HomeMy WebLinkAboutCorrespondence - Item 27 Zuniga, Diana
From: pjl <
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 11:48 AM
To: eComment
Subject: April 21 Council meeting
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Discuss and Consider Directing the City Manager to Direct Staff to Draft and Bring Back a Resolution for Council
Consideration That Would be Sent to Assemblymember Avelino Valencia and Senator Tom Umberg, Requesting
27. That the State Legislature Amend AB 645 (Friedman)to Allow the City of Santa Ana to Establish a Speed Safety
System Pilot Program As Soon As Possible—Councilmember Bacerra
Item 27 "speed cameras".... Please affirm this. We have had no fewer than 7 deaths on Segerstrom East of Bristol
because of speed. Two adults in one crash,4 teenagers and a 20 yo in another. We need to stop these needless crashes
, injuries, and deaths.
Pete
"So whoever knows the right thing to do and fails to do it,for him it is sin." James 4:17
Please help prevent spam. Use the BCC feature if you need to broadcast a mail. Please do not forward this e mail
address. If you have received this in error, please notify sender and delete the original. This message is confidential and
should not be rebroadcast without permission.
i
Zuniga, Diana
From: Ann A Crane <
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2026 12:23 PM
To: eComment
Subject: Traffic cameras
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana.Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I recommend we add them on streets that have seen accidents and/or deaths due to soeeding or other unsafe driving.
Pinewoods resident
i
Flores, Dora
From:Jay Beeber <jay@motorists.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 9:34 AM
To:eComment
Subject:Agenda Item 27
Attachments:NMA Comments on Agenda Item 27.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Attached are my comments regarding Agenda Item 27 and the proposal for Santa Ana to seek inclusion in the
AB 645 speed camera pilot program.
Please include this letter in the public record and circulate it to the full Council.
--
Jay Beeber
Executive Director - Policy
818-205-4790 Cell
National Motorists Association | 1-800-882-2785
1001 Arboretum Dr Ste 120 | Waunakee, WI 53597
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NMA is the Voice of Reason for Driving Freedom
1
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
My name is Jay Beeber, Executive Director of Policy for the National Motorists
Association. I appreciate the opportunity to submit these written comments on
Agenda Item 27, Councilmember Bacerra’s request to consider the use of speed
cameras in Santa Ana.
I have worked on the issue of automated enforcement since 2010 and have
extensive experience in this area. Before considering a resolution asking the state
legislature to amend AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana to participate in the
speed camera pilot program, Council members should be aware of the following:
Elected Officials Must Honor their Agreements
The speed camera pilot program authorized under AB 645 was the product of
extensive negotiations over multiple legislative sessions. Those negotiations
produced a specific agreement: a maximum of six participating cities, each with a
defined number of camera installations. Numerous stakeholder groups negotiated
in good faith with the bill’s author, Assemblymember Friedman, and relied on
those terms when deciding how to invest their time and effort during the
legislative process.
Even before the pilot program began, legislators approved an expansion to PCH in
Malibu. Now additional cities, possibly including Santa Ana, are asking legislators
to set aside agreements that were negotiated in good faith. That is a mistake. If
legislators can so easily discard negotiated limits before the pilot is even
underway, why should the public trust similar commitments in the future? Public
confidence in our institutions is already dangerously low. When legislators walk
away from prior agreements, that confidence erodes even further. The City of
Santa Ana should not be asking the legislature to break the deal that made AB 645
possible in the first place.
The Vast Majority of Speed Camera Tickets are Issued to Motorists Traveling
at the Natural Speed of the Roadway
The speed limit on a number of streets in Santa Ana is unrealistically low for the
roadway design. With a few outliers, this is why drivers “speed” on these
roadways, not because they are a group of wanton scofflaws.
For example, the operational speed of free-flow traffic on Main Street between
Washington Avenue and 1st Street is 40 mph at the 85th percentile, while the
posted speed limit is 30 mph. Automated tickets issued under AB 645 begin at 11
mph over the posted speed limit. If speed cameras were placed on this segment,
drivers would be ticketed for traveling just 1 mph over the natural speed of the
roadway. Similarly, the operational speed on multi-lane Harbor Boulevard from
MacArthur Boulevard to the north city limits is 47 to 48 mph, while the posted
speed limit is 40 mph. Under the speed camera pilot program, drivers going just 3
to 4 mph above that natural speed would be ticketed.
In effect, the government builds roadways that encourage drivers to feel
comfortable traveling above the desired speed, then installs ticketing cameras to
cite drivers for doing exactly what the roadway design encourages. That is a
classic speed trap.
If officials set speed limits more realistically, or designed roadways to be self-
enforcing at lower speeds, the vast majority of these violations would disappear
overnight.
