RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net


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
(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 10-25-12

Cam #

4HU
01
HINO
01
HINO
03
HISA
01
SAHI
01










4th
EB
@
Humboldt

Hillsdale
&
Norfolk


[6]
Hillsdale
&
Norfolk


[6]
Hillsdale
EB
@
Saratoga


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






77%
250
192

Jun05

0
0
0
0
229
164
484
347






72%
713
511

Jul05

0
0
35
33
229
157
970
581






64%
1234
771

Aug05

359
251
346
249
144
96
1307
473






50%
2156
1069

Sep05

257
176
124
77
181
122
1219
552






52%
1781
927

Oct05

188
143
211
141
167
111
1946
533






37%
2512
928

Nov05














Dec05














2005
[7]

1158
815
952
636
1334
928
8115
3647






52%
11559
6026

Jan06
0
0
88
52
122
57
107
61
791
422






53%
1108
592

Feb06














Mar06














Apr06














May06














Jun06














Jul06
0
0
115
63
221
104
131
69
983
503






51%
1450
739

Aug06














Sep06














Oct06














Nov06














Dec06














2006














Jan07
398
307
83
69
133
87
84
51
766
451






66%
1464
965

Feb07














Mar07














Apr07














May07














Jun07














Jul07
430
271
26
17
165
100
70
35
315
193






61%
1006
616

Aug07














Sep07














Oct07














Nov07














Dec07














2007














Jan08
288
211
69
38
124
88
26
15
451
263






64%
958
615

Feb08














Mar08














Apr08














May08














Jun08














Jul08
325
188
73
32
177
106
47
24
636
347






55%
1258
697

Aug08














Sep08














Oct08














Nov08














Dec08














2008














Cam #

4HU
01
HINO
01
HINO
03
HISA
01
SAHI
01










4th
EB
@
Humboldt

Hillsdale
&
Norfolk


[6]
Hillsdale
&
Norfolk


[6]
Hillsdale
EB
@
Saratoga


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






56%
1139
636

Feb09














Mar09














Apr09














May09














Jun09














Jul09
176
111
30
21
86
34
31
15
557
261






50%
880
442

Aug09














Sep09














Oct09














Nov09














Dec09














2009














Jan10
137
117
29
22
55
37
10
0
340
236






72%
571
412

Feb10














Mar10














Apr10
185
150
37
23
51
32
17
2
773
321






50%
1063
528

May10














Jun10














Jul10
210
149
31
19
81
52
29
17
769
269







1120
506

67
Months
[8]
12356
8233
4779
3091
8057
4945
5080
3162
43744
23436






58%
74016
42867

Aug10














Sep10
225
166
36
20
64
19
21
7
761
255






42%
1107
467

Oct10














Nov10














Dec10














2010














Jan11
183
151
24
10
75
57
21
11
582
197






48%
885
426

Feb11














Mar11














Apr11
178
125
27
15
84
58
26
9
594
260






51%
909
467

May11














Jun11














Jul11
221
130
28
13
91
61
17
13
683
246






45%
1040
463

Aug11














Sep11














Oct11
224
131
35
18
97
67
33
16
667
229






44%
1056
461

Nov11














Dec11














2011














Jan12
202
141
43
14
88
60
21
13
601
184






43%
955
412

Feb12
194
136
33
14
83
62
5
3
484
175






49%
799
390

Mar12
191
127
42
15
81
57
13
7
574
217






47%
901
423

Apr12
209
124
35
17
79
53
24
9
665
255






45%
1012
458

May12
285
152
48
21
81
65
58
39
736
372






54%
1206
649

Jun12
256
170
46
25
101
79
53
35
641
285






54%
1097
594

Jul12
227
159
37
23
117
95
48
42
792
383






57%
1221
702

Aug12
237
178
39
23
101
79
48
28
668
351






60%
1093
659

Sep12
270
186
34
18
111
82
59
40
751
377






57%
1225
703

Oct12














Nov12














Dec12














2012














Speed Limit [9]
Left Yellow
Through Yellow
30
3.6
3.6
35
3.2
3.8
35
3.2
3.8
35
3.2
3.9
30
-
3.4









Cam #

4HU
01
HINO
01
HINO
03
HISA
01
SAHI
01










4th
EB
@
Humboldt


Hillsdale
&
Norfolk


[6]
Hillsdale
&
Norfolk


[6]
Hillsdale
EB
@
Saratoga


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
Official reports, 2010 & 2011 quarters, 2012 monthly
Official reports, July to Sept. 2012

[  ] 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]  Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated.  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.  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). Due to time limitations data may have been posted to the table only for selected months or locations.  If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months or locations will be posted.  Full official data has been received and is available at one of the links given above.
[5]  Data was requested on:
[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.
[9]  On Aug. 30, 2012 I received a Nov. 2011 memo which listed the length of the yellows.  Those lengths have been entered at the bottom of the table, above.



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.

On Aug. 30, 2012 I received a Nov. 2011
memo which listed the length of the yellows.  Those lengths have been entered at the bottom of the table in Set # 1, above.



Docs Set # 4
Countywide Information, Including Grand Jury Report, How Much They Get

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. Kathleen M. McKenna in the San Mateo courthouse.   I strongly 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 of her if you are doing a Trial by Declaration.

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?"

John Fitton, CEO, San Mateo County
                    Courts
Court CEO John Fitton

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."


Grand Jury Report, and Public Comments

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.


$$ Distributions to Cities Up 39% in One Year

Court-provided reports show that red light camera ticket revenue flowing from the San Mateo County Court to the cities increased 39% in one year.

July 2011
July 2012 




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 the five existing cameras, for six more years. 
At that price the City still will pay $712,800 too much over the six years (when compared with a $3000 target price).  See FAQ # 17.

The contract contains an escape clause (Section 6.1) which allows the City to cancel the contract with ten days' notice and no penalty (once the cameras are more than 60 months old).


As of June 2012 invoices showed that the City still was paying $4980 per month for each camera.

As of Aug. 20, 2012 the 2009 renewal was the most recent contract.

Please note that there could be a contract or amendment later than the ones listed above.




San Mateo Docs Set # 6
"Late Time" Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for all of its cameras.
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)

Grand Terrace late times bar chart
The picture above is an example from another city.

2006 - 2010 (49 months) Bar Graphs ( 7 MB file )
July 2006
July 2007
July 2012
Sept. 2012

Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the
list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.




Docs Set # 7
Info on City Site


The San Mateo Police Department has a little bit of info about its program, on this
webpage.




Docs Set # 8
More Coming


There may be some more information posted in the next few weeks.  Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!





---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS

www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net