Skip to content
Grand Jury Hub

San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury

2025–2026: from findings to follow-through

Overview

Explore the jury’s recommendations, read matching agency responses, and join the discussion. Everything in this cycle is connected to its original source.

Recommendations & responses

Every recommendation made by the jury, with matching agency responses alongside it.

Recommendations & responses

Showing 12 of 12 recommendations

Jump to recommendation

Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?

9 recommendations

Recommendation R1

The ALPR operator should conspicuously post the current version of their ALPR Policy as required by Civil Code sections 1798.90.51(a)–(b).

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R2

The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R3

The ALPR operator currently identified as sharing ALPR data with private university security entities should obtain and retain a written legal and factual determination that the recipient is a “public agency” under Civil Code section 1798.90.5(f), or that the sharing is otherwise permitted by law; if no lawful basis exists, the operator should terminate the sharing relationship.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R4

The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 17

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R5

The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 17

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R6

Upon contract renewal, the ALPR operator should incorporate contractual language requiring vendor compliance with applicable California law and prohibiting vendors from disclosing ALPR data to unauthorized third parties. Operators should consider provisions similar to those contained in the Town of Colma contract with Flock.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 17

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R7

The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 17

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R8

The ALPR operator should include in their ALPR policies written criteria governing the approval, denial, periodic review, and termination of in-state ALPR network-sharing relationships.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 17

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Recommendation R9

The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.

No response recorded

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 17

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures

3 recommendations

Recommendation R1

By December 31, 2026, SMCSD should adopt and implement written SB 1383 edible food recovery enforcement procedures for services performed under its MOUs, including criteria for inspections, re-inspections, Notices of Violation, Penalty Orders, or other enforcement when required.

1 response · San Mateo County Sustainability Department

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · PDF page 8

Permanent link
Official response
San Mateo County Sustainability Department
Agency says further analysis needed

Requires further analysis. SMCSD describes developing inspection, deadline, notice, citation and appeal procedures with MOU jurisdictions; it will explore funding/cost recovery and prepare the matter for discussion by February 3, 2027.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Recommendation R2

By June 30, 2027, SMCSD should develop and implement a standardized inspection form and publicly accessible database of inspection reports and enforcement information, subject to Public Records Act requirements and any applicable exemptions.

1 response · San Mateo County Sustainability Department

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · PDF page 8

Permanent link
Official response
San Mateo County Sustainability Department
Agency says further analysis needed

Requires further analysis. SMCSD says a standardized inspection form is implemented; a public database needs evaluation of public-records exemptions, confidentiality, resources and County systems, with analysis and County Attorney discussion by February 3, 2027.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Recommendation R3

By June 30, 2027, SMCSD should develop an anonymous complaint process that can be adopted by participating jurisdictions.

1 response · San Mateo County Sustainability Department

View recommendation and responses

Jury report: More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · PDF page 8

Permanent link
Official response
San Mateo County Sustainability Department
Agency plans to implement

Will be implemented in the future. SMCSD will coordinate a standardized receiving, routing, investigating and documenting process by June 30, 2027; each jurisdiction controls its adoption decision/timing, and SMCSD will track adoption.

Read official response · PDF page 3

Findings

The jury’s formal findings, with source citations and any recorded responses.

Findings & responses

Showing 11 of 11 findings

Jump to finding

Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?

9 findings

Finding F1

The ALPR operator’s ALPR policy was not posted in a manner that appears consistent with the California Attorney General’s guidance on “conspicuous” posting.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F2

The ALPR operator’s ALPR Policy appears to be outdated because it describes ALPR operations as mediated by NCRIC, a practice the investigation found was discontinued several years ago.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F3

The ALPR operator shared ALPR information with private university security entities but did not establish that the receiving entity was a “public agency” as defined in Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), or that the sharing was otherwise permitted by law within the meaning of Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b).

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F4

The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F5

The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator were insufficient to substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F6

The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F7

The operator’s ALPR policy described a process requiring written requests and executed agreements for ALPR data-sharing relationships; however, the records produced did not substantiate that this process was followed or that the required agreements were obtained.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F8

The operator’s ALPR policy did not establish criteria governing the approval of in-state ALPR data-sharing requests or the termination of existing network-sharing relationships.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

Finding F9

The retention period specified in the operator’s ALPR Policy does not match the retention period as reported by the Flock transparency portal or Flock contract.

No response recorded

View finding and responses

Jury report: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · PDF page 16

Permanent link
Official responses
No response recorded
A matching agency response has not been added to Grand Jury Hub. This does not establish whether a response was submitted or is overdue.

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures

2 findings

Finding F1

Since January 1, 2024, 14 CCR §§ 18995.1 and 18995.4 require jurisdictions to enforce SB 1383 requirements. Under MOUs reviewed by the Grand Jury, SMCSD is responsible for enforcement for participating jurisdictions. Inspection records reviewed by the Grand Jury do not show a consistent documented process for conducting inspections and re-inspections, setting compliance deadlines, or issuing Notices of Violation, Penalty Orders, or other enforcement when required.

