RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read the San Leandro section on the Camera Towns page

San Leandro Documents

Some of San Leandro's tickets can possibly be ignored.  If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket."  For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

If you have a San Leandro red light camera ticket, be sure to look at the Countywide Information, on the Oakland Documents page.


East Bay Voters:

Do you live in the South end of Alameda County or the North end of Santa Clara County - State Sen. Ellen Corbett's former District?

In 2014 Sen. Corbett "termed out," and has been replaced by this person

Wieckowski, author anti-motorist bill AB 666
 
Wieckowski, Author of the anti-motorist bills SB-1 and AB 666

who will be running for re-election in 2018 and 2022.

Please don't vote for him.

Send him back home to his bankruptcy law practice.

As of 2017 he is in the State Legislature in Sacramento and is co-author of SB-1 (if it passes it will raise gas tax and car registration fees).  In 2013 he was the author of AB-666 which - had it passed - would have increased the number of red light camera tickets.  Before reaching the Legislature he was a member of the Fremont City Council, and during his time on the council he approved two extensions of Fremont's contract with RedFlex:  He was the maker of the 2005 motion to extend the contract to 2010, and in 2010 he made the motion to extend the contract to June 2017.



San Leandro Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts

Total Violations, Notices Printed [4]

New 9-18-10, updated 2-15-17

Cam #
14DA
01
14FA
01
HAWA
01
HAWA
03
LEWA
01
MATE
01
Monthly Average
of Notices Printed






E. 14th
Nbd
@
Davis



[17]
Fair-
mont
Ebd
@
E. 14th


[17]
Halcyon
Wbd
@
Wash-
ington
[6]


[17]
Floresta
Ebd
@
Wash-
ington
[6]


[17]
Lewel-
ling
Ebd
@
Wash-
ington


[17]
Marina
Ebd
@
Tea-
garden



[17]








Right
Turns -
Percent
of Total
Cites
Filed
at Court
[14]
Total
Citations
Issued
as %
of Events
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

Jan06
[5]





926











Feb06
[5]





926











Mar06
[5]





926











6 Months
Jan-Jun06
[9]
490
150
209
69
3375
1366
3354
1462
-
-
5114
2509









44%
12542
5556

Apr06
[5]





926











May06
[5]





926











Jun06
[5]





926











Jul06
[5] [13]

















Aug06


















Sep06


















Oct06


















Nov06


















Dec06


















2006
[2]






926
(proj.)









11112
(proj.)

Jan07
[5] [13]
















Feb07


















Mar07


















Apr07


















May07


















Jun07






583










Jul07
[5] [13]




583










Aug07






583










Sep07






583










Oct07






583










Nov07






583










Dec07






583










2007
[2]






583
(proj.)









7566
(proj.)

Jan08
[5] [13]




583










Feb08






583










Mar08






583










Apr08






583










May08






583










Jun08






583










Jul08
[5] [13]




583










Aug08






583










Sep08






583










Oct08






583










Nov08






583










36 Months
Jun07-May10
[9]
4384
1443
6562
2565
9631
4598
21051
6999
907
275
10040
5108









40%
52265
20988

Dec08






583










2008
[2]






583








6996
(proj.)

Jan09
[5] [13]




583










Feb09






583










Mar09






583










Apr09






583










May09






583










Jun09






583










Jul09
[5] [13]




583










Aug09






583










Sep09






583










Oct09






583










Nov09






583










Dec09






583










2009
[2]






583








6996
(proj.)

Jan10
[5] [13]




583










Feb10






583










Mar10






583










Apr10
[13]




583 690









3 Months
Apr-Jun10
[9]
437
127
963
402
1644
473
2888
594
51
7
876
468









30%
6832
2071

May10






583 690









Jun10







690









Jul10
[5] [13]
















Aug10


















Sep10


















Oct10
[13]
















Nov10


















Dec10
[8]
97
30
257
121
284
75
430
150
13
4
257
144
524








39%
1338
524

2010
[2]






649
(proj.)









7785
(proj.)

