Red-light Photo Enforcement Program. 7. The Customer 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 Customer, or any of its employees, contractors or agents. 29919 28 Exhibit F FORM OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND CONSENT This Acknowledgement and Consent, dated as of March 02 200 9 is entered into by and between the City of Huntington Beach (the "City") and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., ("Redflex"), with reference to the Agreement between the City of Huntington Beachnd Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., for Photo Red Light Enforcement Program and Violation Processing Program, dated as of March 02, 2009 , by and between the City and Redflex (the "Agreement"). 1. Redflex has entered into a Multicurrency Credit Agreement, dated as of June 2, 2008 (the "Multicurrency Credit Agreement"), by and among Redflex, as Borrower, the guarantors from time to time party thereto, as Guarantors, the lenders from time to time party thereto, as Lenders (the "Lenders"), and Bank of Montreal, as Administrative Agent (the "Administrative Agent"), pursuant to which the Lenders have provided certain working capital credit facilities to Redflex. Such credit facilities will provide Redflex the working capital that it needs to perform its obligations to the City under the Agreement. 2. Pursuant to the Multicurrency Credit Agreement, Redflex has granted the Administrative Agent, for the benefit of the secured creditors, a security interest in all of Redflex's personal property as collateral for the payment and performance of Redflex's obligations to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders under the Multicurrency Credit Agreement. Such security interest applies to and covers all of Redflex's contract rights, including, without limitation, all of Redflex's rights and interests under the Agreement. 3. Redflex will not, by virtue of the Multicurrency Credit Agreement, be relieved of any liability or obligation under the Agreement, and the Administrative Agent has not assumed any liability or obligation of Redflex under the Agreement. 4. The City hereby acknowledges notice of, and consents to, Redflex's grant of such security interest in favor of the Administrative Agent, for the benefit of the secured creditors, in all of Redflex's rights and interests under the Agreement pursuant to the Multicurrency Credit Agreement. 5. The City further acknowledges and agrees that this Acknowledgement and Consent shall be binding upon the City and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the Administrative Agent, and to any replacement lenders which refinance Redflex's obligations to the Administrative Agent and the Lenders under the Multicurrency Credit Agreement. REST OF PAGE NOT USED 29919 29 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Redflex have caused this Acknowledgement and Consent to be executed by their respective duly authorized and elected officers as of the date first above written. REDFLEX,INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,a / .,�- municipal corporation of the State of BY: � �°� `_ "�lt'a'j California P {r. print name l ITS: (circle one)Chairma esidentl 46 President AND Mayor B i l ( Vlt X 0- .CPC /f print name City Clerk I S: (circle on ecreta hief Financial Officer/Asst.Secretary-Treasurer INITIATED AND APPROVED: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: Police Chief City Administrator APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 13.0 7 COUNTERPART 29919 30 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Redflex have caused this Acknowledgement and Consent to be executed by their respective duly authorized and elected officers as of the date first above written. REDFLEX, INC. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, a municipal corporation of the State of BY: California print name ITS: (circle one)Chairman/President/Vice President %eA AND ayor BY: Q"iq print name CU Clerk ITS: (circle one) Secretary/Chief Financial Officer/Asst. Secretary-Treasurer INITIATED AND APPROVED: t REVIEWE APPROVED: Police Chief y4ministrator PPPD AS TO^FORM: e ��Y �v COUNTERPART 29919 30 ATTACH MENT #2 k F " 3�Y E s STAFF REPORT RED LIGHT CAMERAS June 2007 k. Y: T it CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH [COE INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Kenneth W. Small Chief of Police FROM: Steve Bushhousen #15 Administrative Traffic Sergeant ' DATE: June 20, 2007 SUBJECT: Staff Report— Red Light Cameras The purpose of this staff report is to examine the feasibility and rational of installing an automated enforcement system, commonly referred to as red light cameras, at various intersections in the City of Huntington Beach. The use of this technology is now fairly commonplace in California but it still tends to be quite controversial. This report was developed from the following sources: The 2002 California State Auditor Report on Red Light Camera Programs, The 2005 U.S. Department of Transportation Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines, The 2004-2005 Orange County Grand Jury report on Red Light Cameras, The National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running Guide to Red Light Camera Programs Study, visits to several police departments which currently utilize red light cameras, and information from several vendors of automated enforcement technology. Although some of the information was gained through informal discussions, the credibility of the sources was considered and information and opinions provided was often times confirmed by the above reports. Because we have two major state highways in our City, our Public Works Department and .Caltrans would need to be included during the planning and implementation phases of any red light camera program. Prior to proceeding with formal meetings between these agencies, I recommend the City Council consider this report after review by the City Attorney's Office and Public Works Commission and then provide direction as to the continuance of the formal process of preparing a Request for Proposal and developing a formal plan of action between inter-city departments, Caltrans, and a chosen automated enforcement vendor. 1 f BACKGROUND Motorists running red lights cause a significant number of collisions resulting in injury and property damage each year in California. A 2005 United States Department of Transportation study indicated nationally, red light violations cause as many as 200,000 collisions resulting in 1,000 fatalities and 176,000 injuries yearly., Since it is difficult for officers to witness these violations, the Federal Highway Administration identified the automated enforcement systems, red light cameras, as a measure to address the problem. Red light cameras have been in use in Europe and Australia for more than 20 years. Based on these issues the California State Legislature authorized the use of red light cameras in 1996. In 2004, state legislation was enacted which codified red light camera programs. There are currently over 70 law enforcement agencies in California utilizing red light cameras. The Department of Transportation has reported red light running violations decreased by as much as 30% to 60% at intersections in jurisdictions where automated red light enforcement systems were used. Several Orange County cities currently have automated red light cameras as enforcement tools. These cities include Garden Grove, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Fullerton, and San Juan Capistrano. Although the City of Huntington Beach has not experienced a serious problem with intersection collisions directly attributable to red light violations, traffic flow through our community continues to increase and red light violations are occurring. Furthermore, there are studies that indicate that implementation of red light camera systems has a secondary effect of reducing all types of collisions in areas where they are installed. Red light violations pose a serious danger to the motoring public and law enforcement officers. According to the National Campaign to Stop Red Light Running Guide to Red Light Camera Programs study, from 1992-2000, the number of fatal collisions at signalized_ intersections jumped 19 percent nationally, with red light running being the single most frequent cause. More than half of those deaths were pedestrians and occupants in other vehicles hit by red light runners. Red light collisions are also expensive due to the costs of medical, administrative, legal and emergency services; rehabilitation of the injured, property damage, lost earnings, and the reduced quality of life. In addition to the tragic loss of life and health, the financial cost to the public was estimated to be in excess of $12 billion a year. The California Highway Patrol estimates that each red light running fatality costs society $2,600,000 and other red light running collisions cost between $2,000 and $183,000 depending on their severity. When a driver runs a red light and there is no collision involved, it is often more dangerous for police officers to apprehend and cite a red light runner because the officer must often also run the red light in order to stop the violator. This is because the officer must be in a position to actually see the red light being run and then go after the violator. 2 THE TECHNOLOGY Automated red light camera systems are computer controlled camera systems (digital stills and/or video) that record violations of red traffic signals at given traffic intersections 24-hours per day, 7-days a week. They do this through sequential photographs that, in California, must provide visual evidence of the vehicle involved, its license plate, and the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation. Because the technology is fairly sophisticated and specialized, local governments contract with outside vendors who provide the hardware and technical support for operating the camera systems. A typical automated red light camera system is made up of multiple cameras, a computer control box, and triggering mechanisms known as loops or sensors. Each direction of the system is known as an "approach." There is a potential of up to four "approaches" at a typical intersection, one to capture each direction of travel. The actual number of approaches is usually based on the need supported by Traffic Engineering studies. These studies will typically include a review of accident statistics, red light violation frequency, and the physical layout of the intersection to determine the viability of automated red light enforcement. The technology is intended to photograph events involving vehicles that have entered an intersection after the signal has turned red. Vehicles entering an intersection on a yellow light and still in the intersection when the light changes to red are not photographed. When a vehicle approaches an intersection with an automated red light camera system, loops or sensors register the presence of the vehicle and send a signal to the computer. If the traffic signal is green or yellow, the computer ignores signals from the loops. When the light turns red and both loops sense a vehicle, the computer factors the time between signals and calculates the speed of the vehicle. The computer then activates the camera or cameras which, depending upon the type of camera might also include a flash device for augmenting the light needed for a photo. Normally a video of the "incident" and four photos are taken: 1) the vehicle at the limit line, 2) the vehicle inside the intersection, 3) the license plate, and 4) the driver. Automated red light camera systems also record information in the frames of the photos for court purposes. Included is the date, time, location of intersection, speed of vehicle, and elapsed time between the light turning red and the car entering the intersection. After a suspected red light violator is photographed, the information is sent over a secure internet based line to the vendor, whose staff analyzes it for clarity and completeness of information as specified by local police. The vendor makes an initial judgment about the information based on its completeness and the quality of the photos. Conditions that might diminish photo quality often have to do with weather; i.e., sun glare, fog, rain, etc... The photos of the offending vehicle and driver, including the time, date, and speed involved in the event are forwarded to the appropriate police department, along with the identity of the vehicle's registered owner. An officer then examines all the materials and approves those they believe should result in citations. The red light events that the police approve for citation are returned to the vendor via a secure internet transmission 3 who then prepares the citations and sends them, within a specified time, to the registered owners and to the court. The registered owner also receives a courtesy notice from the court, followed by a warning notice if the owner doesn't respond. In many cases, the registered owner is the offending driver, but if not, the registered owner has the option of identifying the driver on the back side of the citation. If the registered owner pays the citation, the case is closed. The court distributes the cities portion of the fine and the driver receives a point on their driving record. If there is no response to the notice or the registered owner declares someone else was driving, then the police investigator attempts to match the photo of the driver with the registered owner's license photo on file with the California Department of Motor Vehicles. There is a process in place in which the officer can then file an affidavit with the court declaring the violator was mailed a citation and has not appeared in court. The court will then place a civil assessment hold on the violator's driver license through the Department of Motor Vehicles. This hold can result in the suspension of the violator's driver license per section 13365 CVC. This hold will remain in effect until the violator deals with citation by either paying for it or by appearing in court. Our court system also has its own in- house collection department which follows up on the failures to pay. Liens will be placed and reported to the Franchise Tax Board. The garnishing of wages is also employed for those who do not pay their fines. Before going to court, those receiving automated red light camera citations are offered the opportunity to view the evidence recorded by the cameras, usually at the police department. The automated red light enforcement vendors also send the violator a link E to a website where they can view their violation via their own computer at home. After seeing the still photos or videos, a high percentage of the accused plead guilty. Because the automated red light cameras operate 24 hours a day, 7-days a week, constant enforcement is provided and every violation is documented, which is something that simply cannot be done using traditional law enforcement means. The desired end result is a reduction of collision-causing violations. The State Auditors Report concluded that between January 1995 and September 2001, agencies in the state that employed red light cameras experienced a reduction in collisions caused by red light violations. The state report utilized seven cities and counties for data collection. Of those seven cities, five experienced a three percent to twenty-one percent decrease in red light collisions, one city had an increase of red light violation collisions by five percent, and one jurisdiction did not report. The report concluded that red light collisions decline after the implementation of a red light camera program, in some cases dramatically. Locally, since starting a red light camera system, the City of Garden Grove has experienced a 47% reduction in collisions, the City of San. Juan Capistrano had a 64% reduction, the City of Culver City had a 45% reduction, and the City of Santa Ana had a 23% reduction in overall collisions and a 13% reduction in injury collisions. Red light photo enforcement equipment has proven to be effective in reducing the collision rate at the intersections where they are installed. An additional benefit is the reduction of the overall collision rate for the entire city. This may be due to the increased awareness motorists pay to traffic signals in general to avoid a traffic citation. 4 LEGAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUES California Vehicle Code Section 21455 and its subsections authorize and regulate automated red light enforcement under the following conditions: • There must be a public hearing prior to adopting a red light camera program. • The agency must make a public announcement 30 days prior to starting a program. • -The agency must identify the system with signs for approaching motorists. • The agency must issue warning notices to violators for the first 30 days. • There must be a minimum yellow light change interval (set per Caltrans specifications). • The agency must perform administrative day-to-day functions and maintain control. • The agency must develop uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations. • Citations must be issued by a certified employee of the agency. • The agency must allow the violators to view the photos and/or videos. Per the US Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, there is discussion of privacy issues regarding red light cameras. Though there are legal opinions that red light cameras do not violate a citizen's legal right to privacy, there is still a perception that it does. The U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration also acknowledges some controversy can be generated from the perception that automated enforcement systems are simply revenue generators for the police. This perception can be overcome through public education and other means, such as earmarking revenue for traffic safety programs. One reason for this perception could possibly be attributed -to the way automated red light camera vendors were paid years ago when the system was new to California. Vendors were paid based on the number of citations generated or as a percentage of the revenue generated. This was addressed by the legislature and vendors can no longer be compensated based on the number of citations generated or as a percentage of the revenue generated. Vendors are now compensated at a flat rate per "approach". That is, a flat fee per month per camera system. In July 1999, the first automated red light camera system was installed in Orange County by the City of Garden Grove. The cities of Costa Mesa, Fullerton, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana later installed automated red light cameras in their respective cities. In 2001, San Diego's automated red light camera system was challenged in court. The case eventually led to the dismissal of about 300 automated red light camera system citations. The court ruled the city was not operating the system as required by law because 1) the vendor exercised too much control, and 2) the vendor was paid per citation collected. Thus, the San Diego program was deemed subject to potential 5 manipulation for profit. The San Diego experience led to changes in the law. The > changes came via Assembly Bill 1022 by Assemblywoman Jenny Oropeza. Current legal challenges to