Portola Valley City Council
September 23, 2026

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Regular Meeting of the Town Council
Wednesday, September 23, 2026
7:00 PM
MAYOR: Craig Taylor
VICE MAYOR: Mary Hufty
COUNCILMEMBERS: Rebecca Flynn, Judith Hasko, Helen Wolter

A G E N D A
HISTORIC SCHOOLHOUSE - 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 Remote Public Comments: Meeting participants are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of the meeting. Please submit your public comments by using the online form, by 1:00 PM on the day of the meeting. Time permitting, your correspondence will be uploaded to the website. All received questions will be forwarded to the Portola Valley Town Council for consideration during the meeting and included in the public record. Members of the public may also provide comments in person at the meeting. The agenda and staff report will be posted on the Town’s website by approximately 5:00 PM the Friday prior to the meeting. Additionally, technology permitting, the public body will take questions using the Raise Hand button for those who attend the meeting online or by phone. The Mayor will call on people to speak by the phone number calling in. Remote participation is provided as a supplemental way to provide public comment, but this method does not always work. The public is encouraged to attend in person to ensure full participation.

In-Person Public Comments: Please fill out and submit a Public Comment card to the Town Clerk or Mayor prior to speaking. The Mayor will call your name at the appropriate time. Each speaker's time is limited to three (3) minutes. The Mayor reserves the right to limit speaker's time, depending upon the number of speakers or other circumstances.

Assistance for People with Disabilities: In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Town Clerk at (650) 851-1700 or by email at [email protected]. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION VIA ZOOM
To access the meeting by computer:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85661031107?pwd=XBbPrv9WKnql1xOByNvR6a5i74XjuR.1 Webinar ID: 856 6103 1107
Passcode: 048294
To access the meeting by phone:
1-669-900-6833 or 1-888-788-0099 (toll-free)
Mute/Unmute - Press *6 / Raise Hand - Press *9
1 Councilmember Rebecca Flynn will be participating remotely in accordance with SB 707, while traveling on official Town business.

1. CALL TO ORDER

2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF REMOTE ATTENDANCE / ROLL CALL

3. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
a. Proclamation Honoring Fire Prevention Week
b. Proclamation Honoring AgeUp’s 25th Anniversary

4. TOWN MANAGER REPORT

5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS

6. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Approve Special Meeting Minutes September 9, 2026
b. Approve Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2026
c. Warrant List for September 23, 2026
d. Approve the Town of Portola Valley’s Response Letter to the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” e. Adopt a Resolution Updating Designated Positions and Disclosure Obligations in the Town’s Conflict of Interest Code

7. REGULAR AGENDA
a. Receive Update and Provide Direction on the Draft Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Notice of Funding Availability

8. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE, LIAISON COMMITTEE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES REPORTS a. 09/14/2026 ASCC Meeting Liaison Memo
b. 09/14/2026 Friends of PV Library Meeting Liaison Memo c. 09/14/2026 SMC Library Joint Powers Authority Meeting Liaison Memo

9. ADJOURNMENT
There are no written materials, and the Town Council does not take action under this agenda item.

Persons wishing to address the Town Council on any not on the agenda or related to Presentations/Proclamations or the Town Manager Report subject may do so now. Please submit a speaker’s slip located at the front of the room to the Town Clerk or Mayor, prior to speaking. Please note the Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Each speaker’s time is limited to three (3) minutes.

Oral and written reports arising out of Council subcommittee and liaison appointments to both in-town and regional committees and initiatives. The Town Council does not take action under this agenda item.

The next Regular Town Council meeting will be held on October 14, 2026 at 7:00 p.m.

Land Acknowledgement:
2 Revised attachment
Revised attachment
The Town of Portola Valley acknowledges the colonial history of this land we dwell upon the unceded territory of the Ramaytush (rah-my-toosh) Ohlone, Tamien Nation, and Muwekma (mah-WEK- mah) Ohlone, who endured a human and cultural genocide that included removal from their lands and their sacred relationship to the land. Portola Valley recognizes that we profit from the commodification of land seized from indigenous peoples and now bear the ecological consequences. We seek to understand the impact of these legacies on all beings and to find ways to make repair. 3 PROCLAMATION

FIRE PREVENTION WEEK
October 4 – 10, 2026
WHEREAS, Portola Valley is committed to ensuring the safety and security of all those living in and visiting Portola Valley; and
WHEREAS, fire remains a serious public safety concern both locally and nationally, and the presence of lithium-ion batteries in many household devices introduces fire risks; and WHEREAS, Many rechargeable devices used every day—including smartphones, tablets, laptops, power tools, e-bikes, e-scooters, and toys—are powered by lithium-ion batteries. If misused, damaged, or improperly charged, these batteries can overheat, start a fire, or explode; and WHEREAS, the National Fire Protection Association® (NFPA®) reports an increase in batteryrelated fires, underscoring the need for public education on the safe use of lithium-ion batteries and devices; and
WHEREAS, the way lithium-ion battery devices are charged can make a difference in helping prevent home fires; and
WHEREAS, safe charging includes using the cord and charger that came with your device or one approved by the manufacturer, charging on a hard, flat surface, watching for warning signs like devices that are very hot or start to swell, unplugging when fully charged, and charging larger devices like e-bikes outside and away from exits; and
WHEREAS, residents are encouraged to understand that safe charging means making smart choices every time they plug in; and
WHEREAS, Portola Valley first responders, including the Woodside Fire Protection District, remain dedicated to reducing the occurrence of fires through prevention, safety education, and community outreach; and
WHEREAS, the 2026 Fire Prevention Week™ theme, “Charge into Fire Safety™: Safe Charging Is a Superpower,” serves to remind all residents that safe charging can help reduce the risk of fires in homes and communities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, CRAIG TAYLOR, Mayor of the Town of Portola Valley, do hereby proclaim October 4–10, 2026, as Fire Prevention Week throughout the Town of Portola Valley, and urge all residents to learn about and practice safe charging habits.