Proper Traffic Engineering Countermeasures are More Effective than
Ticketing Cameras
Before considering additional enforcement in the form of automated ticketing
machines, the City of Santa Ana should first take all reasonable measures to
employ engineering safety countermeasures that naturally reduce speeds to
desired levels.
Regardless of one’s general views about ticketing cameras, many other solutions
are at least as effective, if not more effective. A study in Riverside, California,
showed that speed feedback signs were not only more effective than speed
cameras, but also more cost-effective. In another series of studies, field tests using
driver feedback signs were conducted by the City of Clarksville, Tennessee, and
the Maine Department of Transportation. Average speeds were reduced by up to
23%, 85th percentile speeds were reduced by up to 18%, and vehicles traveling
6+ mph over the posted speed limit were reduced by up to 62%. That is a far
better result than what is typically seen with speed cameras, and speed feedback
signs do not bring with them the economic and equity problems inherent in
camera enforcement. Their effectiveness can also be enhanced when paired with
speed limit signs equipped with flashing beacons.
It is almost certain that proper engineering will prove far more effective in
improving real-time speed compliance than issuing automated tickets weeks after
an alleged violation. Until these types of low-cost improvements are installed and
evaluated throughout the city, it is premature to consider deploying speed
ticketing cameras.
Speed Camera Ticketing Programs Excessively Burden Low Income and
Minority Communities
A study by the Woodstock Institute, The Debt Spiral: How Chicago’s Vehicle
Ticketing Practices Unfairly Burden Low-Income and Minority Communities, clearly
shows how automated enforcement can have devastating effects on marginalized
communities.1
According to this study, in 2017, the City of Chicago issued over 3.6 million
vehicle-related tickets and warnings. The vast majority of these tickets are issued
through Chicago’s massive automated speed and red light camera ticketing
1 https://woodstockinst.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/The-Debt-Spiral-How-Chicagos-
Vehicle-Ticketing-Practices-Unfairly-Burden-Low-Income-and-Minority-Communities-
June-2018.pdf
programs. The largest number of tickets was for red light violations, 273,224,
followed by speed violations of more than 11 mph over the limit, 250,238.2
The study found that tickets were more likely to be issued to drivers from low-
and moderate-income zip codes and to drivers from minority zip codes than to
other drivers. This disparity persisted even though residents in low- and
moderate-income areas were less likely than residents in non-LMI areas to
commute by driving or to own a vehicle.
Figure 7 on page 6 of the study shows that significantly more speed and red-light
camera tickets were issued per capita to drivers from low- and moderate-income
zip codes than to drivers from higher-income zip codes.
Likewise, Figure 8 shows that significantly more speed and red-light camera
tickets were issued per capita to drivers from minority zip codes than to drivers
from non-minority zip codes.
2 In 2020, in an attempt to address a budget deficit, Chicago lowered the threshold for issuing
automated speeding tickets to 6 mph over the speed limit, effectively tripling the number of
tickets issued.
As to camera placement, Figure 9 shows that although LMI zip codes made up
only 43% of Chicago’s zip codes, 54% of Chicago’s speed cameras were located in
those zip codes. Similarly, Figure 10 shows that although minority zip codes made
up 50% of Chicago’s zip codes, 59% of Chicago’s speed cameras were located
there.
It is also important to note that even if the placement of ticketing cameras and the
number of tickets issued were equal between minority and non-minority
communities, or between lower-income and higher-income communities, these
tickets would still have a disparate impact on the city’s most vulnerable residents.
It is well known that lower-income and minority communities are more likely to
be financially burdened by these types of tickets. According to the Woodstock
Institute study, tickets issued to drivers from LMI and minority zip codes were
more likely to go unpaid, and therefore accrue additional fines, than those issued
to drivers from non-LMI and non-minority zip codes. Drivers from LMI and
minority zip codes were also more likely to have their driver’s licenses suspended
for failure to pay tickets than drivers from non-LMI and non-minority zip codes.
As a result, ticket recipients from LMI and minority zip codes were twice as likely
as recipients in non-LMI and non-minority zip codes to file for bankruptcy.
How Bad Could this Be in Santa Ana?
San Francisco’s speed camera program is on track to issue approximately $17
million in tickets per year. Based on Santa Ana’s potential camera allocation, the
city could impose a devastating $10 million ticket burden on its residents and
visitors. This would result in massive economic hardship, especially for those of
lesser means, who could individually face hundreds of dollars in fines.