these systems appear to be resolved with the acceptance of AB 1022 and its clarified requirements for their operation. It became law January 1, 2004. The law: • Prohibits camera corporations from being paid on a per-conviction basis. • Prohibits camera corporations from selecting the locations for cameras. • Prohibits camera corporations from changing the timing of signal phases. • Prohibits camera corporations from reviewing and approving tickets. • Continues confidential treatment of photos, so that only the police, registered owner, and an identified driver of the vehicle can look at them. • Requires shredding of the photos after six months. • Makes mandatory minimum Caltrans requirements for the timing of yellow caution lights. The bill was proposed to the State Assembly with the thought that if a local government entity opts to use a red light camera program, the system should be operated in a manner which restores the public's trust that these devices are used solely as a traffic safety tool. Further, because citations are issued based on photo evidence, violations should be carefully screened, expeditiously handled, and due process protections - such as the requirement for a photograph of the driver, must never be compromised. To further promote the image that cities are safety, and not profit driven, improving the safety of an intersection should include evaluating alternative methods to reduce collisions. Some intersections might be better suited to an improvement in the physical environment or a change to the operating parameters after a Traffic Engineering study. -- - urgently, automated-red light camera systems are govemned-oy Lalifomia Vehicle oo e Sections 21453, 21455.5, 21455.6, 21455.7, 40518, and 40520, as well as Section 4D and Table 4D.102 of the California Supplement to the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 6 ANALYSIS The Police Department and Public Works Department would set forth a process that would select intersections for installation for an automated red light enforcement system. The city would determine the need, suitability, and locations that would benefit from red light cameras. The criteria for the use of red light camera enforcement as identified by the State Auditors Report are based on collision prevention, not on the frequency of red light violations. Once an intersection is identified as having a high frequency of collisions with red light violations as the primary collision factor, an engineering study should be completed, and, any deficiencies in engineering corrected. Engineering issues such as traffic signal timing, lane marking, road marking, size of traffic lights, and all red phasing should be included in engineering studies. This has been identified in the State Auditors Report as being critical in maintaining credibility with the public that safety, not revenue, is the primary motivator in red light enforcement. A cursory examination of collisions that occurred in the city in which a red light violation was the primary collision factor has been performed. During the one year period beginning-_Ja-nuary--1,-2006 and ending--December 31l 2006; there-were 1-69-collisions ----- — specifically attributed to red light running (5.2% of all collisions in the City). During the same period, the Police Department issued 673 red light citations using traditional enforcement means. The following table represents the statistics for the three 4 intersections with the highest frequency of red light collisions. NUMBER OF Jan 1,2006 RED LIGHT PEOPLE -----Through--- NON--- -RED-LI-GN_T__ INJ_URJED-IN-_ Dec 31, 2006 TOTAL RED LIGHT INJURY INJURY RED LIGHT COLLISIONS COLLISIONS COLLISIONS COLLISIONS COLLISIONS Beach/Edinger 46 11 7 4 5 Beach/Warner 45 7 3 4 5 Beach/Garfield 35 5 1 4 5 Prior to entering into a contract, the automated red light camera vendors will conduct a survey of intersections we recommend for the system. They will then create a report showing how many violations they observed at each intersection studied. This will supplement any Traffic Engineering study on which intersections will benefit from an automated red light camera system. Although our the Public Works Department uses advanced engineering at the intersections in the City, red light collisions still occur. Large diameter, bright LED signal lights are used, most intersections have an all red phase during the change of light colors, and many streets have wide, clearly marked lanes and limit lines. 7 There are times when other factors can contribute to red light violations. One key l example is when significant congestion exists and motorists experience long delays waiting through more than one cycle of the traffic signal. In these cases, motorists may push the end of a green phase due -to frustration. Engineering solutions to these situations should be considered as a primary tool prior to deploying automated enforcement. One other element of the engineering study is the mechanism through which the automated enforcement technology is connected to the traffic signal system. Some locations may offer several options for deploying cameras and facilitating system connections. These locations may result in minimal new poles and equipment being needed on the street, decreasing the visual impact of the system. Some locations may be significantly restricted due to the type and age of equipment that exists. For example, old or under-sized underground conduit may limit the ability to accept any new cable to the existing system to service the automated systems. In these cases, significantly more construction and engineering may be necessary to install an automated system. 8 COST The primary motive for using the devices is to improve safety. Automated red light camera enforcement systems are placed at intersections with high traffic volumes and histories of vehicular collisions caused by drivers running red lights. Automated red light camera enforcement systems also are seen as enhancements to local police departments that cannot possibly monitor intersections 24-hours per day seven days a week. They are seen, too, as deterrents because signs that warn of their existence are required by the California Vehicle Code. Traffic signal controlled intersections that have a high incident of red light violations as a primary collision factor for collisions will need to be analyzed. Engineering upgrades, if any, would need to be made to the intersections prior to installation of the cameras. Automated red light camera system vendors pay for any installation costs and recoup their costs with monthly leases on the system. They are paid a flat rate per approach per month. The average lease for the systems ranges from $5,000 to $6,000 per month per approach. Since the vendors own the equipment, they are also responsible for the upkeep of the cameras and poles in the event they are damaged by a traffic collision, vandalism, or other incident. Red light violations are downloaded into the system continuously on a 24-hour basis. Each violation at each "approach" must be analyzed to determine whether or not a citation will be issued. Because of the time sensitive nature of the red light camera citation system.and the laws governing its operation, most of the investigation involving automated red light camera citations must be conducted within short time limits. Under the automated red light camera system, the registered owner of a vehicle accused of running a red light must be notified within 15 days of the violation (West Superior Court has established guidelines, which state cit-ations must be mailed out within eleven_-days__.___ of the violation). If the citation is paid, the police department will never be involved with the citation again. However, if, after the initial notification by mail, the citation is not paid or has not been contested to court, we have one year to identify the driver or the citation will be purged by the court. One example of this would be if the violator is not the registered owner and the registered owner refuses to identify the violator. Our investigators would have one-year to identify the violator using conventional investigative means. This can be time consuming and requires some investigative skill. If they could not, the citation would then be purged. Per the legislation, violators have the right to review the photos and/or video of the violation. An officer will need to be available to review these violations with citizens at the police department. An officer will also need to testify in court about the system when citations are contested. In order to comply with the specific laws governing red light cameras and to keep up with the work load the program generates, it is recommended that if the decision is made to start an automated red light camera 9 program, one full-time sworn police officer and one full-time civilian police records. specialist be dedicated to managing the program. These positions would be necessary for a successful program because the laws governing camera programs mandate strict governmental control and oversight of the red light camera program. An officer will be responsible for full-time oversight and the strict adherence to the statutes related to red light camera programs. Full-time dedicated personnel would also limit the City of Huntington Beach's exposure to litigation and increase chances of successful prosecutions of red light citations as the level of expertise would remain at a high level. Some local standards for staffing are; Fullerton PD 6 approaches One full-time sergeant, three part-time officers, and one part-time PCO Culver City PD 20 approaches One full-time sergeant, one full-time officer, and one full-time police specialist. Santa Ana PD 20 approaches } One full-time officer, two part-time officers, and two full-time police specialists. Garden Grove PD 18 approaches One full-time officer and one part-time police specialist. Beverly Hills PD 11 approaches One part-time officer and two back up officers that help out as needed. Costa Mesa PD 12 approaches -One-fullame-police-specialis#:--- -- ------ San Juan Capistrano 2 approaches One part-time police officer. Los Alamitos PD 3 approaches One part-time sergeant and 3 reserves officers. 10 The officer in charge of the automated red light camera detail would have numerous duties related to administering the program. A sample of the duties of these positions \ would include: • Overall program oversight. • Intersection selection oversight. • Liaison during construction between the vendor and various city departments and state agencies. • Per 21455.5 CVC, ensure confidential information obtained from the DMV for administration or enforcement will be held confidential. • Maintain periodic on sight inspection of the vendor's facilities to insure compliance with state laws regarding confidentiality issues and the storing of photographs and DMV information. • Reviewing photos and issuing citations on a daily basis. All citations must be issued within eleven days of the violation per Orange County Superior Court and 40518(a) CVC. • Regular inspection of signs and cameras per 21455.5 CVC. • Liaison with the courts. • Responding to citizen inquiries and complaints. • Conducting video citation reviews with violators. • Timely investigation of DMV photographs and other investigative techniques in order to positively identify violators. • Testifying in court. } • Putting together court packages on subpoenaed cases. • Responding to discovery request about the system, the site selection, the traffic engineering studies, collision statistics, etc... • Filing affidavits with court on citations which have been ignored by violators. • Sending out dismissal letters through Superior Court. The cost of a top step full-time police officer including salary and benefits is $131,645 per year. The cost of a top step full-time police records specialist including salary and benefits is $64,306 per year. Equipment such as.office space, desks, telephones, computers, color printers, filing cabinets,__and_high_sp-ee-dlnternetaccess-is_also_-necessary--to-operate-this-type-of-detail. ------ --- The cost of these items have not tabulated within this report. 11 REVENUE Automated red light camera enforcement systems are sometimes seen as a potential source of municipal revenue. This is the most controversial aspect of the red light cameras. The obvious argument, and concern, is that governmental agencies are utilizing red light cameras to generate revenue, not to make intersections safer. Our main goal in this type of program should be to increase safety for the millions of motorists who use the roads within the City of Huntington Beach, not to make revenue. The goal of safety encompasses the objectives of saving lives, preventing injuries, and reducing societal costs through collision reduction and increased awareness. One way to prevent some of the negativity regarding increased revenue would be to earmark any surplus revenue from the program, above system and staffing costs, for traffic safety and street repair programs. The 2002 California State Auditors report, "Red Light Camera Programs" report stated that red light cameras do not necessarily generate significant amounts of revenue. In fact, only two out of the seven agencies in the 2002 report generated significant revenue from their red light camera program. Based on the fine schedule for red light citations in California, 1'/z paid citations per day, per approach, will pay for the monthly lease of each "approach." Although vendors offer a "cost neutrality" clause, this would only cover the cost of the lease of the system, not the cost of the police personnel to operate the system. The Chula Vista Police Department conducted a survey of several cities that utilize automated red light camera systems. Of the 10 cities surveyed, none reported receiving significant revenues from the program as most are breaking even or operating at a loss. Local exceptions to this are the City of Garden Grove program, which pays. for two full-time police officers and the City of Culver City program, which pays for one full-time Police Lieutenant, one full-time Police Sergeant, and one full-time civilian Police Specialist in addition to extra cash revenue. Informal discussions with local law enforcement agencies which employ an automated red light camera system estimate they issue approximately 1000 citations per approach per year. They collect fines from approximately 60% to 70% of the citations they issue. --- ---€estimates-of-the-number-af violations-per-approach-as-well-as--the-percentage-of-fines — collected are difficult to predict. The fact that the City of Huntington Beach has a varied -- -" - --seasonal and-transient popu ation must aTo be taken into consideration. For example, the intersection of-Beach-Blvd. and Edinger Ave is host-to eighty thousand-cars everyday with numbers increasing in the summer months. That's over 29.million cars per year. Although the potential for generating revenue exists, that potential is based on the amount of "paid" citations collected, not the volume of cars on the roadway._____ Currently, the total fine, plus fees, for running a red light is $336.00. The cities portion of each paid fine is $137.70. C 12 Red Light Camera Fines and Penalties Distribution Breakdown TOTAL FINE Base 100.00 Penalty Assessments 195.00 Night Court Fee(VC 42006) 1.00 Criminal Surcharge(PC 1465.7) 20.00 Court Security Fee(PC 1465.8) 20.00 Total 336.00 DISTRIBUTION: Description Cities'Portion State Portion County Portion Court Portion Total BASE$100: Red Light Fund 29.40 29.40 Motor Vehicle Fund 58.31 58.31 Trial Court Improvement Fund 2% Automation(GC 68090.8) 2.00 2.00 County Share of City Fines(PC 1463.001) 10.29 10.29 Total Base Finel 100.00 PENALTY ASSESSMENTS$195: Red Light Fund 49.99 49.99 Trial Court Improvement Fund 2% Automation(GC 68090.8) 3.90 3.90 State Court Facilities Construction Fund(GC 70372(a)) 14.70 14.70 -� County DNA Identification Fund (GC 70372(a)) 9.78 9.78 State Penalty Assessment(PC 1464) 48.03 20.58 68.61 County Penalty Assessment(GC 76000) 48.02 48.02 Total Penalty Assessment 195.00 ADDITIONAL CHARGES$41: Criminal Surcharge(PC 1465.7) 20.00 20.00 Court Security Fee(PC 1465.8) 20.00 20.00 Night Court Fee(VC 42006L. 1.00 1.00 Total Additional Charges 41.00 GRAND TOTAL 137.70 108.63 88.67 1.00 336.00 Round 1: 2% of f otd Automdhcn _ ($100 x 2%) _. --- Round 2: 30% of remandar ($98 x 30%)Red L icaht Fund -_ --- -- --- ---- R ouncl 3: Of the new rerrianc�r, 15%to County S hoe&85% to the City S hoe(Moto'Vehide F und) ($68.60 x 15% _$10.29&$68.60 x 85% =$58.31) 13 Below are potential revenue estimates using 10 or 20 approaches in the City. Each was estimated using only 3 citations per day and a collection rate of 65% (1.9 paid citations) 10 approaches Average cost of $5,500 per approach per month ($660,000 per year) 90 citations per approach per month (using an average of only 3 citations per day) Collection of fines on 65% of all citations issued (1.95 per day/58.5 per month) 58.5 x $137.70 = $8,055.45 in revenue per month per approach ($96,665.40 per year) 10 approaches x $8,055.45 = $80,554.50 per month or $966,654.00 per year. Revenue $966,654.00 per year. Cost of system $660,000.00 per year Net revenue $306,654.00 per year 20 approaches Average cost of $5,500 per approach per month ($660,000 per year) 90 citations per approach per month (using an average of only 3 citations per day) Collection of fines on 65% of all citations issued (1.95 per day/58.5 per month) 58.5 x $137.70 = $8,055.45 in revenue per month per approach. 