Dated this 23rd day of September 2026.
___________________________
Craig Taylor, Mayor

4 PROCLAMATION

AgeUp Day
October 8, 2026

WHEREAS, AgeUp has served older adults and people with disabilities living in longterm care facilities throughout San Mateo County, including the Town of Portola Valley, for 25 years; and
WHEREAS, AgeUp's Long-Term Care Ombudsman Program is a mandated, free, and confidential service that advocates for residents' rights, investigates complaints of abuse and neglect, and resolves concerns on behalf of residents who cannot always advocate for themselves; and
WHEREAS, in the past year alone, AgeUp held 281 events reaching 4,687 people through its Kindness Crew, Friendly Visitor, and community education programs and made 4,067 facility visits through its Ombudsman Program, and
WHEREAS, AgeUp's community programs — including Friendly Visitors, Phone Buddies, Kindness Crew, Camp AgeUp, and Advanced Healthcare Directive workshops — address social isolation and support older adults in staying active, informed, and connected; and
WHEREAS, AgeUp's 25 years of advocacy, protection, and resolution have given residents of long-term care facilities and their families a voice and a safeguard when they need one most;.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED, that I, CRAIG TAYLOR, Mayor, Town of Portola Valley, do hereby proclaim October 8, 2026, as "AgeUp Day" in the Town of Portola Valley and encourage all residents to recognize AgeUp's 25 years of service to older adults and people with disabilities in our community.

Dated this 23rd day of September 2026.
___________________________
Craig Taylor, Mayor

5 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Veronica Dao, Town Clerk
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: Approve Special Meeting Minutes September 9, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council review and approve the September 9, 2026 special meeting minutes.

ATTACHMENTS

1. 09-09-2026 Council Special Meeting Minutes
6 Revised 9/23 before meeting
Volume 47
September 9, 2026

PORTOLA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 9, 2026

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m. Roll call was taken.

Present: Councilmembers Helen Wolter, Judith Hasko, Rebecca Flynn, Vice Mayor Mary Hufty, Mayor Craig Taylor

Absent: None
Others: Town Manager Darcy Smith, Assistant Town Manager Tony McFarlane, Town Attorney Catherine Engberg, Town Clerk Veronica Dao

2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF REMOTE ATTENDANCE / ROLL CALL

3. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Taylor invited public comment. None were received.

4. CLOSED SESSION
The Council went into Closed Session at 6:05 p.m. to discuss the following:
a. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS (Govt. Code Section 54956.8)
Property: San Mateo County APN 079-123-120 – parking lot located at 3919 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
Town Negotiator: Darcy Smith, Town Manager
Negotiation Parties: Greg St. Claire, Avenir Restaurant Group Under negotiation: Price and terms of payment regarding a lease for a parking lot The Council re-opened the session to receive public comment.

Public Comment
• Deke Hunter
The Mayor closed public comment and Council went back into Closed Session.

5. ADJOURNMENT
The Council reconvened from Closed Session and adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:06 p.m.
7 Volume 47
September 9, 2026

_________________________ _________________________
Craig Taylor, Mayor Veronica Dao, Town Clerk
Submitted for approval to the Town Council at its September 23, 2026 regular meeting. 8 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Veronica Dao, Town Clerk
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: Approve Regular Meeting Minutes September 9, 2026

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council review and approve the September 9, 2026 regular meeting minutes.

ATTACHMENTS

2. 09-09-2026 Council Regular Meeting Minutes
9 Volume 47
September 9, 2026

PORTOLA VALLEY TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING MINUTES – SEPTEMBER 9, 2026

1. CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Taylor called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. Roll call was taken by the Clerk.

Present: Councilmembers Helen Wolter, Judith Hasko, Rebecca Flynn, Vice Mayor Mary Hufty, Mayor Craig Taylor

Absent: None
Others: Town Manager Darcy Smith, Town Attorney Catherine Engberg, Assistant Town Manager Tony McFarlane, Planning & Building Director Sarah Cawrse, Town Clerk Veronica Dao

2. ANNOUNCEMENT OF REMOTE ATTENDANCE / ROLL CALL

3. REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Town Attorney Engberg disclosed there was nothing to report out.

4. PRESENTATIONS / PROCLAMATIONS
a. Proclamation Designating September 2026 as Suicide Prevention Month

5. TOWN MANAGER REPORT
Town Manager Smith updated the Council on the following:
 PV Palooza recap
 Last Summer Concert on September 10, 2026
 Community evacuation exercise hosted by Woodside Fire Protection District on September 11, 2026
 Zott’s to Totts and Town Picnic on September 19, 2026  Eagle Trail project on September 12, 2026
 Financial audits update

6. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Taylor invited public comment. None were received

7. CONSENT AGENDA
10 Volume 47
September 9, 2026

Mayor Taylor invited public comment. None were received.

