Citrus City of Citrus Heights*

Citrus Heights does not uphold its responsibility to operate and monitor its red light camera program. Response to Finding 1: Partial Concurrence The Citrus Heights Police Department (CHPD) Traffic Unit Sergeant oversees the daily operations and administrative functions of the Photo Red Light Enforcement Program (PRLEP). As well, the CHPD has two officers assigned to this program to review and process violations on a daily basis, attend annual training, maintain records involving day-to-day operations of the program, and conduct yearly audits of the records and facilities of Redflex Traffic Systems (the photo red light program vendor). Additionally, CHPD annually reviews, and makes necessary changes to, the already established Business Rules to be followed by Redflex Traffic Systems to include, but limited to, procedures for receiving, reviewing, and forwarding captures to and from the CHPD. Monthly maintenance is completed by a certified technician from Redflex and a written report of the results on each PRLEP intersection is forwarded to the CHPD. This monthly maintenance includes a secondary computer system to validate all aspects PRLEP hardware and software at the red light camera intersections. As well, the City of Citrus Heights' General Services Division contracts with an outside company who regularly checks all traffic signals within the City limits on a bi-monthly basis. This company will report its findings to the City and the City will make any adjustments deemed necessary to traffic signals. While undergoing the collection of documents for the Grand Jury request, it was found that the contractor the City was utilizing was not always submitting the bi-monthly maintenance reports. As such, the City has discontinued its use of this company and is utilizing a different contractor to Sue Frost, Mayor • Jeannie Bruins, Vice Mayor Steve Miller, Council Member • Jeff Slowey, Council Member • Mel Turner, Council Member Henry Tingle, City Manager • Ruthann Ziegler, City Attorney Grand Jury Report: Red Light Cameras October 1, 2015 perform the maintenance checks on the traffic signals to ensure proper maintenance and documentation.

The City has no process in place to be alerted when the yellow light sequencing falls below the minimum standard set by CA DOT and mandated by the CVC. Response to Finding 4: Disagree The California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) states "The minimum yellow change interval for through traffic movement shall be determined by using the 85th percentile speed of free-flow traffic rounded up to the next 5 mph increment" (California Department of Transportation, 2014, p. 882). Yet, the City of Citrus Heights intersections with red light camera utilize the 90th percentile resulting in longer yellow change intervals than required by the MUTCD. Prior to the 2012 edition, the MUTCD did not make any recommendations as to the minimum yellow change intervals for protected left-hand turns. However, the standard used in California for protected left-hand turns and protected right-hand turns was 3.0 seconds (Bahadori, p.8). When considering traffic and safety related factors, the City of Citrus Heights increased this minimum to 3.5 seconds for all left-hand turns. In the 2012 edition of the MUTCD, the Department of Transportation added "The minimum yellow change interval for a protected left-turn or protected right-turn phase shall be 3.0 seconds" (California Department of Transportation, 2012, p. 886). However, in the 2014 edition this section appears to be inadvertently omitted as the California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) is voting to re-insert the same standard that was in the 2012 edition on September 3, 2015 (p. 11). The City has a process in place to be notified when yellow light timing falls below the 3.5 second threshold for protected left-hand turns; as this is the lowest acceptable yellow light timing interval for a red light camera intersection. As of a result of the lower yellow change interval for protected left-hand turns, the City cannot set an alert process in place when yellow light timing falls below the 3.9 seconds standard for through traffic; as this would cause the intersections to turn flashing red all of the time. It should be noted that even though the notification is set for 3.5 seconds, the Citrus Heights Police Department verifies the yellow light timing on all potential citations before issuance. This is to ensure that the yellow light intervals were functioning properly at the time of the capture.

Citrus Heights has no reliable process in place to ensure that the timing of the yellow light sequencing is consistent. CHPD performs stopwatch Grand Jury Report: Red Light Cameras October 1, 2015 audits of the yellow light sequencing using Redflex video, which is compressed and unreliable. Response to Finding 5: Disagree In People v. Goldsmith (2014), the Supreme Court of California concluded photographs and video taken by Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems (ATES) shall be considered an accurate recording of events and does not constitute as hearsay. Furthermore, the Court also stated that a computer system by its very nature is more accurate than a human witness (People v. Goldsmith, 2014). Further, all video recordings received by CHPD officers who review potential red light violations are not compressed. These officers receive and review the full video of the potential violation before issuing a red light citation.