Worse, the huge economic damage caused by this new ticketing scheme likely will
not make roadways safer. The Illinois Policy Institute found that, contrary to city
officials’ claims of safety improvements, after years of issuing hundreds of
millions of dollars in automated speeding tickets, the City of Chicago actually saw
a 14% increase in traffic fatalities in 2021.[4] A 2017 study in Great Britain found
that any potential safety effects from speed cameras were highly localized and
that more collisions were induced as the distance from the cameras increased. A
2013 study in Arizona found that “highway speed cameras did not independently
affect the incidence of motor vehicle collisions.”[5] University of Illinois-Chicago
research also concluded that there was “little relationship between the number of
tickets issued and the safety impact of cameras.”
What is especially troubling about the speed camera pilot program is that it is
being promoted as a benefit to low-income communities and communities of
color through claims that ticketing cameras are color-blind and would serve as an
alternative to live police officers. By now, it should be clear that nothing could be
further from the truth. Rather than replacing live police enforcement, automated
ticketing cameras would be an additional form of enforcement, leading to a surge
in the number of citations issued that would fall most heavily on marginalized
communities. Nothing in the bill would prevent police officers from continuing to
make stops as they do now. The cameras would simply issue a significantly higher
number of citations than live officers, imposing an additional financial burden on
top of any existing issues with live policing. As the University of Illinois-Chicago
study stated, “The volume of automated tickets issued, the spatial location of
cameras, and the structure of fines, fees and forfeitures may in fact reinforce racial
and economic inequities.”
Moreover, a significant number of high-risk roads designed for higher speeds are
located in minority neighborhoods, largely because of a long-standing lack of
investment in road safety infrastructure. Under prior legislation, the government
has been authorized to classify these high-speed thoroughfares as “safety
corridors,” where the speed limit may be reduced by as much as 12 mph below
the design speed. Automated cameras would then issue massive numbers of
tickets to residents in these low-income communities for traveling 11 mph over
this arbitrarily reduced limit, with the revenue used to fix the very problems
created by the government’s historic lack of investment. In that sense, minority
communities would suffer twice: first through disinvestment that produced
higher fatality rates, and then through the imposition of millions of dollars in fines
and fees to remedy that neglect.
There are better alternatives for reducing speed-related crashes without these
negative impacts, including roundabouts, speed humps or speed tables, traffic
circles, and other traffic-calming measures that do not require increased
surveillance to automate enforcement and issue more tickets.
Automated Enforcement is Bad for the City’s Economy
While some may relish the prospect of collecting millions of dollars in fine revenue,
that is not how these programs usually work out. After paying the vendor,
administration, and adjudication costs, the city receives only a small portion of the
ticket revenue. While millions of dollars may be extracted from the local economy, far
less actually accrues to the city. In addition to residents having less money to spend at
local businesses, it is well known that visitors who receive automated tickets often vow
never to return.
Further, AB 645 requires revenues to be used first to recover program costs, and cities
must also maintain their preexisting local funding commitment for traffic-calming
measures in order to remain eligible. Any excess revenue must go to traffic-calming
measures, with unused excess eventually reverting to the Active Transportation
Program. In other words, this is not a dependable general-fund revenue tool. Oakland
now says its program costs about $1 million per year to operate.
Overall, using speed cameras as a mechanism to generate revenue for desired
government projects is not only bad for residents, it is self-defeating.
The Speed Camera Program is Legally Suspect
Cities considering whether to operate a speed camera program under AB 645 should
understand that they would be stepping into a pilot program with real litigation risk,
not a settled enforcement model. AB 645 raises serious legal questions because it
applies existing California speed laws through a stripped-down camera process that
gives motorists fewer practical protections than ordinary traffic enforcement, while
still imposing liability and collecting money. That design creates serious due process
and equal protection vulnerabilities. Participating cities could be forced to defend
costly lawsuits, unwind their programs, and refund large sums that may already have
been spent on vendors and operating costs.
That risk is not hypothetical. In March 2026, a Florida court dismissed a red-light
camera citation after holding that the statutory scheme was unconstitutional as applied
because it treated the registered owner as responsible and shifted the burden away
from the government to prove the actual violation. California’s statute raises similar
issues because it also uses a registered-owner ticketing model to enforce driver-based
traffic laws through documentary presumptions and a thinner hearing process. That is
more than enough to invite expensive test-case litigation against any city that jumps in
early.
Cities should also remember what happens when camera programs unravel after
money has already been collected and spent. On Long Island, Suffolk County has
faced potential refund exposure of roughly $91 million over illegal red-light camera
add-on fees, while Nassau has faced litigation over far larger sums tied to unlawful
camera charges. The financial and political damage is real. AB 645 itself requires
participating jurisdictions to track revenues, costs, dismissals, and delinquent
violations, which means the exposure will be visible if the legal foundation cracks. The
prudent course is to wait until the pilot cities have absorbed the first round of legal
challenges and courts have had time to sort out whether this program is actually
defensible.