20 approaches x$8,055.45 = $161,109.00 per month or $1,933,308.00 per year. Revenue $1,933,308.00 per year. Cost of system $1,320,000.00 per year Net revenue $613,308.00 per year 14 AESTHETICS Aesthetics is an issue related to the automated red light camera systems. Each vendor has different equipment, some more obtrusive than others. The red light cameras are usually housed in boxes and are either placed on existing traffic signal poles, street light poles, or the vendor installs their own poles. Flash units are also installed on these poles in order to capture a quality photograph of the violation and to identify the driver. A traffic control box is also typically installed either on a pole or near an existing traffic control box on one of the corners of the intersection. The degree to which the equipment is obtrusive will depend on which vendor is selected. Even though all of the red light cameras currently available perform virtually the same tasks, each manufacturer has unique design characteristics which could be considered positives or negative in terms of aesthetics. T During initial contact with vendors, each said they would work N with the City in order to make the least obtrusive system while Y still performing its task of capturing quality photos of red light violations. - - -Per the California Vehicle-Code, the agency must also identify the "system with signs -- - -that clearly indicate the system's presence and are visible to traffic approaching from all -- — — directions." The typical sign seen in southern California is of a traffic signal with the words, "Photo Enforced" below it. 15 HOT Yjj�11 '[A+g iq�o Q yamW 14; �[ ^±� 16 E N F C LEE`1) A A mum t 0% in00%i a t e d Red Light Camera Systems Background • Authorized in 1996. Revised in 2004. • Over 70 agencies in California. SGarden Grove, Costa Mesa, Santa Ana, Fullerton, Los Alamitos, an San Juan Capistrano.) • Yearly ® 200,000 collisions, 1,000 fatalities, 176,00 injuries . • Violations and collisions decrease. ® Secondary effect o overall decrease in red light running. • Garden Grove ® 47% reduction in collisions. ® San Juan Capistrano - 4% reduction in collisions. • Santa Ana o 23% reduction in collisions ® 13% injury collisions. Automated Red Light Camera System Technology • Computer controlled - (digital Mills and/or video) • Multiple cameras, triggering mechanisms, computer .control boat • Records violations 24-hours a clay, 7-days a week • Up to four "approaches" at a typical intersection • Need supported by Traffic Engineering studies, collision statistics,, and physical layout of intersection How aCamera System Works I - r�dl-high traffic camera signa N Via'o N s z. n - i' 1 7 � , :e i o M l - r rD (D c� . _ . rD5 a � r�1 CD .0 C/ C��0 $1 HowStoftwu�rks typical red l violation ryf n r-- aLL �G r ti No Picture Videa:mpeg: ' f8 Main and Mollison, El Cajon (EC-MAMO-01 v3.1.8.7) Lane: 2 REDFLEX SL:040 MPH VS:030 MPH Wednesday 03 Jul 2002 17:19":54 P: RED TR 2.1 ; AMC e x sx` it t r t y e aC e ` jv * n., WOW ne * P � " a; i " Image `hind the Violation ` ` Phase Clearly Visible iMain and • • Cajoni Wednesday • i •y±- � x,� ff � f tps �4 5 5 AIN i e r 5• ' r M / L r s. �>nfitr, 5 r'rni" fv- �s t Y� Scene "B " Image • Through the Intersection • Red Phase Clearly Visible $ w= f8 Main and Moilison, El Cajon (EC-MRMO-01 v3.1.8.7) Lane. 2 REDFLEX SL:040 MPH VS.030 MPH Wednesday 03 July 2002 17:19:54 P. RED TR',. ti• I 9 ^h r. 9 0 c ' _ "' i l! K Rear "Plate" Image Easy Vehicle Identification Clear Alphanumeric r.. `� a YII���si�. Ckij4 fryNi •�� � - •I i�� x . , I J � i � • • i � 1 i K 4 _ , , A- 5i aceo river . p 8 ' .{��• �'-vim ' Zti 3 � t t Y ` A•r {�x r [kti wf _ b. F { � w to Frontal "Face" Image A. Ear Driver Identification. M . z., . Crash No Picture Crashi.mpeg Process Flow Image Quality Assurance Incident System Diagnostics DMV Access Issuance Filtering .^� 2 IWARTMI PHOTO ENFORCED vendor Police Review&Authorization {.S t o� Citations Printed& Mailed Citation Hearinq & Adjudication 4gES POSTq_ R UJ �Y g - LEGAL ISSUES • 21455 CVC - Authorizes and regulates red light camera systems - Strict guidelines for agencies - Assembly Bill 1022 (2004 changes in law) - Changes designed to restore public's trust that these devices are used solely as traffic safety tools, not revenue generators 2006 Statistics 169 collisions specifically attributed t® red Sight running (5.2%) PD issued 673 red light citations using traditional methods Jan 1,2006 TOTAL RED LIGHT RED LIGHT RED LIGHT TOTAL through COLLISIONS COLLISIONS NON-INJURY INJURY INJURIES Dec 31, 2006 COLLISIONS COLLISIONS Beach/Edinger 46 11 7 4 5 Beach[Warner 45 7 3 4 5 Beach/Garfield 35 5 1 4 5 Costs . • Vendor pays installation costs • Vendor paid a flat rate per approach per month (Average is $5,000 to $6,000 per month per approach) • One full-time Police Officer ($131,645/yr) • One full-time Police Records Specialist ($64,306/yr) • Desks, telephones, computers, color printers, filing cabinets, and high speed Internet access Revenue • Red light fine is $336.00 • City's portion is $137.70 10 approach system Cost • Average $5,500/month or $66,000/year per approach • 3 citations per day (90 per month) • Collection on 65% (1.95 per day or 58.5 per month per approach) Revenue • $137.70 x 58.5 = $8,055.45/month or $96,665.40/year per approach • 10 approaches x $8,055.45 = $80,554.50/mo. or $966,654.00/yr. • Potential Revenue $966,654.00 per year • Cost of system $660,000.00 per year • System Revenue $306,654.00 per year • Full-time Police Officer $131,645.00 per year • Full-time Records Specialist $64,306.00 per year • Net Revenue $110,694.00 per year ® Perception - Revenue generators for agencies. Computers, not people, issue citations. Vendors, not police officers, issue citations. Vendors get paid per citation. ® Reality - Red light collisions decrease. ®river awareness increases. Police officers revue each violation and use their discretion to cite or not. Vendors are paid a flat rate per month, not per citation. Negative perception can be changed through; • Education (City web site, flyers, public forums) • Earmarking revenue for traffic safety and • street repair programs Aesthetics 3 �� __ a� _ •'q, � tax... 4AiN'. .. l � x wM,�'yW 1 i4 e :7n"� +.W +• S ..; EVA .1 w'fttt 7 - LU r , r n Red Light Camera Fines and Penalties Distribution Breakdown TOTAL FINE Base 100.00 Penalty Assessments y s � ' 225.00 Night Court Fee(VC 42006) x s 1.00 CFiminal Surcharge(PC 1465.7) 4 t 20.00 Court Security Fee(PC 1465.8) �� l 20.00 Total a $ r 366.00 DISTRIBUTION: ••„,,,."T � ,..,,.!Description , "., .: , - , • �., ,£. .•..: ,. Cities'Portion State Portion CountyPortion Court Portion Total WTWI, . k N BASE$100: „p Red Light Fund 6,. .. �.., 29.40 - 29.40 Motor Vehicle Fund 58.31 58.31 ' 483"tibti -- Trial Court Improvement Fund ' ;2%, o� e ., ,_„ s 2`.00 Automation(GC 68090.8) 2.00 t88b9Q$; ,� _ County Share of City Fines(PC Pd6 018r xi fig: 1463.001) ' 146. a .. ",.r�. .� 9 10.29 10.29 Total Base Fme, 4 QQ„ 29 4q'. 100 00 PENALTY ASSESSMENTS$195 ,,, ,,� fix„ s, Red Light Fundy 66.13 66.13 Trial Court Improvement Fund 2% , 4.50 4.50 Automation(GC 68090.8) " .. „< x.. State Court Facilities Construction Fund(GC 70372(a)) � �., ��, ,? g<� o 14.70 14.70 County DNA Identification Fund (GC 70372(a)) - �- 9.79 9.79 19.58 State Penalty Assessment(PC 1464) .. , ,,r" >,, .; ,:; 41.39 17.71 59.10 County Penalty Assessment(GC3 a r 76000) ., H, _ 6, � :. 41.39 41.39 Emergency Medical Services(SB a ` p " 1773) 19.60 19.60 Total Penalty Assessment -, ;i ,�,<". �,a ._. _ _ -'- , a `= 225.00 SAM ADDITIONAL CHARGES$41 ,} ,. Criminal Surcharge(PC 1465 Court Security Fee(PC 1465 8) .. 20.00 Night Court Fee(VC 42006) }may," " 1.00 1.00 T . Total Additional Charges >',° �,;�..•':,.� .�q:an�., ...,.., r. ,.,,,, .:�' �.4.� ,� 41.00 27 GRAND TOTAL ��--•a �yr 153.84 112.38 98.78 1.00 366.00 'F . Round 1: 2%of Total Automation P 11 vgg Round 3: Of the new rremainde�r,15%tq Co hars 8' ,5° #o the 1 �9 r y .. , .fig ,tyhar, ,.m�?far/efai�te� }E$6 °�a:� zs a$68.60 X 85°i°_$58.31] ATTACHMENT #4 The Redflex Methodology—Video Survey/Calculator Model Redflex will work closely with various City agencies, including the Police Department and Traffic Engineering in the identification of the City's most dangerous intersections. As part of this process, we will complete a detailed video-analysis at each identified intersection. While conducting the survey, Redflex will have NO impact on the City's traffic flow. Redflex simply sends a survey crew out to the locations where they are equipped with small, digital video cameras. Our survey technicians temporarily affix the camera to any available existing curb side infrastructure that will allow for a clear capture of the approach and all movements of traffic. Once in place the cameras record for 12 hours before being removed. The video recorded by the cameras is sent back to Redflex for review and capture of all violations. This video analysis will provide baseline violation data for a minimum of 12 hours and during peak traffic times, providing specific details on: • Volume of Violations: o By Time of Day o By Lane o By Type of Movement (Left, Thru, and Right) o Actual clipped video of each violation that occurred Sample Video Analysis Table 91Yf�wPli� November1 ® Scottsdale ���E___requested_II P� ! Completing a detailed video-analysis will ensure that Redflex and the City truly develop and implement a comprehensive "Approach Strategy", that will provide the City with detailed information for accurate fact-based decisions on possible program expansion efforts. Colorado St & Florence Blvd — Eastbound h _.• :� insmued By R.boaprinoot N . requmoed T—of Doll� Left Turn ® a.... TOTAL ©©®m10 .� In addition to our standard Video Survey as detailed above, Redflex has also developed an additional mathematical analysis approach that is truly unique in the industry. The mathematical model allows us to examine how environmental factors at an intersection approach will impact driving behavior. In developing this capability, Redflex sought the guidance of a renowned traffic engineering team at Texas A&M University for the development of a mathematical "Violation Calculator" that factors in not only the quantitative violation analysis, but the engineering factors at an approach that would also influence driver behavior. Additional engineering factors include: • Traffic Volume • Approach Speed • Signal Head Back Plates (Yes/No) mom • % of Heavy Vehicles • 85 Percentile V ' A�44-.• • Clearance Path , .•_ ��,.�. « = • # of Through Lanes K1lCt.N Ikq,Sf PM tY"...]ijF::X'.a Cvl iA40C�d 4CT.�.fSIFYF.-.'"d • Yellow Duration • Average Green Duration .w, nw4,,, . ., • Actuated — Distance from Sensor to Approach • Average Cycle Length CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONS Pagel of 3 Esparza, Patty From: Norm Westwell [normw@ modern public.coml Sent: Monday, September 17, 2007 11:16 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Red light scam-eras in HB are not necessary Please include this document in the public record at the next opportunity that the red light camera issue comes before the council. Thank you, Norm Firecracker Westwell 17171 Englewood Cr. HBCA 92647 714.842.4075 ----------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------- Dear Council members. I urge you to NOT SUPPORT red light scam-eras in HB. Here are some reasons: Captain Thomas in his own words said he does not believe ANY intersections in HB are dangerous. Where is the problem? Who benefits? This action is going to create additional EXPENSIVE police staff to sit behind desks inside the station. HB residents want more PATROL officers on the street protecting us from VIOLENT CRIMINALS, not more desk officers! Captain Thomas showed a video taken by a red light camera at the study session on 9/17/07. It showed a car running a stale red light (red for 3 or 4 seconds). It was very dramatic. However let me remind you that red light camera recording the accident FAILED its intended purpose to REDUCE accidents. THE CAMERA IN THE ACCIDENT VIDEO DID NOT IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF ANYONE IN THAT INTERSECTION. The fact is that the camera only recorded an accident which was going to occur anyway. Nearly all of the citations recorded are for vehicles who barely miss the light and are indeed in violation. While technically in violation, they are SELDOM putting the public at any substantial elevated risk. It is the extreme "stale red" violators who put the public at risk. Most often, these drivers are not trying to "rush a yellow"...... They never even saw the red. Nothing is ever going to prevent this type of dangerous behavior. You can put a hundred cameras in an intersection and you are still going to have that type of major accident. There are other, more effective, ways to reduce drivers running red lights and the accidents caused by them. 9/18/2007 Page 2 of 3 For example, by extending the duration of yellow lights by 1.5 seconds. A study has shown that this change decreased violations by 96 percent . Now that is increasing public safety..... and it does not cost anything. Why don't we try this method FIRST. ( I have not been able to locate the study cited but I am quite certain our traffic engineer could) Will you be including in the ordinance a provision that the cameras will NEVER be used for automatic speeding violations as other cities are trying? Government creep. It happens. I believe this will ultimately lead to people wearing masks while driving. Is the the unintended consequence we want to create? Drivers wearing helmets skimasks or burkas? When the camera systems are shown to be ineffective will the vendor be required to remove the equipment and make our streets and traffic standards whole again. Let me remind you about the hundreds and hundreds of expensive old police car locator boxes spread all over town which were abandoned after only a few years of use by the police department. To date the police dept. have not removed these devices which are still creating visual blight. Before installing more law enforcement related equipment, the police should be required to remove the mess already blighting our community for which they are responsible! You only have to look up about 30 feet at most intersection light poles or utility poles to see the 6" x 6" x 6" white boxes with 6" antenna hanging down to view the issue. What happens when the police abandon the red light scam-era "experiment"? Based on past experience they will simply abandon them like the police car locator "experiment", or the old gun range, to become additional new HB visual blight. KISS - Keep it simple stupid - Here is a libertarian method: Having a camera without a sign will not increase safety because drivers would not even know a camera was there. The ONLY way a driver knows a camera it installed is because a sign tells them so. Therefore, the same increase in public safety could be achieved by simply installing a sign which reads something like: "Red Light Camera Enforcement May Be In Use". No expensive cameras would be needed at all. The end result would still be increased traffic safety. Isn't that the stated goal?! Before installing an expensive camera system, isn't it prudent to try something cheaper and simpler FIRST. 1. Longer yellows - cost = $0 & no additional staff 2. Signs only - cost =$200 & not additional staff 9/18/2007 Page 3 of 3 If this is issue is NOT about revenue then any revenue generated should be directed to victims of red light accidents. They are the ones who really need it. Here are some links I had time to locate to support not installing red light scam-eras. Phoenix traffic engineer Mike Frisbie said suggestions for cutting down red-light violations have included extending the duration of the yellow light. http://w-ww.hwysafety.com/nma ric timeline3.htm http�-//www.washingto npost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844.html Wtp://www_.newsnet5 com/news/13333.662/detail.html httr)://www.newsnet5.com/news/11.533364/detail.html Time permitting, I will endeavor to provide additional information on this issue. Warmest regards, -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Norm Firecracker Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ I / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com It's your government - GET INVOLVED! . 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Norm Westwell [normw@modernpublic.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:07 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Esparza, Patty Subject: Safer Intersections @ Zero Cost& No Red Light Scameras Issue: Installation of Red Light Scameras in 1-113 Stated Goal: To increase public safety at traffic light controlled intersections Libertarian Solutions: 1 . Increase yellow light time. 2. Increase all red light time. 3. Increase both. All 3 methods are proven to achieve your stated goal. Just ask our traffic engineer. Cost to implement. $0. Taxpayers like these kinds of ideas. Taxpayers save : $855,951 .00 per year at each intersection !!! By NOT implementing the pilot program, taxpayers will save $2,567,853.00 in the first year alone. We can fix a lot of potholes for that kind of dough. City Clerk. Please enter this into the public record when this red light camera issue next comes before the council. Thank you. -------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- Norm Firecracker Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ 1 / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com .61 9/20/2007 Page 1 of 3 Esparza, Patty From: Norm Westwell [normw@modernpublic.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 10:42 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: Esparza, Patty Subject: Red Light Scameras- More studies on rear-end collisions Popular Mechanics.com Published in the March 2006 issue. Full online version with graphics: hftp://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/upgrade/2420766htmi <snip> Others worry about safety. Red-light cameras are supposed to make us safer by discouraging people from running red lights. The trouble is that they work too well. Numerous studies have found that when these cameras are put in place, rear-end collisions increase dramatically. Drivers who once might have stretched the light a bit now slam on their brakes for fear of getting a ticket, with predictable results. A study of red-light cameras in Washington, D.C., by The Washington Post found that despite producing more than 500,000 tickets (and generating over $32 million in revenues), red-light cameras didn't reduce injuries or collisions. In fact, the number of accidents increased at the camera-equipped intersections. Likewise, red-light cameras in Portland, Ore., produced a 140 percent increase in year- end collisions at monitored intersections, and a study by the Virginia Transportation Research Council found that although red-light cameras decreased collisions resulting from people running traffic lights, they significantly increased accidents overall. This problem can be aggravated by jurisdictions that shorten the duration of yellow lights, apparently to generate more ticket revenue. Last year, CBS News reported on an especially egregious case in Maryland: A traffic-camera intersection had a 2.7-second yellow light, while nearby intersections had 4-second times. Shorter yellow lights are more dangerous--but shorter yellow lights plus traffic cameras generate revenue. These kinds of revelations led UCLA law professor Stephen Bainbridge to write on his blog: "In my book, these instruments of the devil are just a tax on drivers." The American Automobile Association and the National Motorists Association agree, and opposition has led several states to enact laws restricting the use of traffic cameras. Smile, You're Busted When a vehicle enters an intersection, it trips induction sensors, which in turn trigger a camera to take both wide-angle and closeup shots of the violation. ILLUSTRATION BY FLYING- CHILLI.COM Meanwhile, some motorists are taking matters into their own hands. Various devices of dubious legality are sold to drivers to render traffic cameras ineffectual, including reflective sprays and polarized license-plate covers that promise to make the photos illegible. (In _G 9/20/2007 Page 2 of 3 Europe, the GPS-based Talex Speed Camera Alert System warns drivers approaching areas known to be camera-equipped.) Some motorists have resorted to vandalism, shooting or spray-painting the cameras. Defenders of the cameras respond that red-light running is a genuine problem, and that something has to be done about it. But if the emphasis is on safety--rather than on revenue-- there are better ways of dealing with the problem. A recent study done by the University of Central Florida for the Florida Department of Transportation found that improving intersection markings in a driving simulator reduced red-light running by 74 percent without increasing the number of rear-end collisions. Likewise, a Texas Transportation Institute study found that lengthening yellow-light times cut down dramatically on red-light running. It also found that most traffic-camera violations occurred within the first second after the light turned red (the average was just one-half second after the light change), while most T-bone collisions occurred 5 or more seconds after the light change. If there's a problem, cameras aren't really addressing it. Whatever their limitations, law-enforcement cameras can be irresistible for local governments since they're literally money machines. But voters have other ideas. As an editorial on the automotive blog thetruthaboutcars.com notes, "Every time photo radar is put to a direct popular vote, it loses." In 2002 the city council in Lyndhurst, Ohio, dropped a plan to install speed cameras after encountering intense public opposition. ("DOA. Never to be revisited again. Bad idea," one councilman said of the proposal.) And in Akron, Ohio, the city council voted to refund a portion of fines to more than 2000 drivers who were ticketed by speed cameras during a 19-day period last year. Among other complaints, some drivers claimed that they were issued tickets in school zones during times when low school-zone speed limits were not in effect. If speed cameras catch on, despite such local opposition, expect to hear similar complaints about badly marked speed zones and other moves calculated to catch motorists unawares. Two groups likely to embrace traffic cameras, however, are lawyers and political consultants. In many states, photos taken by the cameras will be discoverable under state Freedom of Information acts. That means anyone who asks can get copies. A personal-injury lawyer might use the photos as evidence in support of a lawsuit claiming that intersections are unsafe. A political consultant might look for pictures of incumbent politicians speeding and running lights- -and then check to see if the pictures show someone sitting in the passenger seat, and do a little more digging to find out just who that person might be. The possibilities are endless. But there's more to it than politics. Do we as a nation really want to go down this road? To see where we could be heading, look at Britain with its surveillance cameras. Starting in December, the British government began compiling a database of information from thousands of cameras around the country. Using 35 million license-plate "reads" a day, it will be able to pinpoint the location of every vehicle on British roads. Can you say "Big Brother"? If voters don't make politicians rethink these automated cops, perhaps lawyers and political opponents will. Otherwise, get used to Big Brother watching you. And mailing you a ticket. Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and writes the blog instapundit.com. His book, An Army of Davids: How Markets and Technology Empower Ordinary People to Beat Big Media, Big Government, and Other Goliaths, will be published this month. 9/20/2007 Page 3 of 3 --------------------------- --------------------------- City Clerk, please place this document into the public record at the appropriate time when the red light camera issue next comes before the Council. Thank you. -------------------------------------------- Norm Firecracker Westwell - Huntington Beach, CA normw@ModernPublic.com \ j / THERE IS A PRICE FOR BEING FREE Torch of Liberty, enlightening the world www.ModernPublic.com It's your government - GET INVOLVED! 9/20/2007 RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Police Department SUBJECT: Red Light Camera Enforcement Program PHASE #1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 2, 2009 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Ap licable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached ❑ Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable ❑ Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted, over $5,000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached ❑ Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FOR ARDED Administrative Staff Deputy City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: C. S t1r RCA Author: Sgt Rob Warden/Mindy James PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 2, 2009, at 6:00 pm in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing to authorize an exclusive agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. for a photo red light enforcement program. PURPOSE: The City of Huntington Beach is conducting a public hearing before the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach in compliance with California Vehicle Code 21455.6 (a), which states; A city council or county board of supervisors shall conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system authorized under Section 21455.5 prior to authorizing the city or county to enter into a contract for the use`of the system. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS willing to express support or opposition on the proposed contractual agreement and proposed use of said project will be given an opportunity to do so at the public hearing or may, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments to the Office of the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST FORM MEETING DATE: 3/2/09 SUBJECT: Red-Light Camera Enforcement Program Contract DEPARTMENT: HBPD CONTACT NAME: R.Warden PHONE: x1 514 N/A YES NO ( ) (x) ( ) Is the notice attached? ( ) (x) ( ) Do the heading and closing of the notice reflect a hearing before the City Council and/or Redevelopment Agency? { ) (x) ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? (x) ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? (x) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? (x) ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? (x) ( ) ( ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( } (x) Is a larger ad required? Size (x) ( ) ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy otthe mailing list? (x) ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? (x ) ( ) ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? (x ) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? (x ) ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, are the resident labels attached? (x ) ( ) ( ) Is Summary Report 33433 attached? (Redevelopment Agency items only) What is the minimum number of days from publication to hearing date? 18 i What is the minimum number of times to be published? 1 What is the specified number of days between publications? N/A FOR ADMINISTRATION AND CITY CLERK USE ONLY Approved for public hearing Date noticed to newspaper i Date published Date notices mailed i I RCA Process Training Manual 10-05-06 -24- V�I Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) PUBUCHEARINGNOTICE BEFORE THE CITY COUNM SS. OF HUNiINGTON BEACH i 2000 Main Street COUNTY OF ORANGE ) City' of Huntington I Beach Huntington Beach, ,CA.92648 NOTICE IS HEREBY am the Citizen of the United States and a -GIVEN that on Monday, March'.2, 2009,.at 6:00 resident of the County aforesaid; I am over ipm in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main the age of eighteen years, and not a party ;Street, Huntington ;Beach, the City Council to or interested in the below entitled matter. will hold a public hearing I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON ;si authorize an - slue, agreement betweeetween ithe City of Huntington BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of Beach and Redflex Traf- fic Systems, Inc. for. a general circulation, printed and published in ;photo red light, en- forcement program. the City of Huntington Beach, County of PURPOSE: The City of Huntington Beach is Orange, State of California, and the conducting a' public hearing before the City attached Notice is a true and complete copy Council of the city of Huntington Beach in as was printed and published on the compliance with Califor- nia Vehicle Code 21455.6 following date(s): (a),which states;A city council or county board of supervisors shall con- duct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system authorized under Section 21455.5 prior to authorizing the;city or county to enter into a contract for the use of the system. February 12, 2009 ALL INTERESTED press SON$ wilting to express support or opposition on the proposed rcon- tractual agreement, and proposed use of said project will be given an opportunity to do so at the public hearing.or ay, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments to the declare, under penalty of perjury, that the . Office of the city clerk. p y p er ry Joan L.Flynn;City Clerk City of. Huntington foregoing is true and correct. Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach; California 92648 2009 (714)536-5227 Executed on February 12, ; Published Huntington at Costa Mesa, California Beach Independent Feb'- ruary12,2009- 022-357 Signat Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County, State of California,under date of Aug.24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBUC HEARING NOTICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) BEFORE THE TON YC a�HL 2000 Main Street.., SS. City of. Huntington COUNTY OF ORANGE ) Beach Huntington Beach, CA.92648 NOTICE .IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, 1 am the Citizen of the United States and a I March z, 2009, at s:oo pm in the.City Council resident of the County aforesaid; I am over Chambers, unto Main j Street,, .Huntington the age of eighteen years and not a party Beach, to p bl Council will hold a ublic hearing to authorize an exclu- to or interested in the below entitled matter. sive agreement between 1 am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON Bean and ReHuntington flex'T of BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of ph Systems, Inc. for - photo .red' light en- forcement program. general circulation, printed and published in PURPOSE: The city of the Cityof Huntington Beach Count of Huntington Beach is g , y conducting a public g hearing before the City Orange, State of California, and the Council of.the City of Huntington Beach ,in attached Notice is a true and complete copy compliance with Califor- nia Vehicle Code 21455.6 as was printed and published on the (a),which states;A city council or county board following date(s): ( of supervisors shall con- duct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement system authorized under Section 21455.5 prior to authorizing the city or county to enter into a contract for the,use of the system. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS willing to express February 12, 2009 I support or opposition on the proposed con- tractual agreement and, proposed use 'of said project will be given an opportunity'to do so at the public, hearing or may, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments to the Office of the City Clerk. Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk declare, under penalty of perjury, that the City. of Huntington i Beach foregoing is true and correct. 2000 Main Street, I 2nd Floor Huntington Beach; - California 92648 (714)536-5227 Executed on February 12, 2009 Published Huntington Beach Independent Feb- ruary 12,2009 at Costa Mesa, California , 022-357 Signatu b S , i , 4 i ,dO%L. i PHOTO ' 'ENFORCED I coNv C@Mlmcou A@@� / A@rgh 2, 20 I 0 Q vocH t � 9@MR91H W@pNgh@ ,oJ t o o o � � w@ad@p Y f err r � r �� � ° �o �l or . , rr ��o �� {�� � �� -�rt� � ' ' ► _► � rl � g rogo f@p go @ pmd clog j�' " l Q_+ ! O (OJ 1 i !J j 7 1 Y _` �� ��J �/i I j✓ !� 0 `'J `I ,'��) ��; 1lJ Y YJ=� �� ,"lJ! �i� '!;� c�'� �+ C�� Amg dbm � 6%r@ % wA, Y od(F,@g @ftog �j J jr gm f alJ r�� ( � �! � `:� 1,• 4f � t'J 'J 4l �?,�a\� � �lJ� `�� 1 i �a -1- l I `_,( )� i a _J COVI, rndm6u,�@Vo J f i t f em@ _ ; f aaa0aaa w9vaa0 a , as(9a i ? oc@oS@f@�v o � o � IDJI a� as a a l s � F c R �} k 1 111 Y 1 i (\—DA, Y Q20, 2 _ lovift � �i . ` ' s t F V ~ r ,j r` .N `i a'",�,k ,� xa`i" � �", Z '' •� ur .�': '�.�E z�k n �`. `,�'�; .77 I a $ f n t mum in a �qvs es Safi " I s I Ys I K Rear "Plate" Image • Easy Vehicle Identification • Clear .Alphanumeric ;r a c- ��� FoOW�a � C7. _ 4 O --St.114 d do aY Vag i n tern 4 V � f PHOTO ENFORCED Redf hex I °a OBC� QC�OCC�7 �3 GJ r o 0�00(n� ° >Z intern ' "PIT STq. Y }* Uo it 7F`.' A H , INV - - - — �a 9 r �r y k ^i,<der.2 .✓?'*� @Ptd, ry t co� m @ LW i 0CCC OCR 00 o ° I I r � r / I MOW 000 o �0�0a 0 040PO0 0 0 0 PeDflogo gm@go�00 0 � a � 0000000 .000 Ak 00 00 D Ora 0 j fit= �..--:�.-� ::- �-. �y., ,,". _=�,•._ ."`�irr'y, I I I .f a r- MUM b@� G,fi9r@mg@d mm@malpm ! iV' rQ0Ji �0� ( j Q OJQ� QO� t � rJ do � �Q .. `.� l � �I '�� i �,--� � o � `� � �s � i �� � 1 � 1 , `� � � (� ' � i ' � `_� _� J � � �1 , __� Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [su rfcity@ user.govo utreach.corn] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:44 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Message About Request#: 268 [91146099439] ---Enter your reply above this line--- Message from employee: Pat Dapkus sent you this message about Request#268 Reply to this email to send any comments or message back to the sender. Message: Comments on the traffic camera item on tonight's Council agenda. Request Information Request type: Comment Request area: City Council Member - Contact Requestor name: Kevin Clancey Assigned To: Cathy Fikes Description: Red light cameras. Please research this motion further. The easiest ticket to beat. A Google search. "Red light tickets CA," will provide many references. I beat my Costa Mesa Adams & Harbor ticket by reading www.highwayrobbery.net. We are trying to attract visitors. This motion will not. If T-Boned by a red light runner, I could quickly be toast in my Pontiac Firebird. The issue is important, but please don't start this revenue generator in my town. Thank you Kevin Clancey Expected Close Date: 03/02/2009 3/2/2009 C' Pagel of 2 Lugar, Robin From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:36 PM To: Lugar, Robin Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request* 286 Request#286 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Bob Clitherow Description: From: Bob Clitherow [mailto:bobclitherow@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 12:23 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Vote NO Red Light INCOME Cameras Government is not a solution to our problem, government is the problem. Ronald Regan Please vote NO for red light cameras! I was reading in the OC Register that you will be discussing the revenue generating red light camera scheme. I suppose you will use the "For The Children" or some other liberal phrase to justify screwing drivers out of as much income as you can. This is only about INCOME not safety,this is so transparent! That is why the Chief police union thug is so supportive of it! I have lived in Huntington Beach since 1996. I have maybe voted for new council members once but NEVER twice. If this is voted down, I may reconsider this strategy and vote for an incumbent. The way I vote about policy I don't support is to NOT purchase anything in the city that supports its addiction to tax money. I stopped buying in Huntington Beach years ago, out of protest. The last area I will now change is grocery shopping. I use Sam's Club in Fountain Valley for most of my needs but will now use either Costa Mesa or Fountain Valley for the stuff Sam's doesn't have. As you can see I don't have much leverage since I have already protested to the point of only paying property taxes and vote for non-incumbents. The only thing I can hope for is that you guys are Libertarian enough to stop this madness in the name of"use any liberal theme here." Please vote NO for red light cameras. Thank you! Bob Clitherow Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Expected Close Date: 03/03/2009 3/2/2009 Page 2 of 2 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 9 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:22 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Red Light Camera Vote Tonight in Huntington Beach From: Martin _ [mailto:libertyhill@live.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 5:03 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: aburris@ocregister.com; johnandken@johnandkenshow.com Subject: Red Light Camera Vote Tonight in Huntington Beach Hello to the members of the Huntington Beach City Council. I saw the article from the OC Register "Huntington Beach considers red-light cameras" [ http://www.ocreciister.com articleslred- light-city-2320357-cameras-traffic] and thought I would weigh in on the issue before you vote on it. If nothing else, I'd ask you to familiarize yourselves with a few issues before approving these cameras in your city. Your neighbor to the north, Upland may dump red-light cameras httD://www.dailybuiletin,comlci 11807924 because they're losing money on the redflex camera deal, and to quote Police chief Steve Adams, "The primary issue here is public safety,"he said, "and our records show no significant decrease in accidents in the five years we've had them." I am including below an article I wrote on this topic and I also suggest you visit http://highwayrobbery.net , which is a great wealth of info and documented research on this topic. For a more cursory version, you can visit my site http://NoTrafficCameras.info which offers a good overview of why to oppose these red light cameras. On it you will find a link to a Congressional report which even concluded that these cameras are for revenue, that they cause accidents, and are an invasion of privacy. Also on my webpage, you will find the link to the city of San Diego's own traffic engineers report, which concluded that rear end accidents increased 62% at intersections where these cameras were installed! Thanks for your time and feel free to respond with any questions. Martin Hill ------------------------------------------------- Light Camcera Tick is ® f ate In California By Martin Hill "The evils of tyranny are ra-r--ely seen but by him who resists it." - 3/2/2009 Page 2 of 9 John Hay (1872) An increasing number of motorists in California are doing their research and challenging red-light camera tickets in court. Many have been successful in fighting these tickets. Several of those who were convicted, have appealed their conviction and got it overturned based on the city's failure to comply with the California vehicle code. There are three basic defenses which motorists have used sucessfully to beat these tickets: ® Duration of the yellow light ® Legal Notification required to motorists ® Illegal Contigency Fee Contracts Used By Cities The first is the legth of the yellow light at red light camera intersections. The law requires the yellow light to remain yellow for a certain number of seconds. Most recently, in San Carlos, CA: California: Short Yellow® Forces 'Ticket Refund in San Carlos Short yellow time in San Carlos, California forces refund of $156,591 worth of red light camera tickets [TheNewspaper.com 215109]. The same thing hapened in Costa Mesa, CA in 2004, forcing the city to reverse 579 convictions and refund the money to those who had paid the fine. Error Slams Traffic Tickets Into Reverse Costa Mesa has to void hundreds of citations issued to red-light runners caught on camera because the yellow signal didn't last the required 4.3 seconds. L.A. Times, June 12, 2004 ] Across the country, red light cameras have been shown to increase the number of traffic accidents. In 