20250902 Late CorrespondenceFrom: Jennifer Schmid
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 6:28 PM
To: Ara Mihranian; Catherine Jun; CityClerk
Subject: Late Correspondence 9-2-2025 - Report on the use of Technology
Attachments: Late Correspondence 9-2-25-.pdf
Hello,
The Public Safety Division request to submit late correspondence forthe September, 1,
2025 Regular Business Item #2 receive a report on the use of technology as potential
speed safety system and loud vehicle exhaust enforcement programs.
Please see the attached document for emails received by the City. Printed copies will be provided for
tonight's council meeting.
Thank you,
Jennifer Schmid
Public Safety Manager
9schmid@rpvca.gov
Office: (310) 544-5305
Address: 30940 Hawthorne Blvd
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
www.rpvca.gov
' DOWNLOAD
z
CITY OF
kkhtk RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: JENNIFER SCHMID, PUBLIC SAFETY MANAGER
CATHERINE JUN, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
DATE: SEPTEMBER 1, 2025
SUBJECT: LATE CORRESPONDENCE FOR REPORT ON USE OF TECHNOLOGY
The Public Safety Division request to submit late correspondence for the September, 1,
2025 Regular Business Item #2 receive a report on the use of technology as potential
speed safety system and loud vehicle exhaust enforcement programs.
Please see below for emails received by the City after the publication of the staff report.
134 Outlook
FW: Opposition to speed cameras
From Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>
Date Tue 9/2/2025 10:55 AM
To Jennifer Schmid <jschmid@rpvca.gov>
Cc Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
FYI Jen
Catherine
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Douglas Shook <shook@usc.edu>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Opposition to speed cameras
Good morning Douglas,
The City Council is in receipt of your email opposing tonight's agenda item regarding the consideration of
utilizing speed cameras and other technologies for the reasons you cite. A hard copy of your email and
this response will be provided to the City Council this evening as late correspondence.
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
C —, C.,4 -.— � a,-
'7
DOWN LOAD
aram@rpvca.gov
e
Phone - (310) 544-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
: ■ ■ ■ •
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
This a -mail message contains information belonging to the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, which may he privileged,
confidential, and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for use of the individual or entity
named. Unauthorized dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this email in error,
or are not an intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately. Thank you for your assistance and
cooperation.
From: Douglas Shook <shook@usc.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:21 AM
To: CC <C�rpvca.gov>
Subject: Opposition to speed cameras
Some people who received this message don't often get email from shook@usc.edu. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
Dear colleagues,
I understand you will be exploring the possible implementation of speed cameras in RPV to which I am
opposed.
1. This is not a police state where we clandestinely film our residents.
2. Tickets must be issued to drivers, not to vehicles.
3. Tickets should be issued by a human being who can act with judgement and discretion, not an
automatic trip of a switch on a sensor next to the road.
4. The money and effort that would be spent on this ill-advised program should rather be spent on
activities that actually will enhance the safety of our roads such as resurfacing PV Drive East.
I fear that the recent unwarranted and ill-advised lowering of speed limits on PV Drive East, the banning
of motorcycles through Portuguese Bend, and the consideration of implementing speed cameras in the
city are indicative of a vocal minority who are acting with emotion and limited knowledge and are over -
influencing our city's leadership and the direction of our city.
Please take a stand against proceeding down this ill-advised and unwarranted path.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Douglas Shook
---------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
Douglas Shook, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Data Sciences
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
e-mail: shook@usc.edu
134 Outlook
Angelo Scandaliato - CA Resident - No Automated Speed Enforcement
From Angelo Scandaliato <angscan@gmail.com>
Date Fri 8/29/2025 3:33 PM
To Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org <councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org>;
Councilmember.Nazarian@lacity.org <Councilmember.Nazarian@lacity.org>;
councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org <councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org>; contactCD4@lacity.org
<contactCD4@lacity.org>; councilmember.yaroslaysky@lacity.org<councilmember.yaroslaysky@lacity.org>;
councilmember.padilla@Iacity.org <councilmember.padilla@lacity.org>; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org
<councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org>; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org <councilmember.harris-
dawson@lacity.org>; councilmember.price@lacity.org <councilmember.price@lacity.org>; cd10@lacity.org
<cd10@lacity.org>; council member.park@lacity.org<councilmember.park@lacity.org>;
councilmember.Lee@lacity.org <councilmember.Lee@lacity.org>; councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org
<councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org>; Councilmember.Jurado@lacity.org
<Councilmember.Jurado@lacity.org>; councilmember.mcosker@lacity.org
<councilmember.mcosker@lacity.org>; mayor.scheduling@lacity.org <mayor.scheduling@lacity.org>
1 attachment (194 KB)
Letter - Against Speed Automated Traffic Enforcement.md.pdf;
Some people who received this message don't often get email from angscan@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
I am a concerned US citizen and California resident. I write this on behave of myself and our
community.
