Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.D. - Page 40 <br /> City How Cities Responded <br /> implementing the program was not possible. The <br /> Department is in compliance with SB34 and is now <br /> providing an opportunity for public comment at a regularly <br /> scheduled public meeting of the governing body of the <br /> public agency before implementing new ALPR technology. <br /> San Bruno A staff report regarding the ALPR was made available on <br /> the city's web page. The project was also presented in a <br /> televised public forum at a city council meeting. <br /> San Carlos The decision to deploy ALPR technology was made by the <br /> City Council; not by the Police Bureau. An open, "noticed" <br /> public meeting was held to discuss the item and take public <br /> comment on the issue. At the conclusion of that very public <br /> process, the city Council voted and directed the Police <br /> Bureau to deploy the ALPRs <br /> We also discussed the issue during Police Town Hall <br /> Meetings and Neighborhood Watch events. <br /> San Mateo (city) Depends—ALPRs are required by law to be noticed to our <br /> city council and we posted the privacy policy on our internet <br /> San Mateo Open, noticed public meetings were held to discuss the <br /> County Sheriff items and take public comment on the issue. The meetings <br /> were held to help educate and inform the community. <br /> During the community meetings, we provided facts and also <br /> discussed the benefits during Town Hall Meetings and <br /> Neighborhood Watch events. <br /> South San Our intention to acquire body cameras was addressed at a <br /> Francisco public City Council meeting. Once the body cameras are <br /> implemented, we will make a public announcement by <br /> means of a press release and social media <br /> Issued: July 12, 2017 <br /> 2016-2017 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury 33 <br />