San Mateo Docs - Main Page - Illegal Red Light Cameras

If you haven't already done so, please read the San Mateo section on the Camera Towns page

City of San Mateo Documents
(Including Countywide/Grand Jury Information - See Set # 4)

San Mateo, pop. 91,000, is 15 miles south of San Francisco.

Some of San Mateo's tickets can be ignored. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

Until Nov. 2009, San Mateo's contract with RedFlex included a "cost neutrality" clause. See Docs Sets # 2, 4 & 5, below.

If you will be boycotting San Mateo businesses, please send the following groups a little note.

Mayor and City Council, c/o: citymanager@cityofsanmateo.org

Chamber of Commerce: info@sanmateoca.org

If you have a ticket from the City of San Mateo, please be sure to contact me!

Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts

Total Violations Recorded, Notices Printed [4]

Updated 12-21-10

Cam #	4HU 01	HINO 01	HINO 03	HISA 01	SAHI 01
	East 4th & Humboldt [6]	Hillsdale & Norfolk [6]	Hillsdale & Norfolk [6]	Hillsdale & Saratoga [6]	Saratoga SB @ Hillsdale Right	[3]	Total Notices Printed as % of Violations Recorded	Total Violations Recorded/ Notices Printed [1] [4]
Apr05
May05		0 0	0 0	101 82	149 110			250 192
Jun05		0 0	0 0	229 164	484 347			713 511
Jul05		0 0	35 33	229 157	970 581			1234 771
Aug05		359 251	346 249	144 96	1307 473			2156 1069
Sep05		257 176	124 77	181 122	1219 552			1781 927
Oct05		188 143	211 141	167 111	1946 533			2512 928
Nov05
Dec05
2005 [7]		1158 815	952 636	1334 928	8115 3647			11559 6026
Jan06	0 0	88 52	122 57	107 61	791 422			1108 592
Feb06
Mar06
Apr06
May06
Jun06
Jul06	0 0	115 63	221 104	131 69	983 503			1450 739
Aug06
Sep06
Oct06
Nov06
Dec06
2006
Jan07	398 307	83 69	133 87	84 51	766 451			1464 965
Feb07
Mar07
Apr07
May07
Jun07
Jul07	430 271	26 17	165 100	70 35	315 193			1006 616
Aug07
Sep07
Oct07
Nov07
Dec07
2007
Jan08	288 211	69 38	124 88	26 15	451 263			958 615
Feb08
Mar08
Apr08
May08
Jun08
Jul08	325 188	73 32	177 106	47 24	636 347			1258 697
Aug08
Sep08
Oct08
Nov08
Dec08
2008
Cam #	4HU 01	HINO 01	HINO 03	HISA 01	SAHI 01
	East 4th & Humboldt [6]	Hillsdale & Norfolk [6]	Hillsdale & Norfolk [6]	Hillsdale & Saratoga [6]	Saratoga SB @ Hillsdale Right	[3]	Total Notices Printed as % of Violations Recorded	Total Violations Recorded/ Notices Printed [1] [4]
Jan09	219 178	31 21	127 75	39 26	723 336			1139 636
Feb09
Mar09
Apr09
May09
Jun09
Jul09	176 111	30 21	86 34	31 15	557 261			880 442
Aug09
Sep09
Oct09
Nov09
Dec09
2009
Jan10	137 117	29 22	55 37	10 0	340 236			571 412
Feb10
Mar10
Apr10
May10
Jun10
Jul10	216 152	33 21	82 53	30 17	800 277			1161 520
67 Months [8]	12356 8233	4779 3091	8057 4945	5080 3162	43744 23436			74016 42867
Aug10
Sep10	225 166	36 20	64 19	21 7	761 255			1107 467
Oct10
Nov10
Dec10
2010
Jan11
Feb11
Mar11
Apr11
May11
Jun11
Jul11
Aug11
Sep11
Oct11
Nov11
Dec11
2011
Jan12
Feb12
Mar12
Apr12
May12
Jun12
Jul12
Aug12
Sep12
Oct12
Nov12
Dec12
2012
Cam #	4HU 01	HINO 01	HINO 03	HISA 01	SAHI 01
	East 4th & Humboldt [6]	Hillsdale & Norfolk [6]	Hillsdale & Norfolk [6]	Hillsdale & Saratoga [6]	Saratoga SB @ Hillsdale Right	[3]	Total Notices Printed as % of Violations Recorded	Total Violations Recorded/ Notices Printed [1] [4]

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official documents obtained under the California Public Records Act.

Official reports, Jan. 2005 to Jul. 2010 (67 months) & Sep. 2010
Official reports, monthly, six-month intervals, Jan. 2005 to Jul. 2010

[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] YTD = Year-to-date total.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4] Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).
[5] Data was requested...
[6] The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available.
[7] Entire year 2005 including November and December.
[8] Report (linked above) covers Jan. 2005 to Jul. 2010.

Docs Set # 2
Cost Neutrality Adjustment & Successful Appeal

On May 27, 2004 The City of San Mateo signed a contract with RedFlex. The contract included a "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if fine revenue was insufficient to cover the cost.

There is a link to a copy of the contract in Set # 5, below.

Cost neutrality clauses are, in my opinion, a violation of CVC 21455.5(g). Following San Mateo's lead, many other cities adopted similar clauses. See Defect # 10 - B, on the Home page.