Consent Agenda item 7f was pulled for separate discussion and action.

Motion and second (Hufty, Wolter) to approve Consent Agenda items 7a - 7e. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Motion and second (Hasko, Wolter) to approve Consent Agenda item 7f. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
a. Approve Special Meeting Minutes of August 26, 2026
b. Approve Regular Meeting Minutes of August 26, 2026
c. Approve Warrant List for September 9, 2026
d. Appoint Elizabeth Gillbrand to the Wildfire Preparedness Committee e. Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Construction Agreement and Authorizing the Town Manager to Execute a Construction Agreement with O’GRADY PAVING, INC for the 2025/26 Street Resurfacing Project No. 2025-PW01 and Finding the Project to be Categorically Exempt from CEQA
f. Approve and Authorize the Town Manager to Execute Amendment 2 to the Current Software Services Agreement with OpenGov, as Amended, for Additional Services

8. REGULAR AGENDA
a. Receive Information and Provide Direction on the Ford Field Restroom and Amenities Project
Brian Fletcher, Callander Associates Landscape Architecture presented the item.

Mayor Taylor invited public comment.

Public Comment
 Karen Askey
 Rita Comes
 Danna Breen
Council asked questions and discussed the item.

No formal action was taken.
11 Volume 47
September 9, 2026

b. Consider Appointing two Council members to Serve as the Town’s Representatives on a Joint Committee of the Town Council and Portola Valley School District Board of Trustees to Consider the Hawthorns Area Plan Project Town Attorney Engberg recused herself from this item and stepped out of the room. c. Town Manager Smith presented the item.

Mayor Taylor invited public comment.

Public Comment
 Danna Breen
 Betsy Morgenthaler
 Karen Vahtra
Council discussed the item.

Motion and second (Wolter, Hufty) to appoint two Councilmembers to serve as the Town’s representatives on a joint committee of the Town Council and the Portola Valley School District Board of Trustees to consider the Hawthorns Area Plan Project. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.

Motion and second (Flynn, Wolter) To appoint Vice Mayor Hufty and Councilmember Hasko to the subcommittee. The motion carried unanimously by voice vote.
d. Receive Information and Discuss the 2026 Cal Cities Resolution Packet for the General Assembly on Friday, September 25, 2026
Town Attorney Engberg returned.

Councilmember Wolter recused herself from this item and stepped out at 9:39 p.m.

Councilmember Flynn presented the item.

Mayor Taylor invited public comment. None were received.

Council asked questions and discussed the item.

No formal action was taken.

9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE, LIAISON COMMITTEE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES

REPORTS
Councilmember Wolter returned at 9:54 p.m.
12 Volume 47
September 9, 2026

Councilmembers reported on several local and regional meetings they attended recently.

Mayor Taylor invited public comment. None were received.

10. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:57 p.m.
_________________________ _________________________
Craig Taylor, Mayor Veronica Dao, Town Clerk
Submitted for approval to the Town Council at its September 23, 2026 regular meeting. 13 ______________________________________________________________________________________ TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Anthony McFarlane, Assistant Town Manager
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: Warrant List for September 23, 2026.

RECOMMENDATION:

Review and accept the Warrant List for September 23, 2026:

REPORT SUMMARY
The following table lists warrant activity by date, tracks starting and ending warrant numbers, and total amount of warrants issued.

The following table lists payments by fund.

Date
Ending
Warrant #
Warrant 9/23/2026 6329 6372 44 247,052.44 9/24/2026 9/9/2026 6328 Attached are Warrant Lists for:

Prior Warrant List
Type of Warrant Date
Starting
Warrant #
Ending
Warrant #
Total
Warrants Amount
Warrants
Released
Date Fund Amount
9/23/2026 101-General Fund 204,448.44
9/23/2026 205-Library Fund 2,449.08
9/23/2026 206-Gas Tax 5,190.46
9/23/2026 212-Measure M Motor Vehicle Fee 1,195.00
9/23/2026 221-Park In-lieu 11,337.55
9/23/2026 222-Inclusion In-lieu 8,066.63
9/23/2026 401-Capital Projects 7,537.83
9/23/2026 504-Wayside II RMD 378.45
9/23/2026 701-Customer Deposits 6,449.00
Total $ 247,052.44
Payments by Fund

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
14

Warrant List September 23, 2026
The following table lists the warrants issued as EFT/ACH payments. EFT/ACH payments are recurring payments for contributions related to retirement and deferred compensation, workers’ compensation premiums, and utilities, etc.

The following table lists the warrants that were voided and the reason for the voided transaction.

The following table lists the warrants issued outside of the scheduled warrant list cycle for various reasons, such as processing error, reissuing a voided check, or employee separation.

DISCLOSURE

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The recommended Town Council action to review and approve the Warrant List, is not considered a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and is therefore exempt from CEQA requirements. As provided by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5), a "project" does not include "organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment." Review and acceptance of the Warrant List is therefore exempt from CEQA, and no further environmental analysis is required.

FISCAL IMPACT
Total fiscal impact is $247,052 with $11,020 accrued to FY 2025-26 and $236,032 assigned to the current year.

