Email Address
Site Index by Subject

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

City of San Mateo Documents
(and Information)

  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.

San Mateo's contract with RedFlex includes a "cost neutrality" clause.  See Docs Set # 2, below.

As of June 2006, San Mateo's cases were being heard by Commissioner Stephanie Garratt.
(As of 2009, Comm. Garratt is in the Redwood City courthouse and is handling Menlo Park, Redwood City, and San Carlos cases.)

Comm. Stephanie George Garratt

If you are going to fight your ticket, you do not want to do it before Comm. Garratt.  I recommend doing a Peremptory Challenge to remove her 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 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

Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts

Total Violations Recorded, Notices Printed [4]

Updated 4-29-06

Cam #	HINO 01	HINO 03	HISA 01	SAHI 01
	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	972 581																														1236 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
Feb06
Mar06
Apr06
May06
Jun06
Jul06
Aug06
Sep06
Oct06
Nov06
Dec06
2006
Jan07
Feb07
Mar07
Apr07
May07
Jun07
Jul07
Aug07
Sep07
Oct07
Nov07
Dec07
2007

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official documents obtained under the California Public Records Act.
[  ] 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 has been requested but has not yet been received.
[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 including November and December.

Docs Set # 2
Cost Neutrality Adjustment

On May 27, 2004 The City of San Mateo signed a contract with RedFlex.  The contract includes a "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city will not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there aren't enough fines to cover the cost.  It reads:

"6.5.  Cost Neutrality  After an initial twelve (12) month period, if the total compensation paid to RedFlex pursuant to this agreement exceeds that portion of Fines received by Customer for Citations issued during the same twelve (12) month period, then RedFlex agrees to absorb, eliminate, or reimburse Customer for the excess expense thereby covering the cost for system operation so that the Customer achieves cost neutrality in accordance with the representation that the system(s) shall pay for themselves. This cost neutrality provision shall be applied for each twelve (12) month period for which the agreement is in effect in order to ensure cost neutrality throughout the Term of this agreement."

This clause is, in my opinion, a violation of CVC 21455.5(g).  Following San Mateo's lead, many other cities have since 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

On November 14, 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.

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.