2002, City of San Diego's own traffic engineers released an official report, concluding that "after photo enforcement, the average RE [rear end] accident rates increased by 62 percent"' [SOURCE: San Diego Photo Enforcement System Review, PB Farradyne January 14, 2002 Chapter 6 Traffic Engineering and Traffic Operations Improvements [] 3/2/2009 Page 3 of 9 SECTION 6.1.2 LONGER YELLOW CHANGE INTERVALS FIGURE 6.1 PAGE 791 The second way people beat these tickets is holding the city accountable to the state law regarding waiting periods and notifications before tickets are issued. The great website aighwayftbberyanet covers everything you'd ever need to know about red light camera tickets. They explain this issue in detail and post all the briefs and appelate rulings. Recently, a defendant beat his second red light camera ticket and the Appeals Court published the ruling; it's the first time an appelate Court in California has published a ruling on a red light camera case; FILED DECEMBER 18, 2008: Fischetti won two appeal decisions, one in 2005 and one in 2008. _Both are discussed on this page. The 2008 IFischetti Decision - Published! The 2008 decision, on a Santa Ana ticket, clarified the requirement for warning tickets. The decision said that a city must issue warning tickets at each camera it installs, not ,dust the first one in town. The decision has been published, so it can be used in other cities. Per a knowledgeable traffic ticket attorney, "[A published decision from the OC Appellate Division] is binding in Orange County. However, it is relevant authority, but only "advisory" (non-binding) in other counties. So, out-of-county courts can rely on another county's appellate division's published case to affirm and/or dismiss a matter. However, it is discretionary. " Another defendant, Anna V., beat a Santa Ana red light camera ticket on appeal and had her conviction thrown out. Here is the court's ruling, FILED AUG. 28, 2008. Courtesy of HighwayRobbery.net. The defendant fought the ticket based upon a number of foundational objections, among them that Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 says, in part: "Prior to 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." (21455.5 doesn't make it clear whether a city having a pre-existing system is required to issue warning tickets when it adds a new camera.) In August 2008 3/2/2009 Page 4 of 9 the Appellate Division ruled in favor of Defendant/Appellant Anna V., that Santa Ana erred when it failed to provide 30 days of warning tickets when it added the camera that ticketed the Defendant. The court did not comment upon the defendant's other foundational arguments. The August 2008 Anna V. decision was the second time the Orange County Appellate Division had ruled on the warning ticket issue. The first time was in the 2005 Fischetti case involving a Costa Mesa ticket. In December 2008 the Appellate Division ruled a third time - on a new ticket received by Fischetti, this one in Santa Ana. This decision has not yet been published, so cannot be cited as precedent in other cases, except possibly in Orange County. The general issue of which decisions get published, and which don't, is under study. See ncnpubiocattoanocam for more information. The government hacks in Santa Ana were so upset at the 12/18/08 ruling and even moreso at the fact that it was published, that they filed a motion to get it unpublished. Note the desperate tone they used: "The underlying issue in this case is not only of great concern to the CITY OF SANTA ANA, but also potentially affects the other cities operating such systems... Sam "THE CITY OF SANTA ANA was fundamentally denied notice and the opportunity to be heard on an issue that has severe consequences for the CITY OF SANTA AN, as well as other cities throughout the state' Read their entire brief HERE. Thankfully, The high court rejected Santa Ana's request: California Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to llnpubl®sh Red Light Camera Decision. Decision overturning California red light camera ticket remains final and could affect cities throughout the state. See the court's ruling HERE [Courtesy of TheNewspaper.com] The third way motorists have beaten these tickets is challenging the cities illegal contracts. One such notable case was in San Diego, CA in 2001 : Judge dismisses 290 red-light camera tickets San Diego Union-Tribune / September 4, 2001 SAN DIEGO - A San Diego judge Tuesday threw out 290 traffic 3/2/2009 Page 5 of 9 tickets issued to motorists by the city's controversial red light camera system, placing the privately operated program in jeopardy along with its millions of dollars in revenue. San Diego Superior Court Judge Ronald Styn, ruling in a case that has been closely watched on both sides of a growing debate over the new technology, said that a contingency fee paid to the private operator of the city's system, Lockheed Martin IMS, made the evidence unreliable. "The evidence from the red light cameras will not be admitted," Judge Ronald Styn said in reaffirming his Aug. 15 opinion in a class-action lawsuit against Lockheed Martin. Here is an excerpt of the judge's ruling in the San Diego case. Kudos to Judge Ronald Styn for actually upholding the law and not siding with the state revenue machine: "In this case, the failure of the city to operate the system as required by the legislature, combined with the contingent fee paid to Lockheed Martin goes far beyond Adams or any of the cases which follow Adams. The Court sees no difference between a contingent fee to a private corporation and a contingent fee paid to an individual. Therefore, the Court's ruling will stand. The evidence from the red light cameras will not be admitted. IT IS S® ®RDERED.91 DATED; September 4, 2001 Ronald L. Styn Judge of the Superior Court More recently, the city of Fullerton, CA had to throw out tickets because of illegal contracts: Red-light cameras in Fullerton ruled illegal BY JENNIFER MUIR / The Orange County Register FULLERTON Fullerton's red-light camera program violates a state law that bars cities from paying vendors based on the revenue their tickets generate, an Orange County Superior Court judge has ruled. The impact of the decision is unclear. The city hasn't stopped issuing citations or changed its contract and has no immediate plans for refunding tickets. The case was not 3/2/2009 Page 6 of 9 published, so it does not set a legal precedent, but attorneys say it could be used to persuade judges in cases against other cities with similar contracts. In Orange County, seven cities use cameras to enforce red-light rules at intersections, and at least two of them operate under contracts that contain similar or even more questionable provisions than Fullerton's. "It does give logic to arguments we make," said Sherman Ellison, a defense attorney specializing in traffic cases. Ellison plans to ask the court to publish this ruling; something he says has never been done for a red light camera case. Appeal judgments on traffic cases rarely are published; a three-judge panel weighs whether to publish rulings upon request, according to the court. "The shocking part of it is that they refuse to publish the opinions in these cases because it's a huge cash cow in the system," Ellison said, adding "This is the cynicism that's in my heart." Finer points of the red light camera law are still contested, but its purpose is clear: Camera companies should not have a financial incentive to ticket motorists unfairly. State senators passed the law in 2004 amid concerns that pay-by-the-ticket contracts, which were common across the state, could be manipulated for profit. After the law was revised, vendors devised new contract provisions as a way to guarantee cities wouldn't have to pay out-of-pocket for camera enforcement. At issue in Fullerton is one such provision, which requires the red- light camera vendor to renegotiate its fees annually if ticket revenue isn't high enough to cover what the city pays for the program. Superior Court Judge Robert J. Moss wrote in his Nov. 21 ruling that the payment method amounts to "an incentive to ensure sufficient revenues are generated to cover the monthly fee." HighwayRobbery.net gives a cogent synopsis of this issue HERE. Appellate Victory! In Nov. 2008 a Fullerton defendant won an appellate court decision saying that the City's cost-neutral contract violated Section 21455,5(g) and that the trial court erred in admitting evidence from the camera® The,fudge wrote: "...the possibility that fees could be negotiated 'down' if it is determined fees paid to NTS [the vendor] exceed 'net program 3/2/2009 Page 7 of 9 revenues being realized,' indirectly ties fees to NTS to the amount of revenue generated from the program. If insufficient revenue is generated to cover the monthly fee, the fee could be 'negotiated down. ' As such, NTS has an incentive to ensure sufficient revenues are generated to cover the monthly fee. " The previous year in Orange County the Orange County Register published an article ("Who's the Red Light Violator? s Some cities still use outlawed financial incentives to pay red-light Camera vendors") which revealed that in January 2007 an Orange County Superior Court Commissioner dismissed a Los Alamitos ticket and "...issued an opinion opposing the agreements (the contract)." Nevertheless, some courts are blatantly ignoring the law and ruling against appelants in these appeals which challenge the illegal contracts. These L.A. County judges, unlike the Orange County judges, should be removed from office: California Courts Split on Red Light Camera Contracts Appellate court in Los Angeles, California rules that red light cameras tickets can be issued by companies with illegal contract arrangements. I will conclude with information from the great free website FlelplGotATicket.com. This writer has successfully beaten 6 traffic tickets using that free website, one in Superior Court of appeals writing my own legal brief. I highly recommend everyone take the time to learn some of these basics. Stand up for liberty and hold corrupt government accountable to their own laws. Here is the HELPIGOTATICKET.COM page on red light cameras, with a list of question to ask the witness (officer) in court. I also have a red light camera site with information at NoTrafficCa eras.Info I was recently on GCN discussing fighting traffic tickets with Michael Badnarik. Here is the Show (Votes page with a lot of interesting and useful information that is 3/2/2009 Page 8 of 9 not covered here. Thanks to everyone who fights for liberty and righteousness. Keep the faith! "Try to learn what is pleasing to the Lord. Take no part in the fruitless works of darkness; rather expose them, for it is shameful even to mention the things done by them in secret; but everything exposed by the light becomes visible, for everything that becomes visible is light. Therefore, it says: "Awake, sleeper, and arise from the dead, and Christ will give you light." Ephesians 5: 10-14 "But he said: Woe to you lawyers also, because you load men with burdens which they cannot bear and you yourselves touch not the packs with one of your fingers".Luke 11a46 Interesting Quotes: "Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts. Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws." The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet "I would have to say that the cameras themselves have not reduced the number of (injury) collisions that have happened at these intersections," said Elizabeth Yard, an analyst with the San Diego Police Department's traffic division. -- San Diego Union-Tribune, 9/2/01 "And it's true in a few intersections we found a few more accidents than prior to the red light photo enforcement. At some intersections we saw no change at all, and at several intersections we actually saw an increase in traffic accidents." [San Diego Police Chief David Bejarano, ABC News: Nightline (11 :35 PM AM ET), 7130101, Ted Koppel (Host)] "The course of history shows that as a government grows, Liberty decreases."- Thomas Jefferson "All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree."- James Madison "Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground"-Frederick Douglas (1857) "God grants liberty only to those who love it, and are always ready to 3/2/2009 Page 9 of 9 guard and defend it". -Daniel Webster Windows Live TM Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out. 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:48 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Meeting of March 2 - red light cameras From: James [mailto:doot2@earthlink.net] Sent: Saturday, February 28, 2009 12:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Meeting of March 2 - red light cameras For the city council Meeting of March 2, red light cameras Councilmembers: How to make sure HB's red light cameras end up being about SAFETY, not just the money: Make the fine for rolling right turns, or left turns, much lower than for a straight thru violation. $20 is enuf to drive home the point about these relatively much-less-dangerous turning offenses. If, instead, the fine for turning is the same ($400+) amount as for a straight thru violation, then it's about money. (Since the courts actually set the fines,the way for an individual city to reduce the fine for a rolling right is to cite it under 21453(b) - instead of(a) -which is what the City of LA was doing. The fine for(b) is about half of that for(a).) Have a grace period, that is, no ticket unless you're more than 1/2 sec. late. If no grace, it's about money. Set the yellow lights for left turns at 4.0 sec. If they're left at 3.0 (the default setting),that triples the# of violations & it's about money. (You can see data on the tripling effect, on the Mesa Documents page at the website highwayrobbery.net.) The contract with the vendor running the cameras must be flat-rate. If the vendor is paid so-much-a- ticket or a% of the fine revenue, it gives them an incentive to manipulate things to produce more tickets, and it's about money. Go beyond the mandated 30-days of warning tickets. Do it for 90 days before issuing real tickets. Less warning means it's about money. But whether you install cameras or not, the city must do these things that are known to reduce violations and accidents at intersections: Improved pavement markings, larger diameter red lights, and brighter street lighting at all high-accident intersections. _A) 3/2/2009 Page 2 of 2 Longer yellows at all high-accident intersections. James 2-28-09 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:47 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: automatic traffic enforcement, agenda item#9 for March 2 City Council meeting. From: jim mckanna [mailto:jmckanna@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 6:57 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: automatic traffic enforcement, agenda item #9 for March 2 City Council meeting. My name is James M.McKanna. I have been a practicing attorney for over thirty two years.l have lived in Huntington Beach for five years. Please put this email on your formal agenda for tonight's hearing. I must say that I am shocked and outraged by the City's proposal to implement an automated photo red light enforcement program. In my opinion, having handled many cases of this ilk, this practice is nothing more than a way of increasing revenue to the City at the expense of unsuspecting motorists. It is not a safety issue but a monetary issue. My objections are many fold but include the following. 1. An automated system cannot exercise the human discretion which a police officer can make on observing an alleged violation. Remember, under the vehicle code,just because a violation may occur, there may be mitigating circumstances justifying the violation which a videotape cannot capture. 2. The whole practice is unconstitutional since the warnings, if there are warnings, fail to sufficiently warn the driver of a prospective traffic violations and hence fail to put them on notice that a violation may or may not occur. 3. The system is further unconstitutional in that in prejudices an cited motorist who for one, gets the citation in the mail, thereby preventing him from discussing the violation with the citing officer at the scene. Moreover, it prejudices the alleged violator in fighting the offense since how can an aggrieved motorist cross examine the inanimate objects inherent in a red light photo and video system. As you now, our US constitution allows a person to cross examine witness who are presented against him. How can this be accompolished since the last time I checked video presentations and photographs cannot speak. 4. In at least half the cases i have seen, the photo and accompanying videotape are flat out innacurate and fail to capture any violation. They invariable show a flash of a camera but do not show the phasing of the light from yellow to red before the motorist enteres the intersection. 5. This system is an attempt by the City to create a cadre of electronic automatons to supplement their exisiting police force which is reprehensible. 6. Can this system, and the expense it entails to the general public be justified in light of this severe recession. Many people are struggling to make ends meet, and now they face the financial burden and spectre of either paying a substantial fine or taking/time off work to fight what in many cases in an 3/2/2009 Page 2 of 2 unmeritorious violation. The obvious need for the city to create a cash cow must be subordinated to the rights of the general public fighting to stay afloat in this problematic economy. 7. Why is the City doing this ? I would like to know. 8. Rest assured that if any of my clients receive such a ticket in the mail, I will subpena the appropriate officials from the City of Huntington Beach and Redflex traffic systems. 9. How much of local taxpayer dollars will be spent in implementing this system and more importantly, what is the expected monthly revenue which will be realized by both the City and Redflex for what is nothing more than a ruse and a sham which bears absolutely no relation to traffic safety? James M.McKanna Esq. 7. 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:40 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Traffic Camera's From: Ed Sumner [mailto:sumfamily@socal.rr.