Date Warrant # Issued to Fund Dept Purpose Amount
9/23/2026 6331 Bank of America Various Various Aug CC Charges $ 9,838.95 9/23/2026 6332 California Water Service 101/205 510/610 Aug Water Utility 17,199.91 9/23/2026 6333 CalPERS 101 Various Aug Contributions - Sep UAL 43,816.01 9/23/2026 6336 SCA of CA, LLC 206/212 510 Aug Street Sweeping 2,095.00 9/23/2026 6341 Missionsquare Retirement 101 Various Sep 15 Contributions 2,471.47 9/23/2026 6345 Navia Benefit Solutions 101/710 310-340 July Services 525.00 9/23/2026 6346 PG&E 101/205 510/610 Aug Energy Utility 29.08 9/23/2026 6352 Standard Insurance 101 120 Oct Premium 543.13 9/23/2026 6353 State Comp Insurance Fund 101 120 Sep Premium 2,212.62 9/23/2026 6360 Boucher Law 101 125 Legal Services 11,020.50 9/23/2026 6363 Amazon Capital Services 101 610 Sep Office Supplies 29.52 9/23/2026 6364 ACC Business (AT&T) 101 610 Sep Fiber 737.08 9/23/2026 6367 Interwest Consulting Group Various 510 Jul - Aug Engineering Services 26,501.00 $ 117,019.27
Warrants issued as ACH/EFT
Total
Date Warrant No Issued To Fund Dept Purpose Amount
-$
Warrants Voided and Reissued
Total
Date Warrant No Issued To Fund Dept Purpose Amount
-$
Warrants Issued Outside of a Scheduled Warrant List
Total
Date Warrant # Issued to Fund Dept Purpose Amount
Disclosure
15

Warrant List September 23, 2026
For additional information on any item disclosed in this report, please contact the Finance department directly at [email protected].

ATTACHMENTS

1. 09/23/2026 Warrant List Certification
16 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Warrant Disbursement Journal
September 23, 2026
Claims totaling $247,052.44 having been duly examined by me and found to be correct are hereby approved and verified by me as due bills against the Town of Portola Valley.

Date _____________________________ ________________________________ Anthony McFarlane, Assistant Town Manager
Motion having been duly made and seconded, the above claims are hereby approved and allowed for payment.