I thank you for your consideration.
Jay Beeber
Executive Director - Policy
National Motorists Association
Member - ITE
Jay@motorists.org
818-205-4790
Flores, Dora
From:Venessa Vargas <kitwhitman5@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21,
To:eComment; Penaloza, David; Bacerra, Phil; Amezcua, Valerie
Subject:Speed Safety System pilot Program
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I'm in favor of anything that will finally stop the street racing, illegal mini bikes, and drunk and drugged drivers
on Main and Warner and Flower.
Oh man, I would love to not have to see babies in the back of vehicles while their parents are behind the wheel
knocking back budlights, tall boys, smoking weed and meth.
Its so out and proud in my ward (PENALOZA) I wonder where the enforcement is. Especially after Mother's
Against Drunk Driving was at a council meeting not far back. And then I see men drinking and driving with
their babies in the car. That's not all I see.
Boy oh boy, would I love to see SAPD enforcing in this neighborhood. I would really love to not feel like I live
in the center of a Nascar track. Especially when I see babies in moving vehicles that are being driven by men
chugging down beer.
Sapd, despite what certain commanders keep from you, we'd love to see you in this community. Driving up and
down the residential streets. The parents of those babies would love to see you too.
1
Flores, Dora
From:Katie Dillard <ukimwikatie@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April
To:eComment
Subject:Please read aloud, Public Comment: Vote no on amendments to AB 645 that increase
automated survelliance systems
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I am writing today because I have been made aware that it it sthe intention of Councilmember
Bacerra's reuqest to amend AB 645 to add automated surveillance systems to the survillance network
in the city and throughout Orange County. I vehemently say that the community does not want these
cameras and ask you to vote no on this addition. These cameras and the networks that support them
are not secure and create more safety and liability issues for the community and you as a council
than any benefit they may have for survelliance. The face validity of their use isn't even there as just
having videos doesn't improve public safety. Please use any additional funds for safety services to
increase services to people living in poverty or enhancing community safety patrols focused on watch
dogging aggressive use of force inappropriately by current safety workers. Use any funding saved to
provdie enhanced training to current safety staff around mental health deescalation or community
focused relationship and engagement support. Anything that is evidence based and science backed
for actually creating increased safety in our OC community but not increased camera survelliance
that's only benefit is to line the pockets of the system developers, further remove hyperlocal safety
efforts AND decrease support from real, trained human beings needed in our community.
thank you,
concerned oc resident
1
Flores, Dora
From:Bulmaro Vicente <boomer@chispaoc.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 11:23 AM
To:eComment
Subject:Public Comment CC 4.21.26 - Item 27
Attachments:4.21.26. SA CC- Chispa Item 27 .pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Hi,
On behalf of Chispa, please find our letter for item 27.
In Solidarity,
Boomer
Policy and Political Director | Chispa
e: boomer@chispaoc.org c: 714.747.4271
1505 E 17th Street Suite 117 Santa Ana, CA 92705
Chispa is building a political home for young Latinxs in Orange County! Please consider making a
donation to help us build our casita. Chispa is a project of Tides Advocacy, a 501c4 non-profit
organization.
2
Flores, Dora
From:Haley Horton <haley.hrtn@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April
To:eComment
Subject:Item 27
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
City council and staff members,
I have a son who is a student in a Santa Ana school, who is learning to drive this year. Of course I want safer streets. But
not at the cost of his right to privacy, and protection from outside groups with possible ill intent accessing his
whereabouts.
When AB 645 was passed in 2023, it faced opposition from major civil rights and community organizations, including
Human Rights Watch, Black Lives Matter California, and ACLU California Action. These groups informed us all about
privacy, data collection, potential misuse, and the disproportionate impact automated enforcement systems can have
on low-income, and immigrant communities. There are also implementation concerns. Cities like San Francisco have
experienced delays and challenges in rolling out speed camera programs, and other cities have to pay to remove their
cameras after the public learns of them in great numbers, so the cost and waste are double.
Importantly, there are proven, non-surveillance alternatives to improve traffic safety. Measures such as speed humps,
raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, lane reductions, chicanes, and roundabouts can effectively slow traffic and improve safety
without relying on data collection or enforcement technology. The City has invested in these types of infrastructure
improvements and should continue to. We support improvements that make streets safer for all users, especially
pedestrians and cyclists.
