Correspondence - Item 27 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

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