Signed and sealed this (Date) _____________________
_______________________________ _________________________________ Darcy Smith, Town Manager Craig Taylor, Mayor
17 apachreg Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 1 Check Register
Check Vendor Vendor Name Check Check BW CheckNumber Number Amount Date TypeChecks for Cash Account: 910-11011-000 6329 34 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC 262.03 09/23/266330 41 AT&T 292.95 09/23/266331 44 BANK OF AMERICA 9,838.95 09/23/26 EFTPS6332 78 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 17,199.91 09/23/26 EFTPS6333 80 CALPERS 43,816.01 09/23/26 EFTPS6334 83 CAPTUREPOINT.COM 5,100.00 09/23/266335 105 CINTAS 173.13 09/23/266336 121 SCA OF CA, LLC 2,095.00 09/23/26 ACH6337 124 COMCAST 534.99 09/23/266338 203 GREEN HALO SYSTEMS 114.00 09/23/266339 208 HARRELL DESIGN + BUILD 2,594.77 09/23/266340 213 HILLYARD INC 473.74 09/23/266341 218 MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT 2,471.47 09/23/26 EFTPS6342 227 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTRL 1,341.76 09/23/266343 295 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES INC 5,775.00 09/23/266344 324 MIRANDAS LANDSCAPE 3,888.00 09/23/266345 330 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 525.00 09/23/26 EFTPS6346 367 PG&E 29.08 09/23/26 EFTPS6347 376 PORTOLA VALLEY HARDWARE 483.99 09/23/266348 380 PURCHASE POWER 502.25 09/23/266349 403 RON RAMIES AUTOMOTIVE INC. 472.97 09/23/266350 421 SCOTT WEBER 119.40 09/23/266351 437 SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TR 2,302.50 09/23/266352 445 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. 543.13 09/23/26 ACH6353 448 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUND 2,212.62 09/23/26 EFTPS6354 484 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 400.00 09/23/266355 505 WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR 51,031.08 09/23/266356 518 GOT GOPHERS? 1,050.00 09/23/266357 537 HOUSING ENDOWM. AND REG. TRUST 6,066.63 09/23/266358 730 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS INC 5,388.00 09/23/266359 985 CHRIST CHURCH PV & WOODSIDE 1,000.00 09/23/266360 1091 BOUCHER LAW, PC 11,020.50 09/23/26 ACH6361 1116 EMBARCADERO MEDIA FOUNDATION 1,470.00 09/23/266362 1118 STERICYCLE, LNC. DBA SHRED-LT 134.19 09/23/266363 1152 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 29.52 09/23/26 EFTPS6364 1186 AT&T CORP DBA ACC BUSINESS 737.08 09/23/26 EFTPS6365 1216 WIZIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. 79.79 09/23/266366 1221 ZOTTS LLC 100.00 09/23/266367 1250 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 26,501.00 09/23/26 ACH6368 1287 SAN MATEO COUNTY DEM 23,423.00 09/23/266369 1341 CALA 11,111.55 09/23/266370 1370 GARY REYNOLDS 378.45 09/23/266371 1371 RICHARD DRISCOLL 100.00 09/23/266372 1372 JAMES THOMPSON 3,869.00 09/23/26 18 apachreg Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 2 Check Register
Check Vendor Vendor Name Check Check BW CheckNumber Number Amount Date Type Check totals: 130,033.17ACH totals: 40,159.63EFTPS totals: 76,859.64Wire transfer totals:Payment Manager totals:GRAND TOTALS 247,052.44Check totals: 130,033.17ACH totals: 40,159.63EFTPS totals: 76,859.64Wire transfer totals:Payment Manager totals:GRAND TOTALS 247,052.44 19 .
apapdinv2 mmagahiz Town of Portola Valley Page 1
13:57 09/17/26 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 09/23/2026 to 09/23/2026
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice Number Date Number Amount Invoices
Paid
Vendor: 34 ARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC
09/23/26 6329 FY25-26 ST Resurfacing Smart Scan Fees 262.03 262.03 13194795 Vendor: 41 AT&T
6330 Aug Statement 292.95 58.80 000025795113
Aug Statement 175.35 000025795114Aug Statement 58.80 000025795115 Vendor: 44 BANK OF AMERICA
6331 Aug Credit Card Statement 9,838.95 9,838.95 1388-AUG26 Vendor: 78 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO
6332 Water Service 8/13/26 - 9/10/26, 9/1/26 - 9/30/26 17,199.91 17,199.91 SEP-23-26 Vendor: 80 CALPERS
6333 Aug Retirement- CLASSIC 43,816.01 11,057.57 100000018357048 Aug Retirement- PEPRA 16,512.44 100000018357072Sep UAL 16,246.00 100000018413410 Vendor: 83 CAPTUREPOINT.COM
6334 Community Pass Software 9/1/26-8/31/27 5,100.00 5,100.00 SI-588293 Vendor: 105 CINTAS
6335 Replenish First-Aid Cabinets 173.13 173.13 5359102604 Vendor: 121 SCA OF CA, LLC
6336 Aug Litter/Street Clean 2,095.00 2,095.00 CA0946027 Vendor: 124 COMCAST
6337 WIFI-9.16.2026-10.15.2026 534.99 534.99 7290-SEP26 Vendor: 203 GREEN HALO SYSTEMS
6338 Sept Hosting & Access 114.00 114.00 6809
Vendor: 208 HARRELL DESIGN + BUILD