It is critical that the City take a more deliberate and community centered approach before providing direction that
would advance the establishment of a Speed Safety Pilot Program. We respectfully urge the Council to direct staff to:
- Conduct comprehensive research on how other cities have implemented AB 645, including timelines, costs, outcomes,
and any challenges or unintended consequences
- Engage in robust community outreach, particularly with immigrant communities and those most likely to be impacted,
before pursuing legislative changes
- Determine the fiscal impact of such a Program, its funding source, its feasibility and priority with Measure X beginning
to sunset April 1, 2029. The Council needs to be wary of expenditures that may outlast revenue
I ask that the Council pause on advancing this resolution and instead prioritize research, transparency and community
engagement.
Thank you,
H Horton
1
Flores, Dora
From:Fatima <fcharara04@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:eComment
Subject:Agenda Item 27
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
My name is Fatima and I write here as an OC resident urging the council to oppose agenda item 27. Across
California, police have illegally shared license plate data with ICE and Border Patrol, therefore implementing
ALPRs puts much of the Santa Ana community at risk. This automated ticketing also furthers stark racial
disparities in criminalizing low-income Latino, Black, and immigrant communities, as shown by ProPublica's
Chicago case studies. We can and should prioritize safer streets without increasing surveillance--for example,
this could look like implementing speed bumps, rethinking urban planning, and increasing availability of public
transportation.
2
Flores, Dora
From:Katherine Derrington <kbderrington@icloud.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026
To:eComment
Subject:Safe Streets without Surveillance
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Santa Ana City Council,
I am writing to express our strong concerns regarding Item #27, which proposes a resolution requesting amendments to
AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana (City) to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program (Program). I support
prioritizing safe streets, without surveillance.
I appreciate the City’s interest in improving traffic safety and reducing harm on our streets, I too want to see safe
streets. However, I urge the City Council to proceed with caution and take additional steps to evaluate alternative, non-
surveillance based traffic measures before providing direction to staff that would advance the establishment of a Speed
Safety System Pilot Program.
When AB 645 was originally debated and passed in 2023, it faced significant opposition from civil rights and community
organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Black Lives Matter California, and ACLU California Action. These groups
raised concerns about privacy, data collection, potential misuse, and the disproportionate impact automated
enforcement systems can have on low-income, and immigrant communities. There are also implementation concerns.
Cities like San Francisco have experienced delays and challenges in rolling out speed camera programs, raising questions
about feasibility, cost, and effectiveness.
Importantly, there are proven, non-surveillance alternatives to improve traffic safety. Measures such as speed humps,
raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, lane reductions, chicanes, and roundabouts can effectively slow traffic and improve safety
without relying on data collection or enforcement technology. The City has invested in these types of infrastructure
improvements and should continue to. We support improvements that make streets safer for all users, especially
pedestrians and cyclists.
It is critical that the City take a more deliberate and community centered approach before providing direction that
would advance the establishment of a Speed Safety Pilot Program. We respectfully urge the Council to direct staff to:
- Conduct comprehensive research on how other cities have implemented AB 645, including timelines, costs, outcomes,
and any challenges or unintended consequences
- Engage in robust community outreach, particularly with immigrant communities and those most likely to be impacted,
before pursuing legislative changes
- Determine the fiscal impact of such a Program, its funding source, its feasibility and priority with Measure X beginning
to sunset April 1, 2029. The Council needs to be wary of expenditures that may outlast revenue
I ask that the Council pause on advancing this resolution and instead prioritize research, transparency and community
engagement.
3
Thank you for your consideration,
Katherine Derrington
4
Flores, Dora
From:Lexxy S. <aserrato9473@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday,
To:eComment
Subject:Agenda Item #27: Prioritize Safe Streets without Surveillance
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
I am writing to express our strong concerns regarding Item #27, which proposes a resolution requesting amendments to
AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana (City) to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot Program (Program). I support
prioritizing safe streets, without surveillance.
I appreciate the City’s interest in improving traffic safety and reducing harm on our streets, I too want to see safe
streets. However, I urge the City Council to proceed with caution and take additional steps to evaluate alternative, non-
surveillance based traffic measures before providing direction to staff that would advance the establishment of a Speed
Safety System Pilot Program.
When AB 645 was originally debated and passed in 2023, it faced significant opposition from civil rights and community
organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Black Lives Matter California, and ACLU California Action. These groups
raised concerns about privacy, data collection, potential misuse, and the disproportionate impact automated
enforcement systems can have on low-income, and immigrant communities. There are also implementation concerns.
Cities like San Francisco have experienced delays and challenges in rolling out speed camera programs, raising questions
about feasibility, cost, and effectiveness.