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:16 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Traffic Camera's To All City Council Members, I saw the article in the Register this morning. I would like to tell each of you that I am categorically against TRAFFIC CAMERAS. I've lived here since for 30 years and we, the taxpayers, have encough problems as it is (state and federal tax increases, losing jobs etc. etc.)without being harrassed by cameras whose main purpose is to get more money out of us, dispite all the rationales you will have to the contrary. Do not spend my tax money to harrass me. Government at all levels is out of control. There is prolific waste. Government is continually asking extracting more and more money from it's citizens. I've had enough. This has been a very nice city for 30 years without traffic cameras. WE DO NOT NEED THEM NOW! Ed Sumner 6442 Ringo Cr. 714 762-6089 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:22 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Red Light Cameras From: Arthur Tait, Esq. [mailto:Arthur@TrafficFighters.com] Sent: Sunday, March 01, 2009 4:26 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red Light Cameras I REQUEST THAT THIS EMAIL BE INCLUDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORD Dear Sir or Madam: I am opposed to the use of red light cameras in our city. Please reject the use of red light cameras. After ten years of litigating against these computers I've learned that they are a fraud on the American people,a danger to public safety, and an expensive tax that will only hurt your constituents. The best way to stop red light running is through proper traffic engineering and sound law enforcement, not prosecuting people for profit. These computers are turnkey and they come complete with evidentiary problems, programming problems and repair problems. They do make money, but at the expense of our freedom. Please focus on improving traffic engineering and do not be misled into thinking these devices are a good idea for society. They increase accidents,expose cities to tremendous liability and make it impossible for innocent people to defend themselves against the accusations of the computers. To learn the truth about red light cameras research the issues for yourself at www.thenewspaper.com The best studies show these are bad for society. Please do the right thing and vote NO to red light cameras. Sincerely, Arthur Tait Arthur F. Tait III, Esq. Law Offices of Tait&Associates A California Sole Proprietorship 1524 Brookhollow Drive Santa Ana, California 92705 Telephone: (888) 7-FIGHTERS Telephone: (714)418-4408 Facsimile: (949)258-5293 email: Arthur@TrafficFighters.com website: www.TrafficFighters.com The information herein is CONFIDENTIAL and PROTECTED. Any use or distribution of this communication is prohibited except by the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient please delete this message and notify the sender immediately. This communication does not constitute a guarantee,warranty,or prediction regarding the outcome of your legal matter and it does NOT,in itself,create an attorney-client agreement or attorney-client relationship. Nor is it intended to perpetuate any preexisting attorney-client relationship. Unless you are the intended recipient and an existing client with an executed and valid written attorney-client agreement then the information in this email communication is NOT intended as legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. 'Tait&Associates','Traffic Fighters.com',the'American Traffic Defense Association'(ATDA)and the'American Legal Services Association'(ALSA)are service marks and trademarks of,and wholly owned by,Arthur Tait,a sole proprietorship working in association with other California law firms and lawyers. The mailing address provided above is an executive office suite with numerous other commercial tenants. Unless otherwise stated in writing,apart from Arthur Wait,no other attorneys,law firms or entities at this office location are associated with Arthur Tait. ,2 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:44 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Cameras From: Gary Tarkington [mailto:garytarkington@msn.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:17 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Cameras Please DO NOT let these go in. The fines are so high AND you can't even fight it. These CAUSE more rear end accidents. If they are so important to have then why have several states (cities, etc.) ruled that they are illegal!! We do NOT NEED OR WANT THEM!!!! VOTE NO!!! Ann Tarkington 3/2/2009 Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 281 Entered on: 03/02/2009 10:14 AM By: Johanna Stephenson Customer Information Name:Sean Whittle Phone: Address: Alt. Phone: Costa Mesa, CA Email:s22w22@yahoo.com Request Classification Topic:City Council-Comment on Agenda Items Request type:Comment Status:Open Priority:Normal Assigned to:Johanna Stephenson Entered Via:Email Description From: Sean Whittle[mailto:s22w22@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 02,2009 10:01 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: No On Cameras Hello City Council Members, I am not an HB resident, but I live in a town with cameras and I would ask you to vote NO on any cameras in your city.We don't need these cameras! If we are in an economic crisis, then why add a camera project which would fleece the taxpayers pockets in hard times on the front and back end?People also don't want Big Brother watching them, don't want to receive a ticket from some private company in which they have not signed a promise to appear, and don't want to be put in extremely tense situations every time they hit a yellow light. In addition,these systems are wide open to corruption. Please vote NO on cameras. God bless. Sean Whittle Costa Mesa, CA Reason Closed Date Expect Closed: 03/03/2009 Enter Field Notes Below Notes: Notes Taken By: Date: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=224644&type=0 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 10:13 AM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay; City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Spy Cameras in Huntington Beach? Attachments: Spy Cameras in Huntington Beach? From: Cuttingedgetalk@aol.com [mailto:Cuttingedgetalk@aol.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 9:15 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Fwd: Spy Cameras in Huntington Beach? *City Council of Huntington Beach, We live in Newport Beach...but do a lot of shopping in Costa Mesa and Huntington Beach. Costa Mesa is a now a nightmare due to Redlight Cameras. These cameras have had lawsuits and won-against them. When you take the human element out of the process......it purely de-humanizes all of us. Redlight Cameras does not increase Public Safety in our opinion! Clarity should be required in both government policy and implementation, no matter what happens. Obviously, we oppose "any"Redlight Cameras for HB. Hopefully,you will not fall prey to the UK example -not very pretty as you can see from our examples. Exacting restrictions and scope are required for any of these programs! We oppose them because of their"wine from the teaspoon".mentality that ramps up that scope and unleashes the restrictions as time goes by. The Vendor for these projects obviously finds it in their interest to proliferate rather than contain the useage. Thanks so much for keeping HB as a fun place to go...and hopefully you will "do no harm"when making further policies. Ron &Anna Winship 428 Seaward Rd. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625-2616 949.759.1868 --------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- ************** Need a job? Find employment help in your area. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search? query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005) A) 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Cuttingedgetalk@aol.com Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 8:36 AM To: bruce.whitaker@ocgov.com; chris.norby@ocgov.com;john.campbell@house.ca.gov; John.Moorlach@ocgov.com;johnand ken @johnandkenshow.com; bill.campbell@ocgov.com; janet.nguyen@ocgov.com; pat.bates@ocgov.com; ChuckDeVore@aol.com; assemblymenber.duvall@assembly.ca.gov Subject: Spy Cameras in Huntington Beach? March 02, 2009 Spy Cameras in Huntington Beach? by Ron &Anna Winship Category: "The OC", economy, law enforcement NO Redlight Cameras.....EVER! Here we are in the midst of the biggest economic meltdown in world history... and what do the great powers that be in Huntington Beach decide to consider? Yep, 20 Lockheed-Martin (type) redlight cameras may be coming to the intersections of Huntington Beach should the HB City Council decide in favor this week. Yuck, Yuck, Yuck! Eckee, Eckee, Eckee....NO REASON Foundation Solutions please! These are the same redlight cameras that shorten the Yellow lights to catch the poor and unsuspecting right in the middle of the intersection on a left turn light. These are same redlight cameras that require constant calibration and monitoring to be sure they work correctly. These are the same redlight cameras that literally kill local business because "locals" do not want to go through these intersections and pillars of technology nightmares every day. The main argument for installation of redlight cameras is "safety". "Let's stop those evil redlight runners killing our kids and grandma's in busy city intersections. Let's get big bucks from tourist and unsuspecting locals that don't see the cameras. Let's no even put signage up, warning of redlight cameras ahead...until we get a 1000 complaints! Let's charge upwards of$425 bucks if any part of your mini-van gets stuck behind some weenie that will not go completely through the intersection to the other side, either because of traffic or because they are not paying attention, or because they want a 'safe zone' between their vehicle and the one in front of them!" Hey, "automating the process" is a lot easier than putting motorcycle cops out there watching what is going on. What they need are cameras in the Huntington Beach - Beach Parking areas....so that Homeless and Criminals don't break into cars during the hot summer months or during the less traveled winter emptiness, or even the Main Parking structures. But then, that would require "dispatch", that would require "sending out the troops to find out what is going on!" With Redlight Cameras, you just get the photo, look up the license number on the DMV website and automatically send the ticket. Hey, this is safe for the enforcement people -"no contact with people" and people just send it their money....or you won't get to renew your car license the following year, or when it comes up for renewal. In the UK, these cameras are endemic. They have them on all the highways to monitor speeders, erratic drivers and parked vehicles. All good "Cash Cows" for government. The cameras monitor illegal right turns, left turns or anything they can determine goes against the vehicle code....and then just send the tickets.....lots of tickets! They don't even require signage in the UK for any cameras; which is a good reason for living in America! Remember those terrorists, with their burning van -"You Tube"; camera photos outside the airport in Dublin? At least something good came of that....they found the nerds and arrested them. But who are we planning to arrest in Huntington Beach? Grandma's with bad eyesight? Teenagers, fully text messaging or on the cell phone in direct contravention to the CA Vehicle Code? Who knows? One thing is for sure......when the word gets out...and they put the info on every GPS software program in the US 3/2/2009 Page 2 of 2 and the world.....well, you can bet that tourism in Huntington Beach may be affected negatively. The Huntington Beach City Council might want to put this item "on the back burner" until the economy makes a comeback. No need to just try to kill tourism outright or to insure that new City Council members will be voted in during the next election cycle.......ya think? Finally, don't we always find it interesting that when "Redlight Cameras" are suggested....it is never just"one or two Major problem intersections". No it is always multiples of 10 like in this case 20! Why is that? Because the vendors are not in it for"Public Safety"....they are in it ....for the buck they make on servicing and supplying the equipment involved. Who would want to provide "low cost cameras"for two problem intersections? The members of the Huntington Beach City Council and the HB Police Chief might want to answer that question before they "move on" to approve prolific electronic monitoring and surveillance throughout the City of Huntington Beach! Ron &Anna Winship producers Parker-Longbow productions Cutting Edge - a talk show www.cuttingedge-atalkshow.com P.O. Box 9964 Newport Beach, CA 92658 800.272.8486 in USA 949.760.5338 tel.fax 818.601.8455 cell 949.759.1868 home/office ************** Need a job? Find employment help in your area. (http://yellowpages.aol.com/search? query=employment_agencies&ncid=emlcntusyelp00000005) 3/2/2009 Flynn, Joan From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:39 PM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay Cc: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Red light cameras From:martha sandovai[mai/to.martars@hotmai/.comJ Sent.•Monday, March 02,2009 4.26 PM To:CITY COUNCIL Subject:Red light cameras RE: red l�kt camera installation How noble ofRedflex to study the intersections for"free": is there any doubtas to what the final analysis will be? Do you really think we, the People you are elected to serve, are so naive as to buy the ulife savings scare tactic and not know that is about money? W tli all the streets that need resurfaced and otkerareas that need the financial resources in these lean times l don't want 1.4 million of my annual tax dollars n'oing for red flit cameras. d� i Flynn, Joan From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:38 PM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay Cc: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Red Light Camers From: m b [mailto:mjbjd@hotmail.com] Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 3:05 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red Light Camers 3-2-09 Dear Council Members: I believe there is a California law prohibiting volunteer work for a government. All workers must be paid. So accepting a free traffic study which would cost thousands of dollars violates this law. The city should put the analysis up for competitive bids and pay for it. Even if it turns out there might be a need, it is a interest for the company doing the free analysis to be the same company selling, installing and operating the red light camera system. I know the city wants more revenue, but having a gauntlet of red light cameras on Beach Boulevard will only reduce the volume of traffic by people who dont even want to deal with the threat of a citation. They will instead travel on Golden West, Magnolia, Bushard,Newland or Brookhurst. These streets are not designed for the traffic increase. I know because I turn before the red light camera at the corner of Harbor and Adams in Costa Mesa. Drivers will simply go to Long Beach, Seal Beach or Newport Beach and never come to Huntington Beach. The result will be a reduction in traffic along Beach Boulevard and into downtown. This will reduce sales by car dealers and businesses on Beach and downtown. I know there will be an increase in revenues from fines but you will create resentment which will undermine the positive image you are trying to create for Surf City. Vote against the red light cameras. Thank You, M Jack Brooks Windows Live Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out. 1 �/ ke;��� T-T o ER, 5� r� c� Z��S w� ��v - r7D -F CrN ,Z�N S� �LI�eD ����. f c�s,_�eDU��'�c_A�eP�s Q�` - I_ e 01 c)S-F � rvT4- w�-� DG;e P-IeDo . ;G[T C.NTPR f) C(Lc-� ������. �%(�� r+� ���r�j�s T�J��aNTR��1s PS w�1 eN w�ec� ��.���I� Si��Te ��a��.,s (Z,ULED TCf� t� TRI�e(S (�-; — �e AL A I/A o c- (ARK 66f ers t-�No �P�s c6u2T -CAL_�R�r�s- gor� — s.Oe —E�cL 9J:�O— T-rL Le�� K—N �c-w� k--_T; &UD P-3 TVI -I 0 6rV �MVEL--A-LS- Q it I� -�i �1/R-N S S�6���1�s Y LITE-EE Tq;z--c-D k",--co PK6C, S 0 5-r Ili 6�L�:E— Tuflj Q r4 _��J L.��U�/r Way _��a-�e,� — I ��e c''(P l_I�WS �e� G�U I N �N l� �'� __I_►_vc��cc� T�T11��U_L�'-c fiW �G-T�T���� II t,�- GrUe�l -�� � T� T—�"GP,.�ts � 5 Ar�A T ci uz ��t1�a 5 96i 6�VR--,, TkE�1=�c�vZ (�ecnmo pFG�cn'j" i"hR-- .— MoN cUN ��v ovS LVmi "per Cr i zN Lar. _ M �v_t-��oeTo ca1�1'Tsn� � �� � V _- _� - i P-eM�,e -per I z -019 4 -&-Q A-R - il�l�e C�gY-moo° �4e_c�7Y_�' P7 i I S1�Rfe�--�1`—'� c��r�r RUIeJ 7de f(D �� i Aft— =1�� CIV C&5 eS LAPic ��ePecore PA�lm oof\�T- T�j�� i i D _ I's Sgc,�T_ Ate— — INu kPA Tl�e QoreN�L _R�ELP/pS_ i Citizen Communications Received After Late Communication Packet Distributed Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:38 PM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay Cc: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Red Light Carriers From: m b [mailto:mjbjd@hotmail.comJ,--' Seat: Monday, March 02, 2009t�05 PM } To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red Light Carriers 3-2-09 Dear Council Members: I believe there is a California law prohibiting volunteer work for a government. All workers must be paid. So accepting a free traffic study which would cost thousands of dollars violates this law. The city should put the analysis up for competitive bids and pay for it. Even if it turns out there might be a need, it is a interest for the company doing the free analysis to be the same company selling, installing and operating the red light camera system. I know the city wants more revenue, but having a gauntlet of red light cameras on Beach Boulevard will only reduce the volume of traffic by people who dont even want to deal with the threat of a citation. They will instead travel on Golden West, Magnolia, Bushard,Newland or Brookhurst. These streets are not designed for the traffic increase. I know because I turn before the red light camera at the corner of Harbor and Adams in Costa Mesa. Drivers will simply go to Long Beach, Seal Beach or Newport Beach and never come to Huntington Beach. The result will be a reduction in traffic along Beach Boulevard and into downtown. This will reduce sales by car dealers and businesses on Beach and downtown. I know there will be an increase in revenues from fines but you will create resentment which will undermine the positive image you are trying to create for Surf City. Vote against the red light cameras. Thank You, M Jack Brooks Windows Live Contacts: Organize your contact list. Check it out. 