The following invoice, for the month of Aug. 2005, includes what may be a cost neutrality adjustment, a "Performance credit" in the amount of $2412.00. The timing of it would be consistent with the 12-month review provided in the contract.

San Mateo Ignored Warning by Police Association

In Nov. 2003, the California Peace Officer's Association sent the City a letter pointing out the constraints imposed by CVC 21455.5(g). The letter was included in the council packet for the required public hearing, on November 17. A typo in the last paragraph of the letter revealed that a similar letter may have been sent to the City of Whittier - and other cities as well.

Successful Appeals

In Sept. 2009 a defendant won his appeal on the cost neutrality issue. P. v. Bullock.
In Nov. 2009 the City revised the contract - see Set # 5, below.

In Dec. 2009 another defendant won his appeal on a San Mateo ticket. P. v. Schmidt.

In Mar. 2010, another! P. v. Paul B.

Docs Set # 3
Yellows Too Short?

On Oct. 6, 2005 I asked the City of San Mateo for copies of its signal timing charts, both current and former. On Nov. 25 they provided charts dated May 25 for the signal at Hillsdale and Saratoga, and dated Sept. 14 for Hillsdale and Norfolk. I wrote them back, again asking for the charts that were effective prior to those dates. On Dec.7 the deputy city attorney wrote back that "the signal timing charts previously provided were as far back as available." If that truly is the case, the City will have a hard time proving that its yellows were long enough.
Enforcement at Hillsdale and Saratoga started on May 19, so tickets between that date and May 25 could be challenged.
Enforcement at Hillsdale and Norfolk started about July 28, so tickets between that date and Sept. 14 could be challenged.

Docs Set # 4
Countywide Information, Including Grand Jury Report

The info in Set # 4 is applicable throughout San Mateo County.

In Sept. 2009 a San Mateo defendant won his appeal on the cost-neutral contract issue (P. v. Bullock). In Dec. 2009 a Daly City appellant won on the same issue (P. v. Lopez). The two decisions could affect tickets in these San Mateo County cities which signed cost-neutral contracts:
Daly City, Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Mateo, South San Francisco.
It is reasonable to expect that some or all of these cities will amend their contracts to remove the cost-neutral language. San Mateo, and Millbrae already have (see Docs Set # 5, below, and the Millbrae section on the Camera Towns page).
Also in Dec. 2009 another San Mateo defendant (P. v. Schmidt) won his appeal, which was based upon missing warning signs and the control of the system by a private company.
Then, in June 2010, a Millbrae defendant (P. v. Durney) won his appeal, based upon hearsay/confrontation (Sixth Amendment) issues.
If you have a ticket from any of the cities listed above, please be sure to contact me!
And contact your local reporters - ask them to write about this, get the word out.

If you are going to fight your ticket, you do not want to do it before Comm. Stephanie George Garratt in the Redwood City courthouse, Comm. Susan Lynn Greenberg in the San Mateo courthouse (she has been overturned four times on appeal), or Comm. Susan Jakubowski in the North courthouse. I strongly recommend doing a Peremptory Challenge to remove them from your case. See the Challenges page of this website. I also recommend doing a Peremptory Challenge if you are doing a Trial by Declaration.

If you live in or commute through San Carlos, Redwood City, Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, Campbell, Santa Cruz, Capitola, Aptos, or San Jose, be sure to see the 2010 bills in the Legislation section on the Action page.

In one of two Nov. 13, 2009 red light camera articles by Joshua Melvin, the San Mateo County Times reported that the county court's CEO John Fitton had asked,
"Are we doing right by the public?"

Then, in a Feb. 16, 2010 KGO-TV segment by Vic Lee, Mr. Fitton stated:
"I would advise cities who are contemplating installing red light cameras to move cautiously. I know these systems generate revenue for cities, but safety-wise there are questions about whether the red light cameras reduce accidents."

In June 2010 the San Mateo County Grand Jury released a report about red light cameras. The grand jury rules allow the cities to make formal comments about the report, but do not allow the public to do so.
Here is the final report (big file), including the initial report and the later comments by the cities.

Docs Set # 5
Nov. 16, 2009: San Mateo City Council Suddenly Votes on $$$ Contract Renewal

On Nov. 16, 2009 the city council of the City of San Mateo voted 5-0 to renew the contract with RedFlex (staff report & contract) despite the fact that the original (2004) contract was not due to expire until May 2010 (five years from when the first camera went into operation). It is likely that the renewal date was moved up because the recent P. v. Bullock appeal decision found the original contract's cost neutral clause to be illegal, and the City wished to remove the clause without delay.

The $17.9 million no-bid contract gave away a lot of money.

One example: Under its terms (Exhibit D at the back of the contract document) the City will pay $6200 per month for up to 20 newly installed cameras, for up to 10 years. Had San Mateo negotiated the same rate as neighboring Burlingame ($5870), the City could have saved $792,000 over ten years, on the new cameras.

Another example: The City agreed to pay $4980 per month for its existing cameras. Had the council negotiated a $4000 rent like that in the 2008 contract of the City of Santa Clarita, it could have saved an additional $980 per camera per month, or $588,000 for the five cameras over 10 years.

Or, had the council negotiated a $2225 fee for its existing cameras, like that in the 2009 contract of the City of Solana Beach, it could have saved $1,653,000.

Or, had the council negotiated a $2500 fee for its existing cameras, like that in the 2009 contract of the City of Davis, it could have saved $1,488,000.