Importantly, there are proven, non-surveillance alternatives to improve traffic safety. Measures such as speed humps,
raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, lane reductions, chicanes, and roundabouts can effectively slow traffic and improve safety
without relying on data collection or enforcement technology. The City has invested in these types of infrastructure
improvements and should continue to. We support improvements that make streets safer for all users, especially
pedestrians and cyclists.
It is critical that the City take a more deliberate and community centered approach before providing direction that
would advance the establishment of a Speed Safety Pilot Program. We respectfully urge the Council to direct staff to:
- Conduct comprehensive research on how other cities have implemented AB 645, including timelines, costs, outcomes,
and any challenges or unintended consequences
- Engage in robust community outreach, particularly with immigrant communities and those most likely to be impacted,
before pursuing legislative changes
- Determine the fiscal impact of such a Program, its funding source, its feasibility and priority with Measure X beginning
to sunset April 1, 2029. The Council needs to be wary of expenditures that may outlast revenue
I ask that the Council pause on advancing this resolution and instead prioritize research, transparency and community
engagement.
Sent from my iPhone
5
Flores, Dora
From:matzo_sixes7w@icloud.com
Sent: PM
To:eComment
Subject:Speed Safety Pilot Program
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Hi,
I’m a concerned OC resident and wanted to urge you to not implement more surveillance technology to reduce
speeding.
The City of Santa Ana is considering asking our State Representatives to amend Assembly Bill 645 to
allow the City of Santa Ana to establish a Speed Safety Pilot Program. I support prioritizing safe
streets, without surveillance.
A Program would rely on automated camera and radar systems that capture images of vehicles and
license plates to enforce speed violations. While this may offer one approach to addressing traffic
safety, it also represents an expansion of surveillance technology that warrants careful consideration.
The City Council must proceed with caution and take additional steps to evaluate alternative, non-
surveillance based traffic measures before providing direction to staff that would advance the
establishment of a Speed Safety System Pilot Program.
Athe City considers additional automated enforcement tools, it is essential to evaluate the full impact
of these technologies and ensure they align with the City’s values and commitments to protecting our
most vulnerable communities.
It is critical that the City take a more deliberate and community centered approach before providing
direction that would advance the establishment of a Speed Safety Pilot Program. The Council must
pause on advancing this resolution and instead prioritize research, transparency and community
engagement.
Thank you!
1
Flores, Dora
From:Yezenia Marrujo <yezeniamarrujo87@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21,
To:eComment
Subject:Re: Thank you for your email!
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CNLSRvuL8fGq7N9D3QswMlUB8_hFXT3I/view?usp=drivesdk
El mar, 21 de abr de 2026, 4:31 p.m., eComment <ecomment@santa-ana.org> escribió:
Hello,
On behalf of the City of Santa Ana, thank you for your valuable comment, suggestion, or question(s). Your message has
been forwarded to the appropriate meeting body for their review and consideration. Your eComment will be part of the
record and posted on the Agenda Reports and City Meetings websites.
For immediate assistance, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 647-6520. City Hall’s regular hours of
operation are Monday through Thursday and every other Friday from 8:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m. For City Hall holiday and
Friday closures, please visit https://www.santa-ana.org/holiday-and-closed-friday-schedule.
Thank you,
Jennifer L. Hall, CMC, City Clerk
City of Santa Ana | City Clerk’s Office
20 Civic Center Plaza M-30 | Santa Ana, CA 92701
http://www.santa-ana.org
This e-mail (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such, may be subject to
public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.
1
Flores, Dora
From:Yezenia Marrujo <yezeniamarrujo87@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21,
To:eComment
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CNLSRvuL8fGq7N9D3QswMlUB8_hFXT3I/view?usp=drivesdk
2
Flores, Dora
From:Angeles Ochoa Carmona <aochoa@occord.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 3:54 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Ivon Peña; Gustavo Castillo
Subject:Opposition Letter for Item 27 – Speed Safety Pilot Program
Attachments:Opposition Letter for Item 27 – Speed Safety Pilot Program.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Good afternoon,
Please find my attached public comment regarding Item 27 for today's council meeting. Please distribute it to
the City Council and include it in the public record. Thank you.
Best,
--
Angeles Ochoa Carmona
Digital Organizer
aochoa@occord.org
www.occord.org
1505 E 17th St, Suite 122, Santa Ana, CA 92705
3
April 21, 2026
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Item 27 - AB 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Santa Ana City Council,
My name is Angeles Ochoa, and I am a resident of Santa Ana in Ward 4, represented by
Councilmember Phil Bacerra. I am also the Digital Organizer with Orange County
Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD). I am writing to
express concern regarding Item #27, the proposal to pursue amendments to AB 645 to
allow for a Speed Safety System Pilot Program.