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Monday, March 02, 2009 4:39 PM To: Stephenson, Johanna; Van Dorn, Kay Cc: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Red light cameras From.martha sandoval[mailto.martars_ hotmai/,com] Sent.Monday,March 02, 200 26 PM To.CITY COUNCIL - Subject.Red light cameras KE: redl�ht camera installation How noble of f Zcdflcx to study tie intersections for"free". is Acre any doubt as to what the b'nal analysis will be? Do you really think we, AePe/ople/you are elected to serve, are so naive as to buy the "life saving"scare tactic a n d not Know tkat is about money? W th all the streets that need resurfaced and othcrareas that need Ac bRancial resources in these lean times l don't want 1.9f million ofmy annual tax dollars going for red l�ht cameras. Ala t Sandd-vaL 3/2/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 6:02 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 303 Request#303 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: BARRY JOHNSON Description: Hello, I was at the last night council meeting, I wanted to alk about this "Waist of Money" wih this Red light cameras!! I couldnt wait for it since you moved it back, but I wanted you to read this;;;;;;; The deliciously named Los Angeles suburb of El Monte decided to end it's five year old photo ticketing program. Reason: The cameras failed to produce any reduction in the number of intersection accidents. Actually, the real reason is they failed to increase revenue. It always comes back to the money. "We're spending a lot of staff time on this just to gain $2000 a month," City Manager James W. Mussenden explained. "It doesn't reduce accidents—that's what our studies and results have come back." El Monte's decision comes on the heels of San Jose's similar decision to get rid of their red-light cameras. Good things are happening, people. A great website regarding red-light cameras in California, Highwayrobbery.net, suggest the loss in revenue could be related to the fact that the city increased the yellow warning time to 3.5 seconds for the left turn movements at the intersection of Peck Road and Ramona Boulevard. The number of tickets dropped from 665 to 265 immediately after that. More proof that increasing yellow lights is good for traffic and can lessen the number of accidents. This directly contradicts what happens in many cities where red-light cameras exist, since they provide an incentive to decrease the yellow light time so they can get more money from tickets. The Texas Transportation Institute found that increasing the yellow signal time beyond the bare minimum amount can decrease violations by 53 percent. Luckily for the citizen of El Monte,the program didn't increase revenue, because if it did, officials probably never would have admitted that it doesn't save lives. Score one more for logic, reason, freedom, and the American way. This is just ONE CITY on the internet that is HAPPY TO SEE THEM GO!! San Jose is another, DONT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE!! THANKS Expected Close Date: 03/04/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/4/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:19 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 306 Request#306 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: John Marston Description: From: amateurangler@juno.com [mailto:amateurangler@juno.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 7:39 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red-light cameras - Redflex I noticed the article in today's Register regarding your intent to enter into a contract with Redflex Traffic Systems, for red-light cameras. I believe that you should talk to the City of Upland regarding their experience with both the cameras and this particular company before you make your final decision. I'm suggesting this because there was an article in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin just last Sunday stating that Upland was going to terminate their contract with this same company because they were losing money and did not decrease accidents. To use a phrase, "I don't have a dog in this hunt" - I live in Chino Hills and don't visit Huntington Beach or Upland very often, but it struck me that you might be making a very bad decision for the citizens of Huntington Beach. You can read the article in the Daily Bulletin here: http://www.dailybulletin.com/search/ci_11807924?IADID=Search- www.dailybulletin.com-www.dailybulletin.com John Marston Chino Hills, CA Expected Close Date: 03/05/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/4/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 10:18 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request* 307 Request#307 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Steve Lovsteen Description: From: steve lovsteen [mailto:slovsteen@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 9:13 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: red light camera Dear HB City leaders, I am outraged and my blood is boiling at even the thought of putting Red light Scam - ras in our city! At 380.00 a ticket, do you really think people aren't going to be slamming on their brakes or speeding up to avoid a $380.00 ticket?I saw first hand while driving to Santa Ana with my 70 year old mother her reaction while driving through a red light camera intersection. She slammed on the brakes for fear of getting a 380.00 ticket and we came within inches of getting rear ended. We avoid all intersections that have there red light scam scam-ras!! If you are serious about traffic safety and you are not just trying to raise revenue, make the yellow light 1 -2 seconds longer. I have noticed that it's mainly the poor areas that have the majority of these scam - ars, i.e Santa Ana, costa mesa,parts of Long Beach,etc. I purposely go around these areas now with these scam -ras. Not good for business!! By the way, I am a home owner and local business man in Huntington Beach for over 23 years. No Big Brother in HB!!!! Truly, Steve Lovsteen Expected Close Date: 03/05/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/4/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:22 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 309 Request#309 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Salvador Vela Description: -----Original Message----- From: svela@socal.rr.com [mai Ito:svela@socal.rr.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 11:04 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red Camera Lights Thank you council members who voted to approve a study that would place red- light cameras in Huntington Beach. From reading an article in the O.C. Register, I see two of you, Joe Carchio and Devin Dwyer voted against the study. And Ms. Dwyer refers to a "Big Brother" cliche as the reason for her no vote. There is no reason for Mr. Carchio's vote. What price do you put on safety?How much is even one life worth? What is more important? What you(Dwyer)percieve as "Big Brother" watching over us or using modern technology to reduce traffic accidents. If you fear the revenue generated is not acceptable, donate any excess to charity. A Mr.Norm Westwell stated in the article that these cameras are only a source of revenue and do not stop accidents. Of course they do not STOP accidents,they are only a deterrent. Listen to Police Chief Ken Small, "We are not trying to raise revenue. We are trying to reduce accidents and injuries". My opinions are based on my experience of 30 years as a road patrol officer with Signal Hill Police Department and the California Highway Patrol. I am a Huntington Beach resident who thinks "Big Brother" isn't always bad. He is looking out for us and making sure we don't get hurt. At least that is how I treated my little brother. Salvador M. Vela 16602 Brigham Lane Huntington Beach, Ca. 92649 (714)377-5711 Expected Close Date: 03/05/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/4/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [no reply @user.govoutreach.corn] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 8:18 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 314 Request#314 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Fred Marsh Description: Instead of cameras how about making intersections easier to make left turns onto such as at Golden West and Heil . Turning north on GW from Heil during rush hours is nearly futile as only the cars that have crept half way through the intersection will make the light tempting others to run the red. Expected Close Date: 03/06/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/5/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:37 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 318 Request#318 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Tom S Description: From: Tom S [mailto:tom042004ghotmail.coml Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 11:13 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red Light Cameras Greetings Council members, Ladies and gentlemen let's begin with some honesty. Kudos to council members Carchio and Dwyer for voting against the Redflex study,the results of which are already known. The revenue generated by a red light camera is divided between the city, county courts, and the camera vendor. Safety may indeed be an issue, but let's not forget about the $400+revenue which each violation generates. An honest police chief or council member will admit that safety is not the only reason for camera use. Expected Close Date: 03/06/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/5/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Paffy From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.coml Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2009 12:05 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 319 Request#319 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Jared Shostak Description: I would like to know when the next city council meeting is and where? also,how often there's a meeting?Is it always at the same location? Expected Close Date: 03/06/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/5/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, March 06, 2009 10:17 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 327 Request#327 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Pat Dapkus. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Steven Ferrell Description: RE red light cameras I agree there is a problem with people running red lights. But if an outside contractor can see 67 violation in one day where is our police department? I cannot believe that the Police Chief Ken Small does not know that this is a way to increase revenue. Pam sure they could contact a City like Garden Grove and get a report. Also Utility Companies and the City spent alot of money on installing utilties underground to remove unsightly poles and wires, now they want to install ugly cameras and poles at most intersections on Beach Blvd. Expected Close Date: 03/09/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/6/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 3:07 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 357 Request#357 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to All Council by Pat Dapkus. Request type: Question Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: George Lipsie Description: I have read numerous studies done after the installation of red light cameras, not one stated a decease in accidents, all studies have shown an increase in accidents especially rear end collisions. If this is just another way to increase city revenue without increasing manpower or an outlay of revenue then it should work. I read the article in the Huntington Beach independent, the stats shown do not justify even considering this additional revenue stream. I would suggest also in presenting these types of revenue enhancers that you just tell the public what the real goal is instead of presenting it as a "public safety issue" Check my statements out, Google red light cameras, read the reports and studies done, hopefully you will see no good other then a slight increase?? in revenue will come from this proposal. Read Ventura counties 1.7 Mil problem with Red Light camera payments I'm voting next election right after checking the voting records Have a great week! Expected Close Date: 03/10/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/10/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 4:57 PM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 359 Request#359 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Pat Dapkus. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Frances Burrus Description: I strongly object to the purchase or use of red light cameras - mainly due to the projected monthly cost for these machines. Yesterday's news revealed our city's projected sales tax loss from the closing of major department stores. Given that situation, it would be wasteful to spend money now that would generate a few traffic tickets every month. That money would be put to better use to maintain our roads. Additionally, imagine the amount of time the traffic police are going to spend in court answering the anticipated challenges because of the cameras - you know that will happen as it has in other cities. Finally, if the police chief wants to hang "big Brother" cameras around the city, why not target the areas where known drug dealers congregate? Or buy a couple of drug-sniffing dogs to patrol the middle and high school campuses and activities? Surely there are more worthwhile endeavors. Of course the camera company is going to present reasons we "need" these cameras - and who can begrudge a business trying to survive in this recession? But please consider the extra costs to these cameras. Thank you, Frances Burrus Expected Close Date: 03/10/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/10/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2009 8:47 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 362 Request#362 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Pat Dapkus. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Maggie Warren Description: From: maggie warren [mailto:ahogmag@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, March 09, 2009 11:33 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Camera Scam Dear Council members, As a 30 year resident of this lovely community, I must respond to the recent news concerning camera enforced traffic lights.My family, neighbors and I are really angry and very disappointed on many levels.As I reside within a couple blocks south of Brookhurst and Adams, I would undoubtedly be greatly impacted by your decision. I also seriously take issue while the validity of this gambit is being performed by the very people who would install and profit from these traffic cameras.Perhaps,in the interest of the very community you folks have promised to serve,you might consider other more unbiased sources for truth and information.National Motorist Association and The Orange County Register might be a more fair and reasoned place to start. Times are so difficult today,cities,state,Federal governments are playing this game of fee's (not taxes) and people in our community are really struggling.How insulting,this nonsense about traffic safety,it's all about fee's. I have been really disappointed in the performance of your office the last few years.big brother nonsense about pets,council/mayor dishonesty,jail terms.Just put me on record,if you folks really want to follow through with more of this thievery,I will do everything in my power to organize and remove you all from office.My neighbors agree. Sincerely, Maggie Warren Expected Close Date: 03/11/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/10/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 8:47 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request* 369 Request#369 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Pat Dapkus. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Joseph Dagley Description: In a message dated 3/6/2009 2:08:57 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, joe_dagley@yamaha-motor.com writes: Dear Mr. Mayor and Council, It seems to me in this day and age of corruption and scandal we should be very sensitive to appearances of impropriety. Having the same company who will earn $6000 per month per camera conduct the feasibility study to determine if HB needs these cameras is like having Bernie Madoff reviewing and supervising our city budget. It is totally inappropriate to have the same vendor study the need and then install the equipment and earn revenue from the system. That is business 101. I would think you would all be very sensitive to things like this given your positions of responsibility to watch out for the citizens of HB. We don't need more scandal at our city government level or at the very least any impression of scandal. In addition, it is my belief holding the lights red for a couple seconds longer will actually do more to reduce accidents. Has the city studied that idea? No, because holding the red lights will not generate any revenue for our community. Personally I have never had a red light traffic citation and don't anticipate ever receiving one but I hope when re-elections come around you very clearly identify your position on this issue. I think our citizens will want a reminder where you stand. Respectfully, Joseph Dagley 18411 Carnaby Lane Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-841-0206 Expected Close Date: 03/12/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/11/2009 Page 1 of 3 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 9:35 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 371 Request#371 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Pat Dapkus. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Patricia Barnes Description: From: Patricia Barnes [mailto:mezzohiker@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 1:50 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update -Draft EIR of 12-4-08: Preservation of the Park Encompassing the Main Street Library Mayor Keith Bohr Council Member Joe Carchio Council Member Gil Coerper Council Member Devin Dwyer Council Member Cathy Green Council Member Don Hansen Council Member Jill Hardy City of Huntington Beach City Hall Fourth Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Update Draft Environmental Impact Report of December 4, 2008 (Draft EIR) Preservation of the Park Surrounding the Main Street Library Dear Mayor and Council Members: On March 3, 2009, the Executive Committee of the Orange County Group of the Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter, voted unanimously to support preservation of the historic park which encompasses Huntington Beach's Main Street Library as called for in the petition circulated by the Huntington Beach Downtown Residents Association. It has been brought to our attention that this petition,to this date, has been signed by as many as 1,200 registered voters within the city of Huntington Beach. Because the Orange County Group has many members who reside within the city of Huntington Beach, and because we are a "grassroots" organization of persons who believe that parklands, open space and 3/11/2009 Page 2 of 3 public lands are crucial components of a healthful and desirable quality of life within each and every community, and hold this to be particularly true when considering neighborhoods as densely populated as the downtown area in which the Main Street Library is located, we are supporting protect ion and preservation of this park. Specific concerns on which we predicate our support for preservation of the park are as follows: 1. We are aware that a serious paucity of green space already exists within the downtown area of Huntington Beach. We have also been informed by the Downtown Residents Association that the City constructed the Main Street Library in 1951 on the Triangle Park. The construction of additional buildings in this vicinity would, of course, futher reduce the amount of green space available for the benefit of area residents, as well as depreciate the historic value of this park. 2. The park encompassing the Main Street Library provides a necessary buffer between the extensively developed downtown commericial district located near the beach and the residential neighborhoods that exist along the perimeter of the district. The construction of a performing arts or cultural center immediately adjacent to these existing residential neighborhoods would have a significant impact on noise, traffic, and pollution within an area that is already extremely congested, particularly during warmer months. We have also been informed that other areas exist within the city of Huntington Beach that are aesthetically, economically, and environmentally far more suitable and are better situated for the the construction and operation of a performing arts or cultural center. 