Glendale council adopts AB 645 speed‑safety policy, authorizes five‑year pilot at nine sites

The Glendale City Council on April 29, 2025, voted to approve and adopt the city’s Speed Safety System use policy and impact report required under Assembly Bill 645, authorizing a five‑year pilot to install up to nine automated speed‑enforcement systems at locations the report identified as high‑priority for speed‑related crashes.

Public Works Principal Traffic Engineer Pastor Casanova presented the staff report, describing the legislative background (AB 645 and earlier AB 2363 and the California State Transportation Agency’s task force), the technical definition of a speed safety system and the process staff followed to select camera locations. Casanova said staff narrowed an initial list of 16 candidate locations to nine sites that provide geographic and socioeconomic balance across the city and that many of the recommended locations are near school zones. He said the required use policy and impact report were posted for public review on March 15, 2025.

The impact report and outreach materials showed 450 completed online surveys and more than 5,300 outreach touchpoints; 83 percent of survey respondents “strongly support” or “somewhat support” the program, staff said. Casanova described two contract approaches: a lease/service model with lower up‑front cost and a city‑owned model with higher initial installation cost but more agency control. Staff provided order‑of‑magnitude estimated annual operating costs ranging from roughly $755,000 to $1,000,000 per year and a potential one‑time installation estimate near $1.2 million (if new poles/electrical work is required). Casanova emphasized any citation revenue may only offset program costs or be reinvested in traffic calming on the same streets; leftover funds at the program’s end would return to the state active‑transportation program.

Public commenters included Brett Slagenhopp of Streets Are for Everyone, who urged quick deployment and transparent data sharing; Transportation and Parking Commissioner Alec Bartrosoff, who supported the pilot as the city’s most effective tool to reduce serious and fatal crashes; and resident Herbert Molano, who urged a full review of data and cautioned about the history of red‑light camera programs. Council members asked about location selection (including coverage along Glen Oaks Boulevard), vendor contract types, privacy protections, data retention and whether cameras could be linked to other police databases. Staff and the consultant from Kimley‑Horn said the policy restricts use of data to program administration, requires destruction of unused photographic evidence within five business days, and forbids sharing data with other agencies except as required by law or court order. Staff also confirmed the program will include a 60‑day warning period and a review after 18 months to assess whether systems are lowering speeds; systems may be relocated among the pre‑qualified candidate locations if warranted.

Under AB 645 the fine scheme is administrative (civil) rather than criminal and tiered by speed: first offenses at 11–15 mph over the limit require a warning; fines range from about $50 up to $500 depending on the over‑limit speed, with indigency and diversion provisions available. Casanova said the program is intended to change driver behavior rather than be a revenue source.

Council discussion focused on verifying the data used to choose sites, ensuring strong technical and contractual safeguards for data deletion and access, and confirming how costs would be reported back to the council. Council members requested a follow‑up note or briefing when the final vendor/design and contract costs are available. Following public comment and debate, the council adopted the use policy and impact report by roll call vote; the motion passed on a unanimous vote.

If implementation proceeds, the next steps are confirmation of funding sources, release of a vendor RFP, construction/installation and an operational warning period before citations begin. Staff said camera locations would be monitored for effectiveness and the council would be notified if relocations among the pre‑qualified sites are recommended.