6339 Inspection Fee Refund REC-019045-2026 6/22/26 2,594.77 1,144.77 BLDR0075-2026 2 Planning Desposi Refund REC-018852-2026 4/27/26 1,450.00 BLDR0075-2026 Vendor: 213 HILLYARD INC
6340 Janitorial Supplies 473.74 473.74 90273515
Vendor: 218 MISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT
6341 Deferred Comp - Sept 15, 2026 2,471.47 2,471.47 SEP-202615 20 .
apapdinv2 mmagahiz Town of Portola Valley Page 2
13:57 09/17/26 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 09/23/2026 to 09/23/2026
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice NumberDate Number Amount Invoices Paid
Vendor: 227 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTRL
6342 Street Signs 1,341.76 1,308.95 278313
Street Signs 32.81 278446
Vendor: 295 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES INC
6343 GIS Professional Services in Aug 2026 5,775.00 5,775.00 10729 Vendor: 324 MIRANDAS LANDSCAPE
6344 Aug Landscape Services 3,888.00 3,888.00 3608
Vendor: 330 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS
6345 Navia Benefit 09/15/2026 525.00 525.00 09152026
Vendor: 367 PG&E
6346 PG&E 9-23-26 Stmt 29.08 29.08 SEP-23-26
Vendor: 376 PORTOLA VALLEY HARDWARE
6347 Aug Statement Tools 483.99 483.99 196-AUG26
Vendor: 380 PURCHASE POWER
6348 Postage Meter 502.25 502.25 7931-SEP26
Vendor: 403 RON RAMIES AUTOMOTIVE INC.
6349 Aug Fuel Statement 472.97 472.97 G20260831-2
Vendor: 421 SCOTT WEBER
6350 Reimbursement - Work Boots 119.40 119.40 FRRS-26-5 Vendor: 437 SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TR
6351 Dental/Vision 2,302.50 2,302.50 OCT-2026
Vendor: 445 STANDARD INSURANCE CO.
6352 LTD/Life Premium 543.13 543.13 2026-AUG
Vendor: 448 STATE COMP INSURANCE FUND
6353 Premium Charge Policy Term 9/06/26-10/06/26 2,212.62 2,212.62 1003649203 Vendor: 484 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC
6354 EnerGov Software Tyler University 10/1/26 - 09/30/27 400.00 400.00 CL100-00317412 Vendor: 505 WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR
6355 FY2026-27 Chipper Program 51,031.08 38,568.60 PV-CHIPPER26-27 08/01/26-08/31/26 Fire Mitigation Crew Support 12,462.48 WFPDCREW-202608 21 .
apapdinv2 mmagahiz Town of Portola Valley Page 3
13:57 09/17/26 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 09/23/2026 to 09/23/2026
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice NumberDate Number Amount Invoices Paid
Vendor: 518 GOT GOPHERS?
6356 Town Fields Gopher Trapping- Aug 2026 1,050.00 1,050.00 111148 Vendor: 537 HOUSING ENDOWM. AND REG. TRUST
6357 Affordable Housing HEART 6,066.63 6,066.63 1495
Vendor: 730 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS INC
6358 PV Safety Element Update- Jul 2026 5,388.00 3,388.00 25029-260731 PVHE2 Housing Element Amendments Jul 26 2,000.00 25030-260731 Vendor: 985 CHRIST CHURCH PV & WOODSIDE
6359 Special Event Deposit Refund - Community Hall 1,000.00 1,000.00 PRCH-26-7 Vendor: 1091 BOUCHER LAW, PC
6360 Feb Legal Services 11,020.50 11,020.50 3255
Vendor: 1116 EMBARCADERO MEDIA FOUNDATION
6361 Legal Advertising 1,470.00 1,470.00 86149
Vendor: 1118 STERICYCLE, LNC. DBA SHRED-LT
6362 Paper Shredding Services 134.19 134.19 8015298716
Vendor: 1152 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC
6363 Kleenex Professional Tissue 12 Boxes 29.52 29.52 16PX-37LF-H71W Vendor: 1186 AT&T CORP DBA ACC BUSINESS
6364 ACC Division of AT&T Ethernet/Internet Access Aug Stmt 737.08 737.08 0545220212 Vendor: 1216 WIZIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
6365 Printer 79.79 79.79 643807
Vendor: 1221 ZOTTS LLC
6366 Deposit Refund - Ford Field Rental 100.00 100.00 PROF-26-44 Vendor: 1250 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC
6367 PT Project Manager (Engineering) 2027-PW-01 26,501.00 26,501.00 4525005 Vendor: 1287 SAN MATEO COUNTY DEM
6368 FY26-27 Emergency Services JPA 23,423.00 23,423.00 FY26-27JPA014 Vendor: 1341 CALA
6369 CIP Project Ford Field Restroom & Amenities 11,111.55 11,111.55 26019-4 Vendor: 1370 GARY REYNOLDS
22 .
apapdinv2 mmagahiz Town of Portola Valley Page 4
13:57 09/17/26 Paid Invoices by Date
From: 09/23/2026 to 09/23/2026
Check Check Special Information Net Check Total Invoice NumberDate Number Amount Invoices Paid
09/23/26 6370 Reimbursement Wayside Signs 378.45 378.45 11252025 Vendor: 1371 RICHARD DRISCOLL
6371 Deposit Refund - Parking Lot 100.00 100.00 PROF-26-53 Vendor: 1372 JAMES THOMPSON
6372 Deposit Refund - 20 Ohlone St 3,869.00 3,869.00 BLDR0103-2026 Check Date Totals 247,052.44
Grand Total 247,052.44
23 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 1 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
Fund 101 Dept Balance SheetCALPERS 101-21032-000-000000 Aug Retirement- 11,057.57 6333 09/23/26