Jan11






505











2 Months
Jan-Feb11
[9] [13]
176
66
457
197
570
208
862
338
-
-
405
200










41%
2470
1009

Feb11






505











Mar11
[8]
86
20
188
52
278
82
502
143
-
-
275
98
395








30%
1329
395

Apr11 [13]




446










May11






446










Jun11






446










6.4 Months
Apr-Oct11
[9]  [11]
584
107
1439
568
2055
422
4421
960
-
-
1877
708









27%
10376
2765

Jul11






446










Aug11






446










Sep11






446










Oct11
[13]




446










Nov11


















Dec11


















2011
[2]






453
(proj.)









5440
(proj.)

Jan12
[13]




595










Feb12






595










Mar12






595










Apr12
[13]




595










May12






595










9.7 Months
Jan-Oct12
[9]  [11]
906
254
1633
680
2679
729
6661
1554

4895
2435









37%
16774
5652

Jun12






595










Jul12
[13]




595










Aug12






595










Sep12






595










Oct12
[13]




595










Nov12






595










Dec12






595










2012
[12]
968
279
1874
802
3187
923
8381
1989

6016
3151
595







35%
20426
7144

Jan13
[13]




627










Feb13
[13]




627










Mar13
[13]




627










Apr13
[13]




627










May13
[13]




627










Jun13
[13]




627










Jul13
[15]





627










Aug13
[15]




627










Sep13
[15]




627










Oct13
[15]




627










Nov13
[15]




627










Dec13
[15]




627










2013
[12]
1077
304
2108
930
3482
917
9196
2160
0
0
6634
3207
627






91%
[14]
33%
22497
7518

Jan14
[15]




632










Feb14
[15]




632










Mar14
[15]




632










Apr14
[15]




632










May14
[15]




632










Jun14
[15]




632










Jul14
[15]




632










Aug14






632










Sep14






632










Oct14






632










Nov14






632










Dec14






632










2014
[12]
1065
335
3561
1341
3854
1040
10527
2680
0
0
4900
2188
632






90%
[14]
32%
23907
7584

Jan15
[19]





777
338
1279











Feb15
[19]





2842
764
1279











Mar15
[19]





3226
1253
1279











Jan15-Mar15
[8]
74
26
619
276
1295
246
3487
1027
0
0
6552
2261










12027
3836

Apr15
[19]





3487
982
992











May15
[19]





585
182
992











Jun15
[19]





513
232
992











Apr15-Jun15
[8]
199
70
586
249
1455
382
3693
917

4510
1358










10443
2976

Jul15






883











Aug15






883











Sep15






883











Jul15-Sep15
[8]
292
98
745
356
1466
426
3392
981

1699
788










7594
2649

Oct15






970











Nov15






970











Dec15






970











Oct15-Dec15
[8]
249
114
864
383
1223
391
2813
722

1921
1299










7070
2909

2015
[2]
814
308
2814
1264
5439
1445
13385
3647

14682
5706
1031







95%
[14]
33%
37134
12370

2015 vs.
2014





261%










163%

2015 vs.
2013





178%










165%

2015 vs.
2012





181%










173%

Jan16






943











Feb16






943











Mar16






943











Jan16-Mar16
[8]
305
126
597
296
1113
377
3279
823

1773
1208










40%
7067
2830
[8]

Apr16






1028











May16






1028











Jun16






1028











Apr16-Jun16
[8]  [20]
378
132

759
357
1533
431
3783
905

2303
1259










8756
3085
[8]  [20]

Jul16






967











Aug16






967











Sep16






967











Jul16-Sep16
[8]
322
96
1041
432
1615
460
3648
871

2060
1043










8686
2902
[8]

Oct16






1206











Nov16






1206











Dec16






1206











Oct16-Dec16
[8]
352
140
1184
646
1540
482
3799
927

2162
1424









40%
9037
3619
[8]

2016
[2]
1357
494
3581
1731
5801
1750
14509
3526

8298
4934
1036







95%
[14]
37%
33546
12436

Cam #
14DA
01
14FA
01
HAWA
01
HAWA
03
LEWA
01
MATE
01












[10]
E. 14th
Nbd
@
Davis



[17]
Fair-
mont
Ebd
@
E. 14th


[17]
Halcyon
Wbd
@
Wash-
ington
[6]

[17]
Floresta
Ebd
@
Wash-
ington
[6]

[17]
Lewel-
ling
Ebd
@
Wash-
ington

[17]
Marina
Ebd
@
Tea-
garden


[17]
avg
tickets
per
month
avg
tickets
per
month






Right
Turns -
Percent
of Total
Cites
Filed
at Court
[14]
Total
Citations
Issued
as %
of Events
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed
[1] [4]


This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.