I want to be clear: our community deserves safe streets. We all want to prevent traffic injuries
and protect pedestrians, cyclists and families. However, safety should not come at the cost of
increased surveillance, especially when that surveillance has been shown to disproportionately
impact low-income communities and communities of color.
The proposed program would rely on automated cameras and license plate readers to issue
citations. While this may seem like a straightforward solution, evidence from other cities raises
serious concerns. In places like Chicago and Washington, D.C., automated enforcement systems
have resulted in significantly higher ticketing rates in Black and Latino neighborhoods,
reinforcing existing inequities rather than addressing safety in a fair and just way.
This concern is especially important given Santa Ana’s recent expansion of surveillance through
ALPR technology. Before adding another layer of automated enforcement, the City must take a
step back and fully evaluate the cumulative impact these systems may have on residents,
particularly immigrant families who may already feel over-policed or at risk.
There are also practical concerns. Cities like San Francisco have faced delays and challenges
implementing similar programs, raising questions about cost, feasibility and effectiveness. At a
time when funding sources like Measure X are set to sunset, the City should be cautious about
investing in programs that may create long-term financial obligations without clear outcomes.
Most importantly, there are proven, non-surveillance solutions that make streets safer.
Investments in infrastructure, such as speed bumps, raised crosswalks, bulb-outs and road design
improvements, can reduce speeding and save lives without collecting data or issuing fines that
disproportionately burden working families.
For these reasons, I respectfully urge the City Council to pause on advancing this
resolution and instead conduct thorough research on the outcomes and impacts of AB 645
implementation in other cities, engage in meaningful community outreach—especially
with those most impacted—and prioritize non-surveillance, infrastructure-based safety
solutions.
Santa Ana has an opportunity to lead with a community-centered approach to public safety
that protects both lives and civil liberties.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Angeles Ochoa
OCCORD Digital Organizer
Flores, Dora
From:Ivon Peña <ipena@occord.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 2:28 PM
To:eComment
Cc:Angeles Ochoa Carmona; Gustavo Castillo
Subject:Opposition Letter for Item 27 – Speed Safety Pilot Program
Attachments:4.21.26. SA CC- OCCORD Item 27.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear Santa Ana City Council,
Please see attached Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD)’s letter
of opposition regarding Item 27, the Speed Safety Pilot Program.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
In Solidarity,
Ivon
--
Ivon Peña
ipena@occord.org
https://www.occord.org/
1505 E 17th St. Suite 122, Santa Ana, CA 92705
Executive Director
5
April 21, 2026
Mayor Amezcua and Members of the Council
City of Santa Ana
20 Civic Center Plaza
Santa Ana, CA 92701
Re: Item 27 - AB 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program
Dear Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
On behalf of Orange County Communities Organized for Responsible Development (OCCORD), we
write to express our strong concerns regarding Item #27, which proposes a resolution requesting
amendments to AB 645 to allow the City of Santa Ana (City) to establish a Speed Safety System Pilot
Program (Program). We support prioritizing safe streets without surveillance.
We appreciate the City’s interest in improving traffic safety and reducing harm on our streets, we too want
to see safe streets. However, we urge the City Council to proceed with caution and take additional steps to
evaluate alternative, non-surveillance based traffic measures before providing direction to staff that would
advance the establishment of a Speed Safety System Pilot Program
As outlined in the staff report, a Program would rely on automated camera and radar systems that capture
images of vehicles and license plates to enforce speed violations. While this may offer one approach to
addressing traffic safety, it also represents an expansion of surveillance technology that warrants careful
consideration.
When AB 645 was originally debated and passed in 2023, it faced significant opposition from civil rights
and community organizations, including Human Rights Watch, Black Lives Matter California, and ACLU
California Action1. These groups raised concerns about privacy, data collection, potential misuse, and the
disproportionate impact automated enforcement systems can have on low-income, and immigrant
communities. There are also implementation concerns. Cities like San Francisco have experienced delays
and challenges in rolling out speed camera programs, raising questions about feasibility, cost, and
effectiveness.2
In addition, data from other cities show troubling concerns. In Chicago, between 2015 and 2019, speed
cameras ticketed households in majority Black and Latino ZIP codes at two times the rate of majority
2 KQED. “Just Over Half of SF’s Speed Cameras Are Operational. What’s With the Slowdown?” May 14, 2025.
https://www.kqed.org/news/12039914/just-over-half-sfs-speed-cameras-operational-whats-with-slowdown.
1CalMatters Digital Democracy. “AB 645.” Accessed April 21, 2026.
https://calmatters.digitaldemocracy.org/bills/ca_202320240ab645.
white zip codes.3 Similarly, in the District of Columbia, where photo enforcement accounts for 96 percent
of citations and 97 percent of fines, drivers in Black-segregated areas were over seventeen times more
likely to receive a moving violation than drivers in white-segregated areas.4 This reflects a clear trend
amongst automated enforcement mechanisms, they are routinely found to disproportionately target and
ticket drivers in Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) neighborhoods.