CLASSIC
CALPERS 101-21032-000-000000 Aug Retirement- 16,512.44 6333 09/23/26 PEPRA
CHRIST CHURCH PV & WOODSIDE 101-21052-000-000000 Special Event 1,000.00 6359 09/23/26 Deposit Refund - Community HallMISSIONSQUARE RETIREMENT 101-21036-000-000000 Deferred Comp - 2,471.47 6341 09/23/26 Sept 15, 2026
NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 101-21033-000-000000 Navia Benefit 525.00 6345 09/23/26 09/15/2026
RICHARD DRISCOLL 101-21052-000-000000 Deposit Refund - 100.00 6371 09/23/26 Parking Lot ZOTTS LLC 101-21052-000-000000 Deposit Refund - 100.00 6366 09/23/26 Ford Field Rental --------------
Fund 101 Dept Total 31,766.48
Fund 101 Dept 115 Town CommitteesBANK OF AMERICA 101-63208-115-000000 Aug Credit Card 4,623.88 6331 09/23/26 Statement
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 115 Total 4,623.88
Fund 101 Dept 120 Town ManagerBANK OF AMERICA 101-65012-120-000000 Aug Credit Card 750.00 6331 09/23/26 Statement
101-65014-120-000000 299.00 6331 09/23/26
SMALL BUSINESS BENEFIT PLAN TR 101-55024-120-000000 Dental/Vision 2,302.50 6351 09/23/26 STANDARD INSURANCE CO. 101-55031-120-000000 LTD/Life Premium 543.13 6352 09/23/26STATE COMP INSURANCE FUND 101-55033-120-000000 Premium Charge 2,212.62 6353 09/23/26 Policy Term 9/06/26-10/06/26
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 120 Total 6,107.25
Fund 101 Dept 125 Town AttorneyBOUCHER LAW, PC 101-62052-125-000000 Feb Legal Services 11,020.50 6360 09/23/26 --------------
Fund 101 Dept 125 Total 11,020.50
24 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 2 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
Fund 101 Dept 140 FinanceBANK OF AMERICA 101-65012-140-000000 Aug Credit Card 200.00 6331 09/23/26 Statement
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 140 Total 200.00
Fund 101 Dept 220 Fire ServicesWOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR 101-62208-220-000000 FY2026-27 Chipper 38,568.60 6355 09/23/26 Program
WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTR 101-62208-220-000000 08/01/26-08/31/26 12,462.48 6355 09/23/26 Fire MitigationCrew Support
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 220 Total 51,031.08
Fund 101 Dept 310 Planning DivisionLYNX TECHNOLOGIES INC 101-62305-310-000000 GIS Professional 5,775.00 6343 09/23/26 Services in Aug 2026
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 101-62305-310-000000 EnerGov Software 200.00 6354 09/23/26 Tyler University10/1/26 - 09/30/27
URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS INC 101-62099-310-000000 PV Safety Element 3,388.00 6358 09/23/26 Update- Jul 2026
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 310 Total 9,363.00
Fund 101 Dept 320 Building DivisionGREEN HALO SYSTEMS 101-62305-320-000000 Sept Hosting & 114.00 6338 09/23/26 Access
HARRELL DESIGN + BUILD 101-43012-320-000000 Inspection Fee 1,144.77 6339 09/23/26 RefundREC-019045-20266/22/26
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 101-62305-320-000000 EnerGov Software 200.00 6354 09/23/26 Tyler University10/1/26 - 09/30/27
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 320 Total 1,458.77
Fund 101 Dept 410 Community Hall
25 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 3 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
BANK OF AMERICA 101-61051-410-000000 Aug Credit Card 395.17 6331 09/23/26 Statement
CAPTUREPOINT.COM 101-62305-410-000000 Community Pass 5,100.00 6334 09/23/26 Software9/1/26-8/31/27
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 410 Total 5,495.17
Fund 101 Dept 420 Field RentalsGOT GOPHERS? 101-61055-420-000000 Town Fields Gopher 1,050.00 6356 09/23/26 Trapping- Aug 2026MIRANDAS LANDSCAPE 101-61055-420-000000 Aug Landscape 3,888.00 6344 09/23/26 Services --------------
Fund 101 Dept 420 Total 4,938.00
Fund 101 Dept 510 Public WorksHILLYARD INC 101-62011-510-000000 Janitorial Supplies 473.74 6340 09/23/26 INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 101-62037-510-000000 PT Project Manager 14,920.50 6367 09/23/26 (Engineering) 2027-PW-01
PORTOLA VALLEY HARDWARE 101-62014-510-000000 Aug Statement Tools 483.99 6347 09/23/26RON RAMIES AUTOMOTIVE INC. 101-61081-510-000000 Aug Fuel Statement 472.97 6349 09/23/26SCOTT WEBER 101-62014-510-000000 Reimbursement - 119.40 6350 09/23/26 Work Boots
--------------
Fund 101 Dept 510 Total 16,470.60
Fund 101 Dept 610 Non-DepartmentalAMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC 101-62301-610-000000 Kleenex 29.52 6363 09/23/26 Professional Tissue12 Boxes
AT&T 101-62021-610-000000 Aug Statement 58.80 6330 09/23/26 AT&T 101-62021-610-000000 Aug Statement 175.35 6330 09/23/26AT&T 101-62021-610-000000 Aug Statement 58.80 6330 09/23/26 AT&T CORP DBA ACC BUSINESS 101-62021-610-000000 ACC Division of 737.08 6364 09/23/26 AT&TEthernet/InternetAccess Aug Stmt
BANK OF AMERICA 101-62305-610-000000 Aug Credit Card 2,249.58 6331 09/23/26 Statement
101-62308-610-000000 62.59 6331 09/23/26101-62399-610-000000 86.00 6331 09/23/26 26 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 4 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
BANK OF AMERICA 101-62399-610-000000 Aug Credit Card 777.56 6331 09/23/26 Statement
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 101-62023-610-000000 Water Service 5,914.42 6332 09/23/26 8/13/26 - 9/10/26,9/1/26 - 9/30/26
101-62023-610-000000 51.42 6332 09/23/26101-62023-610-000000 1,658.88 6332 09/23/26101-62023-610-000000 578.46 6332 09/23/26 101-62023-610-000000 6,489.57 6332 09/23/26
101-62023-610-000000 44.17 6332 09/23/26101-62023-610-000000 409.08 6332 09/23/26 CALPERS 101-55011-610-000000 Sep UAL 16,246.00 6333 09/23/26 CINTAS 101-62301-610-000000 Replenish First-Aid 173.13 6335 09/23/26 CabinetsCOMCAST 101-62021-610-000000 WIFI-9.16.2026-10.1 534.99 6337 09/23/26 .2026