Official report, Apr. 1 - Jun. 30, 2010
Official report, Dec. 2010
Official report, Mar. 2011
Official reports, Jan. 2011 - Feb. 2011 and Apr. 2011 - Oct. 2011
Official reports, Jan. 2006 - Oct. 2012
Official report, 2012, full year
Official report, 2013, full year
Official report, 2014, full year
Official report, early 2015 [16]
Official report, 2nd Qtr+ 2015 [18]
Official reports, Jan. 2015 - June 2015, MATE only [19]
Official reports, 2015 quarters
Official report, 1st Qtr 2016
Official report, 2nd Qtr 2016
Official report, 3rd Qtr 2016
Official report, 4th Qtr 2016

[  ] indicates a footnote.
[1]  Totals are as provided by the City.
[2]  This annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net.
[3]  Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4]  Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated.  Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations.  If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted.  The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).
[5]  Calendar month data was requested on 9-18-10 but has not yet been received.
[6]  The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (east, or west) has not yet been confirmed.
[7]  Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs.
[8]  From official report posted on the SLPD Traffic Division website - see link in Docs Set # 4, below.
[9] City claimed not to have individual calendar-month reports available, so was asked to provide copies of the reports it had on hand. 
[10]  The title bar has been repeated solely for the convenience of the reader - there is no difference between it and the one at the top of the table.
[11]  This report was generated on the same day as the last day of the report period.  To adjust for violations photographed but not yet ticketed, the reporting period used for averaging tickets issued was shortened by 0.2 month.
[12]  These figures are from reports covering the full year, which were posted on the City's website.  They posted the report for 2012 in Feb. 2013, they posted the report for 2013 in Aug. 2014, and they posted the report for 2014 in Feb 2015.
[13]  Calendar month data was requested on 6-2-13 and again on 7-29-14 but as of 2-17-15 had not been received.
[14]  These figures were calculated from the reports RedFlex filed with the Judicial Council of California, in which they provided figures for the number of right turn tickets during 2013, 2014 and 2015 - see Set # 2, below.
[15]  Calendar month data was requested 7-29-14 but as of 2-17-15 had not been received.
[16]  The report for this period, which the SLPD posted on its website - was generated on April 29, the same day the SLPD selected to be the end of the reporting period, so not all of the violations which had occurred by April 29 would have been processed or approved (the report shows 1426 "in progress"), and more violations were likely to occur in the remaining day and a half of the four months.
[17] 
The 2005 Dowling Study which listed the City's most dangerous intersections (see link in Set # 3, below) did not include any of these intersections where the cameras eventually were installed.
[18]  The report for this period, which the SLPD posted on its website, was generated on Sept. 1, 2015.
[19]  The early 2015 monthly reports for MATE-01 were provided by an organization which (legally) obtained them from the SLPD. The reports were not posted on the SLPD website.
[20] 
These reports were generated less than ten days after the last day of the report period.  To adjust for violations photographed but not yet processed and ticketed ("In Progress"), the  Approved Violations figures found on the reports were increased by 0.344 of the In Progress violations.  ( 0.344 is the ratio of Notices Printed to Total Violations Recorded, during 2015 and the first quarter of 2016.)      
 






San Leandro Docs Set # 2
No "Late Time" Graphs - and a LOT of Right Turn Tickets, at the Wrong Intersections

The "Late Time"graphs, part of Redflex' standard statistical package, track violations recorded.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)


Grand Terrace late times bar chart
The picture above is an example from another city. 
These graphs are available for more than fifty California cities
- see the list in the expanded version of Defect #  9 - but not San Leandro.


So far, San Leandro has refused to provide these graphs or to provide a copy of the database so that we can construct our own version of the graph. 

  However, a report RedFlex filed with the Judicial Council of California provided figures for the number of right turn tickets.  The figures show that in 2014 90% of San Leandro's tickets were for right turns.

It is also interesting to note that the 2005 Dowling Study which examined the City's most dangerous intersections (see link in Set # 3, below) did not include any of the intersections where the cameras eventually were installed.


San Leandro Docs Set # 3
The Contract - Paying WAY Too Much, and How Much They Make

2005 Dowling Study of the Most Dangerous Intersections
2005 Staff Report and Minutes
2005 Contract
2011 Contract (signed)
2011 Staff Report
2011 Minutes

The early 2005 Dowling Study listed the City's most dangerous intersections, but did not include any of the intersections where the cameras eventually were installed.