Please see the added PDF file in which I outline my argument.
Letter - Against Automated Speed Traffic Enforcement
Subject: A design -first safety plan is more effective —and more trustworthy —than automated traffic
enforcement
In addition:
As an applied mathematician, engineer, and software business executive, I have the tools and skills to
build a system that works for us, not against us. I am personally adept at multi -objective optimization,
data engineering, and can apply these skills with advanced operation research as a low cost and
human centric solution.
I have personally watched these automated enforcement measures deteriorate communities in NYC.
Sincerely,
Angelo L. Scandaliato
"Please reply to this email for additional information and my contact information"
Letter -Against Automated Speed
Traffic Enforcement
Subject: A design -first safety plan is more effective —and more
trustworthy —than automated traffic enforcement
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your focus on street safety. We share the goal of reducing injuries and property
damage. After reviewing the record on automated cameras and similar sensors for traffic
enforcement, I urge you to pursue a design -first safety program instead of automated
enforcement. The evidence shows cameras bring material risks —accuracy and due -process
problems, privacy and cybersecurity exposures, and corruption incentives —while proven,
lower -cost engineering and education strategies can deliver the same or better safety results
with greater public trust.
Why automated enforcement is the wrong tool for our city
1) Accuracy and reliability are inconsistent.
Independent reviews have uncovered substantial error rates in real -world programs. In
Baltimore, a city -commissioned audit (initially withheld) found double-digit error rates across
multiple speed cameras, including a site with a 58% error rate; one camera even ticketed a
stationary vehicle for 38 mph. Environmental factors (e.g., radar reflections from large vehicles)
and mis-calibration contributed to false readings. These are not edge cases; they reflect
systemic fragility that shifts costs and burdens to residents. (CBS News, IEEE Spectrum,
WBAL)
2) Due process suffers when liability is tied to the plate, not the driver.
California's AB 645 pilot authorizes civil tickets issued to the registered owner based on
rear -plate images and designates the camera record as prima facie evidence, while charging
a $25 court filing fee to appeal. That structure increases the likelihood of "pay -to -end -it"
outcomes rather than accurate adjudication, especially when equipment or operator error is the
true cause. Courts have also warned against over -reliance on automated hits: the Ninth Circuit
has held that an unconfirmed ALPR hit alone does not establish reasonable suspicion for
a stop —underscoring the risk of automation bias in roadside decisions and administrative
hearings alike. (LegiScan, Brennan Center for Justice)
3) The safety record is mixed, particularly for red-light cameras.
High -quality studies repeatedly find right-angle crashes often drop where red-light cameras
are installed, but rear -end crashes increase, leaving net safety benefits uncertain at some
sites. Chicago's program, for example, recorded a 22% rise in rear -end injury crashes
alongside fewer right-angle injuries, with no statistically significant net injury reduction. This
variability argues for site -specific engineering fixes first, not blanket automation. (Federal
Highway Administration, PMC, TIME)
4) Privacy, data sharing, and mission creep remain unresolved.
ALPR ecosystems illustrate how sensitive mobility data can escape local control. FOIA records
show ICE obtained access to billions of license -plate scans via commercial and police -fed
databases; a 2020 California State Auditor report found agencies lacked adequate safeguards
on ALPR sharing, retention, and oversight. As recently as August 2025, CBP accessed Illinois
ALPR data in apparent conflict with state law, via a private vendor. These episodes
demonstrate how quickly promises of narrow use can erode. (American Civil Liberties Union,
information.auditor.ca.gov, Axios)
5) Cybersecurity failures can invalidate thousands of citations.
In Victoria, Australia, WannaCry malware infected traffic cameras, forcing the withdrawal or
review of thousands of tickets. Networked enforcement systems expand the city's attack
surface; when they fail, residents bear the cost and doubt. (The Verge, Global News)
6) Perverse incentives persist —even with safeguards.
California's AB 645 prohibits paying equipment vendors per ticket or as a revenue share
and directs excess revenue to traffic -calming. Those are improvements, yet risks remain: the
law still allows per -notice compensation for separate processing vendors, and operators
face pressure to justify capital outlays with citation volume. Real -world programs have also
suffered corruption scandals, most notably Chicago's Redflex bribery case. These dynamics
can distort siting, thresholds, and program expansion. (Senate Judiciary Committee, LegiScan,
ITS International)
7) Legal fragmentation signals instability and public distrust.
