South San Francisco Docs - Main Page - Red Light Cams

Some of South San Francisco's tickets can possibly 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.

Do you live in the South end of Alameda County or the North end of Santa Clara County - State Sen. Ellen Corbett's District?

This person

R.A. Wieckowski, Author of the anti-motorist bill AB 666

is running for Corbett's seat, on the Nov. 4, 2014 ballot.

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.

Official reports, Aug. 2009 - Apr. 2010
Official reports, May 2010 - Aug. 2010
Official reports, Oct. 2010 - Nov. 2012
Official reports, Aug. 2010 - Dec. 2012
Official reports, Dec. 2012 - May 2013
Official reports, June 2013 - Mar. 2014
Official reports, Apr. 2014 - July 2014

[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] Annual total, or annual projection, is by highwayrobbery.net.
[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 ATS calls Total Events, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here 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 ATS calls Total Citations Issued, 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] Monthly 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] Includes enforcement of posted "no turn on red" signs.
[8] All citations issued Aug. 2009 to Apr. 2010 were reversed or dismissed, and refunded. See Set # 2 below, for more details.
[9] The report for this month was generated close to the end of the month, so may be incomplete.

South San Francisco Docs Set # 2
The Contract (Program Ended Aug. 2014)

If you got a South San Francisco red light camera ticket issued Mar. 10, 2010 or before and have not yet received a refund and/or a dismissal, call the City's hotline, (650) 829-3777, and leave your name, ticket number, and phone number.

The History

After a Jul. 19, 2006 city council Study Session (no public hearing), the city signed its contract with American Traffic Solutions, in Oct. 2006. (A copy of that contract is part of the pdf for the Apr. 14, 2010 staff report, linked below.) The City did not start issuing tickets until Aug. 2009, due to having to obtain CalTrans permits before installing cameras at state-operated intersections.

On Nov. 10, 2009 the City approved an amendment intended to remove the contract's illegal "cost neutrality" clause. (See Subsection B. of Defect # 10 for information about cost neutrality.)

On Jan. 27, 2010, as a Consent Calendar item, the city council "re-approved" the 2006 contract, and possibly the 2009 amendment, too - a copy of it was included in the staff report provided for the meeting.

On Feb. 5, 2010 the City announced that it would be refunding/dismissing all tickets issued from the beginning of the program up to Jan. 27, 2010, due to a "technical error" (like the cities of Baldwin Park, Capitola, Citrus Heights, Highland, Victorville and Walnut, South City had failed to hold the formal public hearing required by CVC 21455.6 before it approved the contract in 2006 - see the expanded version of Defect # 6).

On Mar. 12, 2010 the City announced that it would refund/dismiss even more tickets - those issued between Jan. 27 and Mar. 10, 2010. A reason for the second batch of refunds/dismissals was suggested in this Feb. 22 KGO-TV story (an attorney claimed that her post-Jan. 27 ticket was invalid because the City should have issued warning tickets for the first 30 days after the Jan. 27 "re-approval" of the contract), but the City's motion papers mentioned only the failure to hold a public hearing.
Also, read the "San Mateo County Information," which is Docs Set # 4 on the San Mateo Documents page.

On Apr. 14, 2010 the city council held the public hearing required by CVC 21455.6. The announced purpose of the public hearing was to determine if the city wished to continue the camera program, or to cancel during the one-year trial period provided in the contract:
"4(f): First year ("pilot year") terms: With 60 day written
notice, on the first anniversary of the Start Date, either party
shall have the option to terminate this Agreement."

The staff report (including contract) prepared for the Apr. 14, 2010 public hearing contained a strong recommendation to continue the program. Also heard during the hearing was that ATS would not be refunding any of the camera rent it had collected up to that time.
The staff report included a copy of the 2006 contract but no copy of the 2009 amendment.
The city council approved the program's continuance, 3 - 2 (noes: Addiego, Gonzalez). Minutes

The resolution approved on Apr. 14 said that the City would issue warning tickets up to May 14.

The Apr. 14 staff report said (page 4) that 95% of the citations up to that date were for right turns.

On Apr. 22, 2010 the San Mateo County Times reported that the City had agreed to pay $250,000 to the Superior Court, "for its troubles involving the City's legal snafu over red-light cameras." For 8000 refunds/dismissals, that works out to $31.25 per ticket. The settlement with the Court was formalized in a ten-page agreement.

Invoices from Meyers Nave, the firm providing city attorney services to the City, revealed that the City was billed $34,473.29 for "Citation Dismissal Action" services rendered during March and April 2010. Prior to March there was no separate accounting for time the firm spent on red light camera issues.

Remaining Questions

The Nov. 2009 amendment, which removed cost neutrality from a contract which as of that time had not been properly adopted, was not included in the version of the contract approved at the Apr. 2010 public hearing. The City has not said whether the amendment was deliberately left out, or left out in error.

The staff report prepared for the Apr. 14, 2010 meeting said, at page 5, that the program would continue for fifty months from that date (to June 2014), which conflicts with the five-year term specified by the contract.
On Oct. 24, 2013 I asked the City about the expiration date, and they said it was Aug. 2014.

On Mar. 12, 2014 the city council was to decide whether to renew the contract for another five years, or let it expire, but they continued the item to the meeting of Mar. 26. At that meeting they voted to let it expire, on Aug. 13.

The staff report mentioned, and paraphrased, some "ATS Statistics" that the City had received. Highwayrobbery.net requested a copy of them, and they are here. Among other things, the ATS document clarified the staff report's statement about the percentage of tickets going to local vehicles. The ATS report gave the figure as 20% "of all violations issued since the program's start," while the staff report said, "Vehicles registered in South San Francisco are receiving approximately 20% of the citations issued." It should be noted that it is likely that in the later years of the program, the percentage of local vehicles was far less than 20%.

(A copy of the original 2006 contract is part of the pdf for the Apr. 14, 2010 staff report, linked above.)

A 2012 NBC story indicated that the City was losing money on the cameras. And, that crashes were up, not down.

South San Francisco Docs Set # 4
Cameras at Risk?

In June 2012 it was reported that thieves stole components of the camera systems in Cerritos, another ATS customer.

South San Francisco Docs Set # 5
Encroachment Permits

Some of the City's cameras were located on CalTrans right-of-ways, so are operated under an encroachment permit obtained from CalTrans. HighwayRobbery.net obtained these documents from CalTrans, via a public records request.

Permit Application, 2007
Justification Correspondence (Traffic Report), 2008
Issued Permit, 2009

Some other cities operate cameras under encroachment permits. For more information about those cities and about CalTrans' criteria for the issuance of an encroachment permit, see the CalTrans section on the Links page.

South San Francisco Docs Set # 6
Prevailing Wage Action

ATS' construction work in South San Francisco was the subject of a Prevailing Wage action by the California Department of Industrial Relations and also the subject of a lawsuit filed in Aug. 2014.

South San Francisco Docs Set # 7
More Coming

There may be some more South San Francisco 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