3. We believe that the public benefits of this land should be perpetuated. We do not want the inclusion of a provision allowing for the sale of a majority of this public land to be used for private purposes such as the construction of as many as three stories of private condominiums, apartments, or lofts to be included in the final FIR. Thank you very much for your consideration of supporting the preservation of this historic park. Sincerely, Patricia Barnes Chairperson Orange County Group Executive Committee Sierra Club, Angeles Chapter cc: Meg Vaughn California Coastal Commission South Coast District Office 200 Oceangate, 1 Oth Floor Long Beach, CA 90802-4416 Expected Close Date: 03/12/2009 3/11/2009 Page 3 of 3 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/11/2009 Print Request Request: 375 Entered on: 03/11/2009 11:47 AM By: Pet Dapkus Customer Information Name:Bob Miller Phone: Address: Alt. Phone: Email:HBTOYBOB@aol.com Request Classification Topic:City Council-Comment on Agenda Items Request type:Question Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Pat Dapkus Entered Via:Phone Description Dear Council Members, As President of the Beach Blvd of Cars, I wanted to let you know that we as a group are adamantly opposed to the installation of red light cameras on Beach Blvd. We feel that Huntington Beach residents will avoid Beach Blvd as a normal north south corridor and instead, use Gothard or Newland as their primary surface streets,taking from us our much needed exposure to the locals residents. If you are so concerned about safety and intersection collision,why not delay the red to green light change an extra second or two?Or is this about income to the city in increased ticket fines?What about the possible decline in tax revenue to the city from decreased car sales?Which do you think will be more advantageous to the City of Huntington Beach? Please reconsider your position on this very important matter. Let's not make Huntington Beach another city where Big Brother is watching over our shoulders, making us feel uncomfortable.After all,we live and work here because we love this city, and this county. Let's not turn it into an extension of Los Angeles. Sincerely, Bob Miller Vice President/General Manager Toyota of Huntington Beach President Huntington Beach Auto Dealers Assn Reason Closed Thank you for your comments on this item.Your comments have been forwarded to city council for their consideration.A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item.Again,thank you for taking the time to make your views known. Date Expect Closed: 03/12/2009 Date Closed: 03/11/2009 11:47 AM By: Pat Dapkus Enter Field (Votes Below Notes: http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=227469&type=0 3/11/2009 Print Request Request: 407 Entered on: 03/16/2009 3:05 PM By: Johanna Stephenson Customer Information Name:Eric Robinson Phone: Address: Alt. Phone: Email:ericrobinsonmm@hotmail.com Request Classification Topic:City Council-Comment on Agenda Items Request type:Comment Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Pat Dapkus Entered Via:Email Description From: Eric Robinson [mailto:ericrobinsonmm@hotmail.com] Sent: Friday, March 13,2009 12:34 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Cc: brady.rhoades@latimes.com; letters@ocregister.com; insideoc@rickreiff.com Subject: Camera Traffic Enforcement Dear City Council Members, The other night, I caught a little bit of a Council meeting,wherein a discussion was being held about placing automated traffic cameras at a particular intersection. A friend of mine recently beat one of these tickets in a jurisdiction, somewhere in the Inland Empire, after some research and investigation into the subject, but he took no further legal action against the govt. agency,or the private enterprise with which the city in question had joined in that particular suspect activity. While the council studies the possibility to enter into a financial arrangement with one of these companies, it would be wise to consider everything, and think about every possibility, before signing the taxpayers onto something that is NOT black and white. I have attached something that every council person should read and consider, and I will also send it to the local newspapers and television stations,so everyone is on the same page. I hope you find this as interesting as I did. Eric Robinson HB Resident Reason Closed Thank you for your comments on the issue of Red Light Cameras.Your comments have been forwarded to city council for their consideration.A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item.Again,thank you for taking the time to make your views known. We thought you might want to know that the city recently launched its"Surfcity Pipeline,"an online system with answers to hundreds of questions and direct links to many services.We hope you will take a look and consider using it the next time you have a request of city hall. Surfcity Pipeline can be found at hftp://www.surfcity-hb.org Date Expect Closed: 03/17/2009 Date Closed: 03/16/2009 3:09 PM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: 4 http://user.govoutreach.com/surfcity/printrequest.php?curid=228790&type=0 3/16/2009 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Dapkus, Pat Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:32 AM To: City Clerk Agenda Subject: FW: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request#: 434 Can you verifying that you were copied on this? Fromm: Surf City Pipeline [ma i Ito:noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:31 AM To: Dapkus, Pat Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Notification of new Request #: 434 Request# 434 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Kenneth Small by Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Andy Weiss Description: From: Andy Weiss [mailto:andrewweiss@verizon.net] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:07 AM To: wtborden@aol.com Cc: CITY COUNCIL; bmartinez@ocregister.com Subject: Red Light Cameras I read your article on Red Light Cameras and couldn't disagree with you more. I just returned from a trip to Scottsdale this weekend and during the drive I saw no less than 10 cameras on I-10 and Loop 101 in various cities from Avondale thru Glendale to Scottsdale. Each of these were speed cameras and they took photos similar to the red light cameras. One of the "traps" was miles out in the desert and was simply a white unmanned van on the side of I-10 with a small triangular sign approx 25 feet from the van warning of a"Photo Enforcement Zone". What deterrent effect could this possibly have with the limited notice a sign so close to the van and drivers approaching at 75 mph (or more). Can you say revenue generator? Do you suggest that this could be an appropriate next step for HB?After all, speeding is illegal. How about installing cameras on parking meters and have photos taken and pictures issued when the time on the meter expires?Illegal. What about cameras that measure when you park more than 18" from the curb? Illegal. How about the Rainbow trucks checking to see that no bottles or paper are in the brown trash can? Illegal. Shall I continue? Despite Chief Small's statement, camera enforcement is a shameless effort to raise revenue which, by the way, is also illegal. When you objectively measure traffic/miles driven/accident rates per miles driven, red-light accidents are 3/26/2009 Page 2 of 2 STATISTICALLY insignificant. Let the police enforce the law and let violators be ticketed in a way that provides due process....where the accused can confront an accuser as required by the Constitution. Andy Weiss Huntington Beach CA 714-326-8900 Expected Close Dale: 03/20/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/26/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:45 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 437 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Kenneth Small by Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Candace Brenner Description: From: Candace Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@gwc.cccd.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Fresno Dumps Red Light Cameras The city of Fresno has given up on their red light cameras. Too much trouble!! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/632.asp Candace Brenner Expected Close Date: 03/20/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/26/2009 Page I of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 10:50 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#438 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Kenneth Small by Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Candace Brenner Description: From: Candace Brenner [mailto:cbrenner@gwc.cccd.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2009 8:46 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Fresno Dumps Red Light Cameras I'm not entirely against red light cameras, but only if they are fair, and the yellow lights are long enough. There seems to be quite a lot of problems associated with the systems in many places. Candace Brenner Red light cameras increase rear-end collisions http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/06/technology/circuits/06came.html? r=1&ex=1105678800&en=2ef30316835507f5&ei=5070 National Motorists Association Objections To Photo Enforcement http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/ More issues to consider: http://daviswiki.org/Red_Light_Cameras#head- 7d3f56644aa8ce0700f8f254f3d2817807f56290 http://www.newsnet5.com/news/I 0901008/detail.html http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/2008/04/red-light-camera-monkey- busine ss-may-be-a-national-trend.ars 3/26/2009 Page 2 of 2 The city of Fresno has given up on their red light cameras. Too much trouble!! http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/06/632.asp Candace Brenner Expected Close Date: 03/20/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/26/2009 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 30, 2009 4:29 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#510 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to .Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Thom Doney Description: -----Original Message----- From: Thom Doney [mailto:thomdoney@yahoo.com] Sent: Friday, March 27, 2009 11:34 AM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Red Light Cameras Dear Member of the Huntington Beach City Council, Thank you for your service. Please vote no on Red Light Traffic Cameras. For safety's sake,just delay the time between lights to three or four seconds. Please read the following article that was posted today on the Yahoo main website page. Thank you again for you service. Thom Doney thomdoney@yahoo.com http://online.wsj.com/article/SB 123811365190053401.html?mod=yhoofront Expected Close Date: 03/31/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/30/2009 Page 1 of 4 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:57 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 518 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to )Kenneth Small by Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Allen Baylis Description: From: Allen Baylis [mailto:rab@baylislaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 31, 2009 3:41 PM To: CITY COUNCIL Subject: Traffic Safety Mayor and Councilmembers, Here's an article out in the OC Register regarding Orange County traffic fatalities. Note that Santa Ana has 15 intersections with red light cameras only saw a slight reduction in fatal crashes, while Huntington Beach with no red light cameras saw a dramatic reduction in fatalities. Santa Ana is one of the least safe cities in the state. While all traffic accidents, and especially fatalities are.tragic, Huntington Beach does not have a significant problem such that the installation of red light cameras would be justified. Please do not support the proposed automated red light enforcement program. Thank you, R. Allen Baylis Huntington Beach http://www.ocregister.com/articles/data-traffie-fatalities-2348097-highway-state Tuesday, March 31, 2009 Streets less deadly: Traffic fatalities drop 38% in O.C. Authorities made efforts to reduce deaths, injuries and drunken driving. By SERENA MARIA DANIELS The Orange County Register Fatal accidents on surface streets dropped by 38 percent in 2008 in Orange County, a trend that seems to mirror national and statewide statistics, preliminary data shows. 3/31/2009 Page 2 of 4 In Orange County, 79 people were killed in collisions on surface streets in 2008, compared to 128 in 2007, according to preliminary figures from the California Highway Patrol. The numbers have not been finalized, but the data is not expected to change dramatically, officials say. Fatalities on America's freeways fell by nearly 10 percent from 2007 to 2008, according to initial federal and state data. Most of the county's larger cities saw a decrease in surface street fatalities last year, including Santa Ana, Anaheim, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach and Westminster. -Santa Ana— 17 in 2007, 15 in 2008. -Anaheim— 16 in 2007, six in 2008. -Costa Mesa— 10 in 2007, two in 2008. -Huntington Beach—eight in 2007, three in 2008. -Westminster—eight in 2007, two in 2008. A few cities saw an increase in surface-street deaths: •In both Newport Beach and San Clemente, fatalities rose from two in 2007 to six deaths each in 2008. ®In Lake Forest, one person died in a crash in 2007, compared to five in 2008. While Santa Ana saw fatalities drop last year, the city has struggled with a high rate of pedestrian injuries in past years, ranking among the least safe in the state, the California Office of Traffic Safety reported. In 2007, 53 pedestrians under 15 years old were killed or injured in Santa Ana— second worst in the state. The city also ranked No. 5 for alcohol-related accidents that year, with 230 killed or injured, the OTS reported. Only one pedestrian was killed in 2007 in Santa Ana. Santa Ana police traffic Officer Ron Moreno visits the area's schools when he's asked to talk to children about pedestrian safety. Moreno said the high number of schools in the city often means heavy foot- traffic and increases the likelihood that kids will get hit. He attributes the high numbers in pedestrian injuries to unsafe street-crossing practices like jay- walking or standing on center medians. "It's kind of hard because we have like 62 schools in the city—we have to do regular patrol,plus try to get through to the schools," Moreno said. Even with the challenges of a growing population, state officials say safer vehicles, tougher safety-belt laws, and continued public awareness campaigns have led to the drop in fatalities. In Anaheim, where 16 were killed in traffic collisions in 2007, Lt. Randy West, the city's traffic bureau commander, said his team used state grant money to target alcohol-related collisions, which contributed to a large portion of the roadway fatalities. In 2007, Anaheim ranked No. 8 in the state in alcohol-related crashes. Since then, the department has obtained state grants worth $1 million between 2008 and 2010 to be used for public awareness campaigns and periodic DUI checkpoints and saturations. The bulk of that money $711,207—comes from the Avoid the 28 statewide DUI enforcement initiative. Anaheim police are coordinating the distribution of some of that money to other local departments, an OTS spokesman said. Other issues, like the high volume of traffic coming into Anaheim's resort area and convention center, are being handled by assigning more patrol officers to work those areas, West said. "Traffic is the No. 1 quality-of-life issue affecting people today," West said. "It's 3/31/2009 Page 3 of 4 truly a team effort making it safer for the residents and visitors coming in and out of Anaheim." Highway fatalities are projected to have dropped dramatically in 2008, falling by nearly 10 percent both locally and nationwide, according to federal and state data. In Orange County, preliminary data shows that fatalities dropped about 9 percent from 2007 to 2008. In 2008, 59 people died in 51 fatal collisions, compared to 65 deaths in 58 crashes in 2007, California Highway Patrol records show. Statewide, data shows a 23 percent drop in highway deaths— 1,349 people were killed in 1,219 fatal collisions in 2008, while 1,749 people died in 1,529 such crashes in 2007, the CHP statistics say. The data covers freeways, toll roads and state routes. Nationwide, early projections show an almost 10-percent drop in highway traffic deaths in the first 10 months of 2008 —31,110 in 2008 compared to 34,502 in 2007. The report was released in December by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, showing records for January through October. NHTSA attributes public awareness campaigns, safer vehicles and law enforcement efforts for the drop in deaths, although officials said public education efforts had not differed over the past couple of years. The faltering economy, which led to a decrease in the roadway travelers, has also been cited as a reason for the decline in highway fatalities. As highway traffic has grown over the past several decades, the rate of fatalities per mile driven has fallen even as the absolute number of highway deaths has risen, officials said. "It's been both a frustration and a blessing," NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson said. "We've kept records since the 1960s—of course, you have more people on the roads, more congestion, so the total number hasn't dropped. But there has been a steady decline (in the rate) over the years." Officials from the state's Office of Traffic Safety and the CHP cautioned that the data released is preliminary and subject to revision. CHP Officer Gabe Montoya said that locally, CHP offices regularly receive grants for education campaigns for seniors, teens, DUI enforcement and car-seat safety. Montoya said these efforts, coupled with increased safety features in vehicles makes the roads safer. "A few years ago, to see four airbags in a vehicle would be like, wow! Now you're seeing four, five, six, even eight airbags throughout the entire car," Montoya said. While Tyson agrees that the accuracy and detail of the preliminary data cannot compare to the final numbers, early projections can give transportation officials a snapshot of their progress. "It's like getting a report card just as you're finishing classes—you wouldn't wait several months to get that," Tyson said. U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters said in a statement in December that NHTSA has developed new electronic data gathering techniques to project highway fatality rates faster. Traditionally, this type of data is not released by federal officials until later in the year. Typically, states and the District of Columbia issue NHTSA quarterly reports of their fatality rates. Now,NHTSA uses a formula to estimate annual totals, based on existing trends, a method similar to how the U.S. Census gathers 3/31/2009 Page 4 of 4 information, Tyson said. Contact the writer: 714-704-3795 or sdaniels@ocregister.com Expected Close Date: 04/01/2009 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 3/31/2009