Some states have walked back or banned camera enforcement outright (e.g., Texas ended
red-light cameras in 2019), reflecting persistent fairness and governance concerns. Building
our safety strategy on a contested enforcement platform invites churn. (Texas State Law Library
Guides)
E
A better plan: design -first safety with transparent, human -centered
enforcement
A) Fix the signal first (and use modern optimization).
Signal engineering changes reduce violations and crashes without tickets:
- Increase yellow and all -red intervals to standards: FHWA-supported research shows
adding -1 second of yellow can cut red-light violations by -50% and related crashes by
-40% (within typical upper bounds), especially on higher -speed approaches. (FHWA
Operations)
- Retime and coordinate signals on a 3-5-year cycle; typical retiming costs
$1,000-$8,000 per intersection and often delivers very high benefit -cost ratios by
reducing delay, fuel use, and crash exposure. (wbt.dot. state.fl.us)
- Adopt adaptive/AI signal control where warranted. Proven systems (e.g.,
SCOOT/SCATS) and newer multi -objective controllers rebalance delay, reliability, and
even emissions in real time; U.S. evaluations report corridor travel -time and stop
reductions, with emerging evidence of safety benefits as progression improves. These
techniques can be tuned to local legal constraints and policy weights (e.g., time to
destination, congestion, crash risk, and user experience). (Federal Highway
Administration, ROSA P, Transportation Research Board)
B) Street design for self -enforcement —within regular budgets.
Reconfigurations like Road Diets (4-to-3 conversions) reduce total crashes by-19-47% on
suitable corridors and are low-cost when bundled with resurfacing because the primary
expense is restriping. Design choices can optimize sightlines, pedestrian friendliness, and
life -cycle costs while aligning with state and city standards. (Federal Highway Administration)
C) Non -punitive speed management that works.
Dynamic speed feedback ("Your Speed") signs and targeted signing/marking upgrades
reliably trim operating speeds (often 2-10 mph) at problem spots; multi -site FHWA studies
document speed and some crash reductions, especially on curves and near schools. These
tools are fast to deploy and publicly accepted. (Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Highway Administration)
D) Targeted, transparent human enforcement plus education.
High -visibility enforcement (HVE) campaigns —short, well -publicized, and data -driven —deter
speeding while in use and can be paired with driver education, commuter -experience
improvements, and community engagement to achieve similar safety outcomes with clear
societal benefits. Publish deployment calendars and results to maintain trust. (NHTSA)
3
E) If any sensors are deployed, use them for operations, not tickets.
Embrace data minimization: short retention, no commercial sharing, no biometric
augmentation, independent security testing, and public audits —reflecting lessons from the
California State Auditor's ALPR findings. Even AB 645's confidentiality and
vendor -compensation limits should be treated as a floor, not a ceiling.
(information.auditor.ca.gov)
A practical, near -term roadmap
1. 90-day Signal & Safety Tune -Up: retime top 50 high -injury intersections; add warranted
yellow/all-red adjustments; publish before/after metrics (violations, delay, conflicts).
(FHWA Operations, wbt.dot.state.fl.us)
2. Quick -build calming where the data points us: pilot Road Diets and pedestrian
upgrades on 2-3 corridors scheduled for resurfacing within the next fiscal year. (Federal
Highway Administration)
3. Deploy non -punitive speed feedback at schools and curves with documented
speeding; monitor 85th-percentile speeds quarterly and keep what sustains the benefits.
(Federal Highway Administration)
4. Run two HVE waves per quarter (with education and outreach), targeted by crash
patterns; publish locations and outcomes. (NHTSA)
5. Governance: if the City ever tests enforcement cameras, adopt stricter local guardrails
than state minimums: independent calibration and cybersecurity audits, public error -rate
dashboards, a binding sunset/"turn-off" trigger if speeds/crashes don't improve or if
error rates exceed a set threshold, and no per -notice vendor compensation of any
kind (even for processing). (LegiScan)
Bottom line
We can save lives faster and more fairly by fixing signals, upgrading street design, and using
transparent, human -centered enforcement —without importing the accuracy, privacy,
cybersecurity, and corruption risks of automated ticketing. I respectfully ask you to reject (and
pause) automated enforcement and adopt the design -first plan above.
Thank you for your leadership on safety and for considering this evidence -based path.
Sincerely,
Angelo L. Scandaliato
US Citizen and California Resident
M
CITY OF LMMA�
RANCHO PALOS VERDES
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: CITY CLERK
DATE: SEPTEMBER 2, 2025
SUBJECT: ADDITIONS/REVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO AGENDA
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material presented
for tonight's meeting.
