RED LIGHT CAMERAS
haven't already done so, please read the San Mateo
City of San Mateo Documents
If you will be boycotting San Mateo businesses,
the following groups a little note.
Mayor and City Council, c/o:
Chamber of Commerce: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have a ticket from the City of San Mateo, please be sure to contact me!
Docs Set # 1
Recorded, Notices Printed 
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.
 Totals are as provided by the City.
 YTD = Year-to-date total.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 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.
 Data was requested on:
 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.
 Entire year 2005 including November and December.
 Report (linked above) covers Jan. 2005 to Jul. 2010.
 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.
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
If you are going to fight your ticket, you do not want
do it before Comm. Kathleen M. McKenna in the San Mateo
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
Challenge of her if you are doing a Trial by
In one of two Nov. 13, 2009 red
camera articles by Joshua Melvin, the San Mateo
Times reported that the county court's CEO John Fitton
Then, in a Feb. 16, 2010 KGO-TV segment
by Vic Lee, Mr. Fitton stated:
In June 2010 the San Mateo County Grand Jury released
report about red light cameras. The grand
allow the cities
to make formal comments about the report, but do not
allow the public
to do so.
Court-provided reports show that red light camera
revenue flowing from the San Mateo County Court to the
39% in one year.
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
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.)
The picture above is an example from another city.
2006 - 2010 (49 months) Bar Graphs ( 7 MB file )
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
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