On Sept. 6, 2005 the city council gave preliminary approval to a contract with RedFlex, for cameras at five intersections. The contract included an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city would not have to pay RedFlex
 the full rent if fine revenue was insufficient to cover the rent.  See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.
The staff report prepared for the Sept. 6 council meeting also contained this remarkable statement:

"Conclusion. Although San Leandro has not yet experienced a serious problem with traffic collisions directly related
to red light violations, the city is continuing to experience an increase in the overall amount of traffic flow throughout the community."


2011:  New Contract

With a contract renewal looming, on Apr. 5 and 18, 2011 highwayrobbery.net wrote to the city council, suggesting that they negotiate for a better price.

On Apr. 18, 2011 the city council heard public comments from four San Leandro residents who questioned the use of the cameras and none who supported the cameras (see Staff Report and Minutes, above), then voted 4 - 3 (ayes:  Prola, Starosciak, Reed, Souza; nays: Cassidy, Cutter, Gregory) to accept a new 8-year contact under which the City will pay $5200 monthly rent per camera for five of the six existing cameras.  One camera is to be removed.  Cost neutrality was replaced by "financial feasibility," but there can be no review of those numbers until June 2015 - see Section 7.2 of the new contract.

They agreed to pay way too much.

  They did not need to pay $5200 rent for the existing cameras.  Nor did they need to agree to an eight-year term in order to get a good price.  As of early 2011 the market was soft and a number of California cities had renewed at around $3000 per month per existing camera, with much shorter terms.  For example, Oceanside's five-year contract (available on the Oceanside Documents page) set a $3052 rent for its four original cameras, and Hawthorne's three-year contract (available on the Hawthorne Documents page) set a $2800 rent for its seven original cameras.  (See FAQ # 17 for more examples of low rents.)  If San Leandro had negotiated, or put the contract out to bid, it could have saved $2200 per month per camera, or $1,056,000 of rent over the eight years of the new contract - enough money to buy and equip twenty one patrol cars. 

Looking at it from the motorist's perspective, the City will need to issue an extra 10,560 tickets to cover the extra rent (assuming that 2/3 of those ticketed pay their tickets and that the City's portion of the approx. $500 fine is $150, netting the City $100 per ticket issued.)

  There is another problem with the new contract.  It contains no escape clause (Termination for Convenience) should a future city council wish to terminate the contract, or if the voters terminate the contract via initiative.  A complete contract will include a formula by which the cost of such a "Termination for Convenience" is to be calculated. For an example of such a formula, see Section 6.2 in Victorville's original contract (available on the Victorville Documents page).

2014:  Prices Soften Even More

In early 2014 the City of Elk Grove negotiated the following prices for its five RedFlex cameras.


From Exh. D of the March 2014 Elk Grove Contract


2015:  City Misses First Opportunity to Renegotiate!


Per Section 7.2 of the 2011 contract, June 2015 was the first opportunity for the City to renegotiate the rent.  But there is no record of the City considering, or doing, a renegotiation at that time.  The only record highwayrobbery.net has been able to obtain is the following table created by Finance Department staff on June 22, 2016.

San Leandro Cal. red light
                camera income / expense


This list of contracts and amendments was up-to-date as of 8-29-16.



San Leandro Docs Set # 4
Info at PD Site

The police department's
red light camera web page  has extensive materials about the program - including business rules, guidelines and official reports showing the number of tickets issued.  Beginning in 2015 they increased the frequency of those reports to quarterly.

If the link above ceases to work, try drilling down:
Departments > Police > Divisions > Traffic > Red Light Cameras



San Leandro Docs Set # 5
Encroachment Permits

Some of the City's cameras are located on CalTrans right-of-ways, so are operated under an encroachment permit obtained from CalTrans.  HighwayRobbery.net obtained these documents from CalTrans, via a public records request.

Permit Application 2005, Issued 2006

Some other cities operate cameras under encroachment permits.  For more information about those cities and about CalTrans' criteria for the issuance of an encroachment permit, see the CalTrans section on the Links page.



San Leandro Docs Set # 6
More Coming

There may be some more San Leandro information posted in the next few weeks.  Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!


 

---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net