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email from Jean Longacre
2 Email from Angelo L. Scandaliato and Douglas Shook
** PLEASE NOTE: Materials attached after the color page(s) were submitted
through Monday, September 1, 2025 **
Respectfully submitted,
�J
Teresa Takaoka
LALATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Covers heets\20250902 additions revisions to agenda.docx
Outlook
FW: Equestrian Overlay District
From Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Date Tue 9/2/2025 11:53 AM
To Fatima Alcantara <falcantara@rpvca.gov>
Late corr Item 1
From: jeanlongacre@aol.com <jeanlongacre@aol.com>
Sent: Monday, September 1, 2025 7:41 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Equestrian Overlay District
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your consideration and efforts to amend the RPV Municipal Code to exempt the
Equestrian Overlay Districts from Senate Bill 864.
Thank you,
Jean Longacre
6 Martingale Drive
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Outlook
Fw: Angelo Scandaliato - CA Resident - No Automated Speed Enforcement
From Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Date Tue 9/2/2025 7:44 AM
To CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 7:31 AM
To: Angelo Scandaliato <angscan@gmail.com>; Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>; CityManager
<CityManager@rpvca.gov>; councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org <councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org>;
Councilmember.Nazarian@lacity.org <Councilmember.Nazarian@lacity.org>;
councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org <councilmember.blumenfield@lacity.org>; contactCD4@lacity.org
<contactCD4@lacity.org>; councilmember.yaroslaysky@lacity.org <councilmember.yaroslaysky@lacity.org>;
councilmember.padilla@lacity.org <councilmember.padilla@lacity.org>; councilmember.rodriguez@lacity.org
<councilmember.rod riguez@lacity.org>; councilmember.harris-dawson@lacity.org <councilmember.harris-
dawson@lacity.org>; councilmember.price@lacity.org <councilmember.price@lacity.org>; cd10@lacity.org
<cd10@lacity.org>; council member. park@lacity.org <councilmember. park@lacity.org>;
councilmember.Lee@lacity.org <councilmember. Lee@lacity.org>; councilrember.soto-martinez@lacity.org
<councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org>; Councilmember.Jurado@lacity.org
<Councilmember.Jurado@lacity.org>; councilmember.mcosker@lacity.org <councilmember.mcosl<er@lacity.org>;
mayor.scheduling@lacity.org <mayor.scheduling@lacity.org>
Cc: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Jennifer Schmid <jschmid@rpvca.gov>; Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>; Ramzi Awwad
<rawwad@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Angelo Scandaliato - CA Resident - No Automated Speed Enforcement
Good morning Angelo,
Thank you for taking the time to email the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council on your concerns regarding
the use of speed cameras and other technologies available. Your email, including the attachment, will be
provided to the City Council as late correspondence in advance of this evening's meeting.
I see you copied the Los Angeles City Council (LACC).
As a point of clarification, the agenda item you are writing about is not in the City of Los Angeles but the
incorporated City of Rancho Palos Verdes.
The LACC does not have jurisdiction of Rancho Palos Verdes.
Ara
0
r
i
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
aram@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: wwvv.,_I pyca,. Qy
Cil t� i� ii.i ,- f, !ti„nte s ... �,...
:t.': .::.:i, �r i E+ .(=..E ,r,sl ta;t ;�,¢'E. _ an.:.:i,t .}. ..
F, h�° PS, pi";
:3 >._ J'. U,( s. indeD
From: Angelo Scandaliato <angscan@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2025 3:33 PM
To: Catherine Jun <cjun@rpvca.gov>; CityManager <CityManager@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian
<AraM@rpvca.gov>; councilmember.hernandez@lacity.org; Councilmember.Nazariar)@lacity.org;
councilmember.biumenfield@lacity.org; contactCD4@lacity.org; councilmember.yaroslaysky@lacity.org;
councilmember.padilla@lacity.org; council member.rodriguez@lacity.org; councilmember.harris-
dawson@lacity.org; councilmember.price@lacity.org; cd10@lacity.org; councilmember.park@lacity.org;
councilmember. Lee@lacity.org; councilmember.soto-martinez@lacity.org; Councilmember.Jurado@lacity.org;
councilmember.mcosker@lacity.org; mayor.scheduling@lacity.org
Subject: Angelo Scandaliato - CA Resident - No Automated Speed Enforcement
Some people who received this message don't often get email from angscan(c)gmail.com. Learn
why this is important
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe M.
I am a concerned US citizen and California resident. I write this on behave of myself and our
community.
Please see the added PDF file in which I outline my argument.