1 response · San Mateo County Sustainability Department

View finding and responses

Jury report: More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · PDF page 8

Permanent link
Official response
San Mateo County Sustainability Department

SMCSD partially disagrees: it accepts the MOU delegation but says an HF&H Consultants internal enforcement protocol has existed since June 2024, with outreach, inspections and follow-up to achieve voluntary compliance.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Finding F2

During the investigation, SMCSD’s online edible food recovery complaint form was not functional when tested, and the Grand Jury could not locate publicly accessible written complaint procedures for the jurisdictions reviewed. Although a countywide form is not mandated, 14 CCR § 18995.3 requires each jurisdiction to provide a procedure for receipt and investigation of written complaints and to allow anonymous complaints.

1 response · San Mateo County Sustainability Department

View finding and responses

Jury report: More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · PDF page 8

Permanent link
Official response
San Mateo County Sustainability Department

SMCSD labels its position partial disagreement, accepts the complaint-procedure requirement, neither agrees nor disagrees that the form failed because it cannot verify the test, and identifies email/telephone alternatives and a newly added direct web link.

Read official response · PDF page 2

Questions

Editorial discussion prompts inspired by the reports. These are separate from the jury’s formal findings and recommendations.

Civic question

What information should explain why an agency grants, reviews or ends an in-state ALPR data-sharing relationship?

R7–R8 recommend accurate process descriptions and written criteria. The question invites clear governance information without treating every agency as subject to the same findings.
Why this matters
Understandable criteria can help residents assess privacy and public-safety tradeoffs.

Supporting report

Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · Findings F7–F8; Recommendations R7–R8

Civic question

What should public ALPR audit summaries show about policy compliance and follow-up while protecting sensitive investigations?

R4–R5 address audit frequency and substance. The question proposes public usefulness; it does not claim that records not produced never existed or that the jury prescribed a uniform publication format.
Why this matters
Residents can distinguish an audit’s scope, results and limitations rather than equating any log with complete oversight.

Supporting report

Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended? · Findings F4–F5; Recommendations R4–R5

Civic question

What should a written edible food recovery enforcement process explain about inspections, follow-up and compliance deadlines?

R1 proposes written procedures by December 31, 2026. The response separately plans enforcement/funding discussion by February 3, 2027, not completed implementation by that date.
Why this matters
Clear steps help food generators and residents understand responsibilities and what happens after a problem is found.

Supporting report

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · Findings F1; Recommendations R1

Civic question

How should public inspection information show compliance status and follow-up while respecting applicable records exemptions?

R2 proposes a standardized form and accessible database. The response claims the form exists but places database work under analysis; targeted inspection results are not countywide prevalence estimates.
Why this matters
Useful context can avoid misleading comparisons and distinguish planned tools from delivered public access.

Supporting report

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · Recommendations R2

Civic question

What would help residents find and understand anonymous edible food recovery complaint options?

F2 describes the jury’s form test and inability to find written procedures. The response neither confirms nor denies that failed test and identifies other routes; no current website test is claimed here.
Why this matters
Clear entry points can reduce confusion about which agency receives a concern without exposing complainants.

Supporting report

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · Findings F2; Recommendations R3

Civic question

How should the County and participating jurisdictions explain who receives, routes, investigates and documents a complaint?

The discussion distinguishes local responsibility and possible County coordination. The response promises a standard process by June 30, 2027 but leaves each jurisdiction’s adoption timing to that jurisdiction.
Why this matters
Clear handoffs can help residents understand responsibility without assuming one form proves every jurisdiction has adopted a complete procedure.

Supporting report

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures · Discussion, Anonymous Complaint Process

Sources

Original reports and response documents provide the evidence behind this cycle’s findings, recommendations, and discussions.

Report overview: Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?

Official report

Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?

The jury examines local automated license plate reader policies, sharing controls, audits, retention and vendor contracts. Nine findings and nine recommendations apply through the respondent-specific table on physical PDF pages 17–18, not universally to every operator. Formal findings are on page 16; recommendations span 16–17. The investigation distinguishes records not produced from proof records do not exist, describes no identified current out-of-state sharing in the reviewed materials, and treats contract terms as an added control rather than a standalone legal violation. Its appendix reproduces vendor offense types, not approval of every category for California use. No verified final ALPR response is supplied; this gap does not establish nonresponse or lateness. Entire unchanged 20-page original, released August 3, 2026.
Report overviewOfficial PDF
Report overview: More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures

Response available

More Food for Thought: County Sustainability Department Has Not Implemented Required SB 1383 Edible Food Recovery Enforcement Procedures

The jury examines edible food recovery enforcement under delegated MOUs and access to anonymous complaint procedures. Two findings and three recommendations appear on physical PDF page 8; page 9 requests the Sustainability Director’s response. Targeted inspection results cannot be generalized to all food generators, and recovered tonnage alone does not establish achievement of the 20% target. Appendices retain budget, sample MOU, workplan and complaint-page evidence. A Board-approved response-text memo partially disputes both findings, places enforcement/database work under further analysis and promises complaint-process development. It is not a separately signed or court-filed response letter. Entire unchanged 17-page court original, released August 3, 2026; a separate Board attachment version is linked without duplicating this investigation.
Report overviewCounty response & auditOfficial PDF

Response documents

Sustainability Department: Board-approved response-text memo · San Mateo County Sustainability Department · 2026-10-06 · PDF