RED LIGHT CAMERAS
you haven't already done so, please read the San
Leandro section on the Camera Towns page
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
East Bay Voters:
who will be running for re-election to the State Senate in 2022 if his current run for Alameda County Supervisor doesn't work out.
In March 2020 please don't vote for
him for Supervisor.
As of 2019 he still is in the State Legislature in Sacramento and was the author of SB 246 of 2019 (had it passed it would have added a 10% tax to each barrel of oil).
In 2017 he was co-author of SB 1 which raised gas tax and car registration fees beginning Nov. 2017 and which was the subject of an attempted repeal, by Prop. 6 on the Nov. 2018 ballot.
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.
Leandro Docs Set # 1
Violations, Notices Printed 
New 9-18-10, updated 10-19-19
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 
Official reports, Jan. 2015 - June 2015, MATE only 
Official reports, 2015 quarters
Official report, 1st Qtr 2016
Official report, 2nd Qtr 2016
Official report, 3rd Qtr 2016
Official report, 4th Qtr 2016
Official report, 1st Qtr 2017
Official report, 2nd Qtr 2017
Official report, 3rd Qtr 2017
Official reports, 4th Qtr 2017 and 1st Qtr 2018
Official report, 2nd Qtr 2018
Official report, 3rd Qtr 2018
Official report, 4th Qtr 2018
Official report, 1st Qtr 2019
Official report, 2nd Qtr 2019
Official report, 3rd Qtr 2019
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 This annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 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).
 Calendar month data was requested on 9-18-10 but has not yet been received.
 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.
 Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs.
 From official report posted on the SLPD Traffic Division website - for a link to the Division's site see Docs Set # 4, below.
 City claimed not to have individual calendar-month reports available, so was asked to provide copies of the reports it had on hand.
 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.
 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 the averaging of tickets issued was shortened by 0.2 month.
 These figures are from reports covering the full year, which were posted on the City's website. The City 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.
 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.
 These figures are from the annual reports RedFlex filed with the Judicial Council of California, in which the company provided figures for the number of right turn tickets - see Set # 2, below. These annual reports are usually filed about nine months after the end of the calendar year.
 Calendar month data was requested 7-29-14 but as of 2-17-15 had not been received.
 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.
 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.
 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.
 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
A LOT of Right Turn Tickets - at the Wrong Intersections
The "Late Time"graphs, part of Redflex' standard statistical package, track violations recorded (not tickets issued).
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.)
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.
Until 2017, San Leandro would not provide these graphs or provide a copy of the database so that we could construct our own version of the graph.
However, an annual 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.
(Also read the engineering study linked in Set # 5, below.)
2016 - 2017 (12 Months)
Leandro Docs Set # 3
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
Although San Leandro has not yet experienced a serious
problem with traffic collisions directly related
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.
San Leandro Docs Set # 4
If the link above ceases to work, try
San Leandro Docs Set # 5
In 2016, as part of its application to
CalTrans for re-issuance of its annual encroachment
permit, the City commissioned a study
by an independent engineering firm. From the
study, pages 6 and 10:
"After reviewing over 13 years of
collision data for the two intersections, our findings
"For whatever reason, it appears that
the injury plus fatality collision rate at signalized
intersections (with or without ARLE) has decreased
San Leandro Docs Set # 6