Letter - Against Automated Speed Traffic Enforcement
Subject: A design -first safety plan is rriore effective, --a rid more OJstworthy__-[.Iian autornated
enforcement
In addition:
As an applied mathematician; engineer, and software business executive, I have the tools and skills
to build a system that works for us, not against us. I am personally adept at multi -objective
optimization, data engineering, and can apply these shills with advanced operation research as a
low crest and human centric solution.
I have personally watched these automated enforcement measures deteriorate communities in
NYC.
Sincerely,
Angelo L. Scandaliato
"F-Meese reply to this email for additional information and my contact inforrnation"
Letter - Against Automated Speed
Traffic Enforcement
Subject: A design -first safety plan is more effective —and more
trustworthy —than automated traffic enforcement
To the Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Thank you for your focus on street safety. We share the goal of reducing injuries and property
damage. After reviewing the record on automated cameras and similar sensors for traffic
enforcement, I urge you to pursue a design -first safety program instead of automated
enforcement. The evidence shows cameras bring material risks —accuracy and due -process
problems, privacy and cybersecurity exposures, and corruption incentives —while proven,
lower -cost engineering and education strategies can deliver the same or better safety results
with greater public trust.
Why automated enforcement is the wrong tool for our city
1) Accuracy and reliability are inconsistent.
Independent reviews have uncovered substantial error rates in real -world programs. In
Baltimore, a city -commissioned audit (initially withheld) found double-digit error rates across
multiple speed cameras, including a site with a 58% error rate; one camera even ticketed a
stationary vehicle for 38 mph. Environmental factors (e.g., radar reflections from large vehicles)
and mis-calibration contributed to false readings. These are not edge cases; they reflect
systemic fragility that shifts costs and burdens to residents. (CBS News, IEEE Spectrum,
WBAL)
2) Due process suffers when liability is tied to the plate, not the driver.
California's AB 645 pilot authorizes civil tickets issued to the registered owner based on
rear -plate images and designates the camera record as prima facie evidence, while charging
a $25 court filing fee to appeal. That structure increases the likelihood of "pay -to -end -it"
outcomes rather than accurate adjudication, especially when equipment or operator error is the
true cause. Courts have also warned against over -reliance on automated hits: the Ninth Circuit
has held that an unconfirmed ALPR hit alone does not establish reasonable suspicion for
a stop —underscoring the risk of automation bias in roadside decisions and administrative
hearings alike. (LegiScan, Brennan Center for Justice)
3) The safety record is mixed, particularly for red-light cameras.
High -quality studies repeatedly find right-angle crashes often drop where red-light cameras
are installed, but rear -end crashes increase, leaving net safety benefits uncertain at some
sites. Chicago's program, for example, recorded a 22% rise in rear -end injury crashes
alongside fewer right-angle injuries, with no statistically significant net injury reduction. This
variability argues for site -specific engineering fixes first, not blanket automation. (Federal
Highway Administration, PMC, TIME)
4) Privacy, data sharing, and mission creep remain unresolved.
ALPR ecosystems illustrate how sensitive mobility data can escape local control. FOIA records
show ICE obtained access to billions of license -plate scans via commercial and police -fed
databases; a 2020 California State Auditor report found agencies lacked adequate safeguards
on ALPR sharing, retention, and oversight. As recently as August 2025, CBP accessed Illinois
ALPR data in apparent conflict with state law, via a private vendor. These episodes
demonstrate how quickly promises of narrow use can erode. (American Civil Liberties Union,
information. auditor.ca.gov, Axios)
5) Cybersecurity failures can invalidate thousands of citations.
In Victoria, Australia, WannaCry malware infected traffic cameras, forcing the withdrawal or
review of thousands of tickets. Networked enforcement systems expand the city's attack
surface; when they fail, residents bear the cost and doubt. (The Verge, Global News)
6) Perverse incentives persist —even with safeguards.
California's AB 645 prohibits paying equipment vendors per ticket or as a revenue share
and directs excess revenue to traffic -calming. Those are improvements, yet risks remain: the
law still allows per -notice compensation for separate processing vendors, and operators
face pressure to justify capital outlays with citation volume. Real -world programs have also
suffered corruption scandals, most notably Chicago's Redflex bribery case. These dynamics
can distort siting, thresholds, and program expansion. (Senate Judiciary Committee, LeaiScan,
ITS International)
7) Legal fragmentation signals instability and public distrust.
Some states have walked back or banned camera enforcement outright (e.g., Texas ended
red-light cameras in 2019), reflecting persistent fairness and governance concerns. Building
our safety strategy on a contested enforcement platform invites churn. (Texas State Law Library
Guides)
2
A better plan: design -first safety with transparent, human -centered
enforcement
A) Fix the signal first (and use modern optimization).
