RED LIGHT CAMERAS
already done so, please read the San Leandro section on the Camera
Some of San Leandro's tickets can
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
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.
San Leandro Docs
Set # 1
Notices Printed 
New 9-18-10, updated 2-24-13
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
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 YTD = Year-to-date total.
 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 City's website - see link in 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 averaging tickets issued was shortened by 0.2 month.
 These figures are from a report covering the full year, which was posted on the City's website in Feb. 2013.
San Leandro Docs Set # 2
"Late Time" Graphs
The City has refused to provide bar graphs for its cameras.
The picture above is an example from another city.
Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.
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
San Leandro has not yet experienced a
serious problem with traffic collisions directly related
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) to accept a new 8-year contact under
which the City
rent per camera for five of the six existing cameras. One camera
is to be removed. Cost neutrality was replaced by "financial
feasibility" - see Section 7.2 of the new contract.
They paid 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. A number of California cities have 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) sets a $3052 rent for its four original cameras, and Hawthorne's three-year contract (available on the Hawthorne Documents page) sets a $2800 rent for its seven original cameras. 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 over the eight years of the contract.
Nor did the city council need to agree to pay $6300 for new cameras. A close-by example: Burlingame paid only $5870. Had the City negotiated to obtain the (optional) five new cameras for the same rate as Burlingame, it could have saved $206,000 over eight years.
Thus, the city council gave away $1,262,000 of City money, just because it failed to negotiate.
There is another problem with the contract. It contains no escape clause 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 "for convenience" termination 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).
This list of
contracts and amendments may not be up-to-date - there could be a
contract or amendment later than the one listed above.
San Leandro Docs Set
San Leandro Docs Set # 5
San Leandro Docs Set