This is especially important given the City’s recent adoption of Automatic License Plate Reader (ALPR)
technology through Flock. As the City considers additional automated enforcement tools, it is essential to
evaluate the full impact of these technologies and ensure they align with the City’s values and
commitments to protecting our most vulnerable communities.
Importantly, there are proven, non-surveillance alternatives to improve traffic safety. Measures such as
speed humps, raised crosswalks, bulb-outs, lane reductions, chicanes, and roundabouts can effectively
slow traffic and improve safety without relying on data collection or enforcement technology. The City
has invested in these types of infrastructure improvements and should continue to. We support
improvements that make streets safer for all users, especially pedestrians and cyclists.
It is critical that the City take a more deliberate and community centered approach before providing
direction that would advance the establishment of a Speed Safety Pilot Program. We respectfully urge the
Council to direct staff to:
● Conduct comprehensive research on how other cities have implemented AB 645, including
timelines, costs, outcomes, and any challenges or unintended consequences.
● Engage in robust community outreach, particularly with immigrant communities and those
most likely to be impacted, before pursuing legislative changes.
● Determine the fiscal impact of such a Program, its funding source, its feasibility and priority
with Measure X beginning to sunset April 1, 2029. The Council needs to be wary of
expenditures that may outlast revenue.
We ask that the Council pause on advancing this resolution and instead prioritize research, transparency
and community engagement.
Best,
Ivon Pena,
Executive Director
4 William Farrell, “Predominately Black Neighborhoods in D.C. Bear the Brunt of Automated Traffic Enforcement,”
D.C. Policy Center, June 28, 2018,
https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/predominately-black-neighborhoods-in-d-c-bear-the-brunt-of-automate
d-traffic-enforcement/ (accessed April 21,2023).
3 Emily Hopkins and Melissa Sanchez, “Chicago’s Race Neutral Traffic Cameras Ticket Black and Latino Drivers
the Most,” ProPublica, January 11, 2022,
https://www.propublica.org/article/chicagos-race-neutral-traffic-cameras-ticket-black-and-latino-drivers-the-most
(accessed April 21, 2026).
Flores, Dora
From:Sandra De Anda <sandra@ocrapidresponse.org>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026 2:25 PM
To:eComment
Subject:Item 27 - April 21, 2026
Attachments:Item 27 - AB 645 Speed Safety System Pilot Program.docx.pdf
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Good afternoon Mayor Amezcua and Members of the City Council,
Please see attached letter.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Sandra De Anda
Pronouns: (She/Ella)
Director of Policy and Legal Strategy
Orange County Rapid Response Network
www.ocrapidresponse.org
Email: sandra@ocrapidresponse.org
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION
THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. IF THE READER OF THIS MESSAGE IS NOT THE
INTENDED RECIPIENT OR THE EMPLOYEE OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE FOR DELIVERING THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE
HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSEMINATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUNICATION IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.
6
Flores, Dora
From:Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 21, 2026
To:eComment
Cc:Hernandez, Johnathan
Subject:No on Harrah's 37 story tower
Attention: This email originated from outside of City of Santa Ana. Use caution when opening attachments or links.
Dear City Council,
I am opposed to a 37 story tower in our city along Broadway.
In 2005, the special election for Mr. Harrah's project held that only 18.5% of registered voters participated in
the election and 12.4% of all ballots cast were absentee ballots. Absentee ballots of 2005 should not to be
conflated with absentee voting post 2020 pandemic. Absentee ballots cast in 2005 were largely cast by out of
town individuals and not the working class residents of Santa Ana of 2005. I am willing to bet that if Santa Ana
voters of 2026 were asked to approve a 37 story tower along Broadway, they'd likely vote NO.
The recently proposed changes of Mr. Harrah to increase luxury residences and get rid of all office space
indicates to me that Mr. Harrah is not actually an investor in our City; it indicates that he is a profiteer who will
take all that which he can reap from a place where he refuses to sow. He claims that the tower will provide
much needed housing for workers of Civic Center, but I ask you genuinely, which public employees will be
able to afford apartments which cost between $3,000 and $6,000 per month?!
The 37 tower will not serve current long term working class residents. Approving his tower that he wants to be
able to see from his backyard in Laguna would be irresponsible to Santa Ana. If he wants to be able to see such
a tower from his own yard, maybe he should build it there.
Sincerely yours,
Nathaniel Greensides
Ward 5 resident
7