Signal engineering changes reduce violations and crashes without tickets:
Increase yellow and all -red intervals to standards: FHWA-supported research shows
adding —1 second of yellow can cut red-light violations by —50% and related crashes by
—40% (within typical upper bounds), especially on higher -speed approaches. (FHWA
Operations)
Retime and coordinate signals on a 3-5-year cycle; typical retiming costs
$1,000—$8,000 per intersection and often delivers very high benefit -cost ratios by
reducing delay, fuel use, and crash exposure. (wbt.dot.state.fl.us)
Adopt adaptive/AI signal control where warranted. Proven systems (e.g.,
SCOOT/SCATS) and newer multi -objective controllers rebalance delay, reliability, and
even emissions in real time; U.S. evaluations report corridor travel -time and stop
reductions, with emerging evidence of safety benefits as progression improves. These
techniques can be tuned to local legal constraints and policy weights (e.g., time to
destination, congestion, crash risk, and user experience). (Federal Highway
Administration, ROSA P, Transportation Research Board)
B) Street design for self -enforcement —within regular budgets.
Reconfigurations like Road Diets (4-to-3 conversions) reduce total crashes by—19-47% on
suitable corridors and are low-cost when bundled with resurfacing because the primary
expense is restriping. Design choices can optimize sightlines, pedestrian friendliness, and
life -cycle costs while aligning with state and city standards. (Federal Highway Administration)
C) Non -punitive speed management that works.
Dynamic speed feedback ("Your Speed") signs and targeted signing/marking upgrades
reliably trim operating speeds (often 2-10 mph) at problem spots; multi -site FHWA studies
document speed and some crash reductions, especially on curves and near schools. These
tools are fast to deploy and publicly accepted. (Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Highway Administration)
D) Targeted, transparent human enforcement plus education.
High -visibility enforcement (HVE) campaigns —short, well -publicized, and data -driven —deter
speeding while in use and can be paired with driver education, commuter -experience
improvements, and community engagement to achieve similar safety outcomes with clear
societal benefits. Publish deployment calendars and results to maintain trust. (NHTSA)
E) If any sensors are deployed, use them for operations, not tickets.
Embrace data minimization: short retention, no commercial sharing, no biometric
augmentation, independent security testing, and public audits —reflecting lessons from the
California State Auditor's ALPR findings. Even AB 645's confidentiality and
vendor -compensation limits should be treated as a floor, not a ceiling.
(information.auditor.ca.gov)
A practical, near -term roadmap
1. 90-day Signal & Safety Tune -Up: retime top 50 high -injury intersections; add warranted
yellow/all-red adjustments; publish before/after metrics (violations, delay, conflicts).
(FHWA Operations, wbt.dot.state.fl.us)
2. Quick -build calming where the data points us: pilot Road Diets and pedestrian
upgrades on 2-3 corridors scheduled for resurfacing within the next fiscal year. (Federal
Highway Administration)
3. Deploy non -punitive speed feedback at schools and curves with documented
speeding; monitor 85th-percentile speeds quarterly and keep what sustains the benefits.
(Federal Highway Administration)
4. Run two HVE waves per quarter (with education and outreach), targeted by crash
patterns; publish locations and outcomes. (NHTSA)
5. Governance: if the City ever tests enforcement cameras, adopt stricter local guardrails
than state minimums: independent calibration and cybersecurity audits, public error -rate
dashboards, a binding sunset/"turn-off" trigger if speeds/crashes don't improve or if
error rates exceed a set threshold, and no per -notice vendor compensation of any
kind (even for processing). (LegiScan)
NOT •
We can save lives faster and more fairly by fixing signals, upgrading street design, and using
transparent, human -centered enforcement —without importing the accuracy, privacy,
cybersecurity, and corruption risks of automated ticketing. I respectfully ask you to reject (and
pause) automated enforcement and adopt the design -first plan above.
Thank you for your leadership on safety and for considering this evidence -based path.
Sincerely,
Angelo L. Scandaliato
US Citizen and California Resident
4
Outlook
FW: Opposition to speed cameras
From Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Date Tue 9/2/2025 11:16 AM
To CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Late corr
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:50 AM
To: Douglas Shook <shook@usc.edu>; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Opposition to speed cameras
Good morning Douglas,
The City Council is in receipt of your email opposing tonight's agenda item regarding the consideration of
utilizing speed cameras and other technologies for the reasons you cite. A hard copy of your email and
this response will be provided to the City Council this evening as late correspondence.
Ara
Ara Michael: Mihranian
City Manager
cram@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 544-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Website: www.rpvca.gov
)
rh , to th i,_ "A R,.i[��.P..,
:'o 0t 7 I.(;:l, ail i �.."r ��. l.e: s€f,. ..i ...€.: fs...kr e 3�...-a'ri iil 1_ a U,2 I1.,, .r is al
N Tf, .
From: Douglas Shook « ,hook LIF&.eciu>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 10:21 AM
To: CC <LCngjpyf,, ;€ ov>
Subject: Opposition to speed cameras
Some people who received this message don't often get email from s!o kc p,. _u. LI:?< E r�_<; l;l� phis i. irr3portailt
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
Dear colleagues,
I understand you will be exploring the possible implementation of speed cameras in RPV to which I am
opposed.
1. This is not a police state where we clandestinely film our residents.
2. Tickets must be issued to drivers, not to vehicles.
3. Tickets should be issued by a human being who can act with judgement and discretion, not an
automatic trip of a switch on a sensor next to the road.
4. The money and effort that would be spent on this ill-advised program should rather be spent on
activities that actually will enhance the safety of our roads such as resurfacing PV Drive East.
I fear that the recent unwarranted and ill-advised lowering of speed limits on PV Drive East, the banning
of motorcycles through Portuguese Bend, and the consideration of implementing speed cameras in the
city are indicative of a vocal minority who are acting with emotion and limited knowledge and are over -
influencing our city's leadership and the direction of our city.
Please take a stand against proceeding down this ill-advised and unwarranted path.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Douglas Shook
Douglas Shook, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus of Data Sciences
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
e-mail: shOok(q_)usc.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO PALOS VERDES
HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
SEPTEMBER 1, 2025
Attached are revisions/additions and/or amendments to the agenda material received
through Monday afternoon for the Tuesday, September 2, 2025, City Council meeting:
Item No. Description of Material
1 Email from Cassie Jones
2 Email from Dale Spiegel and Noel Park
Respectfully submitted,
Tere a'Takaoka
L TATE CORRESPONDENCE\2025\2025 Covers heets\20250902 additions revisions to agenda thru Monday.docx
13m,,q Outlook
FW: Equestrian Overlay District Exemption
From Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Date Wed 8/27/2025 2:31 PM
To CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Cc Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Hello Team,
Please include as late corr.
Teri
From: Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 12:53 PM
To: cassiej@aol.com; CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Cc: Brandy Forbes <bforbes@rpvca.gov>; Jessica Bobbett <jbobbett@rpvca.gov>
Subject: RE: Equestrian Overlay District Exemption
Good afternoon Cassie,
I am going to respond to both of your emails from this morning in this one email regarding the Equestrian
Overlay District and the loss of lot area set aside for horse keeping.
First off, the related item on the September 2 City Council agenda is specific to prohibiting the by -right
process enacted by Senate Bill 9 to properties in each of the City's Equestrian Overlay Districts. As you
may know, SB 9 allows a lot to be subdivided and essentially developed with 2 units on each of the
newly created lots thereby increasing density and eliminating any potential horse keeping or horse use.
That said, your concern was expressed in the mid-2000s by many community members in the
Equestrian Overlay District as they observed larger homes being built in their neighborhoods that
gradually eroded the character of the area and the potential lot area to house horses. In response, a
code amendment was adopted by the City Council that didn't require a certain area to be maintained for
horse keeping but rather provided incentives to property owners to set aside a minimum of 800 square
feet for horse keeping purposes. Section 17.46.060(A)(5) of the RPVMC specifically states:
For properties located within an Equestrian Overlay (Q) District that are 15, 000 square feet in
area or larger, a minimum contiguous area, at least 800 square feet in size, 12 feet in width or
depth, having a slope not exceeding 35 percent steepness and vehicular and/or equestrian trail
access, may be voluntarily set aside to allow for the future keeping or maintaining of large
domestic animals. A site plan identifying the location, dimensions and slope of the 800 square
foot area shall be provided to the city and retained in the city's files. The following incentives shall
be offered to encourage compliance with the provisions of this subsection:
a.
Site improvements consisting of landscaping and irrigation; detached trellises, patio covers or
gazebos; above-grade/portable spas; barbeques and firepits; temporary (as defined by the
building code) non -habitable accessory structures that are no more than 120 square feet in size;
decks, platforms, walkways, paving or other similar ground surfacing that is no more than six
inches tall (as measured from the adjacent grade); and private sewage disposal systems shall be
permitted within the 800 square foot area;
b.
Roofed structures for the keeping or maintaining of large domestic animals, up to 800 square feet
in area, shall be excluded from the calculation of lot coverage for properties located in an
Equestrian Overlay (Q) District.
C.
Properties that provide the 800 square foot area consistent with subsection (A)(5) of this section
shall be permitted 800 square feet of additional lot coverage, above and beyond the maximum lot
coverage permitted by the underlying zoning district, provided that the additional lot coverage is
not within the 800 square foot area that is being set aside for the future keeping or maintaining of
large domestic animals.
I believe the above mentioned code section does, for the most part, address your concern.
Let me know if you feel otherwise or have any follow-up comments or questions.
Best,
Ara
Ara Michael Mihranian
City Manager
aram@rpvca.gov
Phone - (310) 5444-5202
Address:
30940 Hawthorne Blvd.
Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
Webs!te: v_vv_w..pYyc t.,gcsv
l.< of R.Si. .r kip
'i7 t{.,'l, )n(!,
rl ,
From: g1sSi(. C)'r3Ct!.:CJYYi <caS51E '.@2g_ l_KQYi1>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 10:51 AM
To: CC <CC, F rpyLi.f;c v>
Subject: Equestrian Overlay District Exemption
EXTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
safe!!!.
Dear Council -members, Honorable Mayor,
Not all properties in the Equestrian Overlay District are suitable for housing horses. However, I
don't believe that any of the new homes designed, approved and built after the Monks' decision
provided or even set aside any space for equestrian use now or in the future. Additionally, each
ADU added on many of the older properties in the Equestrian Overlay District is taking those
out of circulation for equestrian use as well.
While housing and hosting horses on your property is a choice at the time, permanent and/or
permitted structures that remove the property from this use in the future by other owners is
somewhat of a zoning change that defeats the purpose of an Equestrian Overlay District in the
first place. It permanently takes these zoning decisions out of the hands of the City and forever
changes, thereby ultimately eliminating, equestrian communities and that choice from future
homeowners.
We own 2 properties in the Equestrian Overlay district and, while one property has never really
been suitable for housing horses, we have made sure to preserve that right for others with the
second property.
I would support the proposed exemption but also go one step further to preserve the intent of
the overlay district with judicious planning going forward.
Cassie Jones, DVM
40 Cinnamon Lane
20 Cinnamon Lane
Outlook
FW: Equestrian Overlay Thought Addendum
From Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Date Wed 8/27/2025 11:01 AM
To CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Late corr
From: cassiej@aol.com <cassiej@aol.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2025 11:01 AM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Equestrian Overlay Thought Addendum
=XTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
;afe!! 1.
Dear Council members, Honorable Mayor,
In further thinking about it, my previous letter stated that I did not think any of the newer homes
accounted for potential future equestrian use. I may be mistaken about that. If so, it would be
nice to codify those set -side spaces as they have done in Rolling Hills, by requiring a certain
amount of space be kept available for such use. Some of the newer properties may actually be
able to do that, so I stand corrected by myself!
Cassie
Outlook
Comment for Item 2 on September 2, 2025 Council Agenda
From Dale Spiegel <spiegda@gmail.com>
Date Thu 8/28/2025 1:40 PM
To CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
EXTERNAL EMAIL.
safe!!!.
Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
With respect to Item 2, the use of technology to improve traffic safety, I ask whether the City has explored with
potential vendors of sound triggered cameras the possibility of providing equipment and services at no or little cost
the City. The switchback area of PVD East and also Crest Road East from PVDE to Rolling Hills would seem to present a
demonstration opportunity for such vendors.
Both locations are one lane each way and have a limited traffic flow, which should make it simple to identify the noise
to a specific vehicle. They are constantly impacted by loud motorcycles, which should provide plenty of instances for
review. It should be easy to combine speed camera/license plate readers to validate speed/sound overlap. Further,
even if Deputy Sheriff personal witness is required, these locations tend to draw drivers that make several up and
down trips back to back, giving an officer time to respond if automatically notified of the first trip.
Question: Can income from camera issued traffic citations be used to offset the costs? This would then be a test of
cost effectiveness as well.
Thank you
Dale Spiegel
2
Outlook
FW: Council Agenda of September 2, 2025, Regular Business Item 2
From Teresa Takaoka <TeriT@rpvca.gov>
Date Thu 8/28/2025 5:32 PM
To CityClerk <CityClerk@rpvca.gov>
Late Corr
From: Noel Park <noelparkone@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2025 5:30 PM
To: CC <CC@rpvca.gov>; Ara Mihranian <AraM@rpvca.gov>
Subject: Council Agenda of September 2, 2025, Regular Business Item 2
:XTERNAL EMAIL: Do not click links or open any attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is
;afe! H.
I support joining the state speed enforcement pilot program and implementing the suggestions
put forward in the staff report. Thank you for looking to incorporate innovative technology to
enhance traffic safety.
Best regards,
Noel Park
6715 El Rodeo Rd, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275
562-413-5147