EMBARCADERO MEDIA FOUNDATION 101-62309-610-000000 Legal Advertising 1,470.00 6361 09/23/26PG&E 101-62022-610-000000 PG&E 9-23-26 Stmt 14.54 6346 09/23/26 101-62022-610-000000 14.54 6346 09/23/26
PURCHASE POWER 101-62308-610-000000 Postage Meter 502.25 6348 09/23/26SAN MATEO COUNTY DEM 101-62206-610-000000 FY26-27 Emergency 23,423.00 6368 09/23/26 Services JPASTERICYCLE, LNC. DBA SHRED-LT 101-62301-610-000000 Paper Shredding 134.19 6362 09/23/26 ServicesWIZIX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC. 101-62301-610-000000 Printer 79.79 6365 09/23/26 --------------
Fund 101 Dept 610 Total 61,973.71
--------------
Fund 101 Total 204,448.44
Fund 205 Dept 510 Public WorksBANK OF AMERICA 205-62011-510-000000 Aug Credit Card 395.17 6331 09/23/26 Statement
CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE CO 205-62023-510-000000 Water Service 14.83 6332 09/23/26 8/13/26 - 9/10/26,9/1/26 - 9/30/26
205-62023-510-000000 166.88 6332 09/23/26205-62023-510-000000 1,872.20 6332 09/23/26 --------------
Fund 205 Dept 510 Total 2,449.08
--------------
Fund 205 Total 2,449.08
27 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 5 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
Fund 206 Dept 510 Public WorksINTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTRL 206-61013-510-000000 Street Signs 820.31 6342 09/23/26 206-61013-510-000000 59.06 6342 09/23/26206-61013-510-000000 36.10 6342 09/23/26206-61013-510-000000 214.38 6342 09/23/26 206-61013-510-000000 135.35 6342 09/23/26206-61013-510-000000 43.75 6342 09/23/26 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CNTRL 206-61013-510-000000 Street Signs 32.81 6342 09/23/26 SCA OF CA, LLC 206-61012-510-000000 Aug Litter/Street 900.00 6336 09/23/26 Clean
--------------
Fund 206 Dept 510 Total 2,241.76
Fund 206 Dept 710 Roads & Right-of-WayINTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 206-74011-710-RESURF PT Project Manager 2,948.70 6367 09/23/26 (Engineering) 2027-PW-01
--------------
Fund 206 Dept 710 Total 2,948.70
--------------
Fund 206 Total 5,190.46
Fund 212 Dept 510 Public WorksSCA OF CA, LLC 212-61017-510-000000 Aug Litter/Street 1,195.00 6336 09/23/26 Clean
--------------
Fund 212 Dept 510 Total 1,195.00
--------------
Fund 212 Total 1,195.00
Fund 221 Dept 720 Parks & FieldsCALA 221-72011-720-FFBATH CIP Project Ford 11,111.55 6369 09/23/26 Field Restroom & Amenities
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 221-72011-720-FFBATH PT Project Manager 226.00 6367 09/23/26 (Engineering) 2027-PW-01
28 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 6 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
--------------
Fund 221 Dept 720 Total 11,337.55
--------------
Fund 221 Total 11,337.55
Fund 222 Dept 310 Planning DivisionHOUSING ENDOWM. AND REG. TRUST 222-62099-310 Affordable Housing 6,066.63 6357 09/23/26 HEART
URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS INC 222-62099-310 PVHE2 Housing 2,000.00 6358 09/23/26 Element AmendmentsJul 26
--------------
Fund 222 Dept 310 Total 8,066.63
--------------
Fund 222 Total 8,066.63
Fund 401 Dept 710 Roads & Right-of-WayARC DOCUMENT SOLUTIONS LLC 401-74011-710-000000 FY25-26 ST 262.03 6329 09/23/26 Resurfacing SmartScan Fees
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 401-74011-710-RESURF PT Project Manager 6,880.30 6367 09/23/26 (Engineering) 2027-PW-01
--------------
Fund 401 Dept 710 Total 7,142.33
Fund 401 Dept 715 TrailsINTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 401-72011-715-VOTRBR PT Project Manager 395.50 6367 09/23/26 (Engineering) 2027-PW-01
--------------
Fund 401 Dept 715 Total 395.50
--------------
Fund 401 Total 7,537.83
Fund 504 Dept 620 Road Maintenance Districts
29 apackfnd2 Town of Portola Valley mmagahiz 09/17/2026 13:57 Page 7 Checks by Fund - 09/23/26 to 09/23/26
Vendor Name Account Invoice Invoice Amount Check Check
Compressed Description Number Date
Formatted
GARY REYNOLDS 504-62311-620 Reimbursement 378.45 6370 09/23/26 Wayside Signs
--------------
Fund 504 Dept 620 Total 378.45
--------------
Fund 504 Total 378.45
Fund 701 Dept 340 Customer DepositsHARRELL DESIGN + BUILD 701-43041-340 Planning Desposi 1,450.00 6339 09/23/26 RefundREC-018852-20264/27/26
INTERWEST CONSULTING GROUP INC 701-62038-340 PT Project Manager 1,130.00 6367 09/23/26 (Engineering) 2027-PW-01
JAMES THOMPSON 701-43041-340 Deposit Refund - 20 3,869.00 6372 09/23/26 Ohlone St
--------------
Fund 701 Dept 340 Total 6,449.00
--------------
Fund 701 Total 6,449.00
--------------
**** Grand Total 247,052.44
* * * End of Report * * *
30 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Darcy Smith, Town Manager
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: Approve the Town of Portola Valley’s Response Letter to the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Town Council approve the Town of Portola Valley’s Response Letter to the 2025- 2026 Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter and the Town Manager to transmit the Town’s response in accordance with the Court’s filing requirements by: (1) mailing the signed original on Town letterhead to the Hon. Rachel Holt, Judge of the Superior Court; (2) emailing a copy to the Civil Grand Jury at [email protected]; and (3) filing a copy with the Town Clerk.

BACKGROUND
In California, civil grand juries are authorized to “examine the books and records of any incorporated city or joint powers agency located in the county. In addition to any other investigatory powers granted by this chapter, the grand jury may investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.” (California Penal Code section 925a). Within 90 days after the grand jury submits a report regarding the operations of any public agency, the “governing body of the public agency shall comment to the presiding judge of the superior court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body...” (California Penal Code section 933(c)).

On August 3, 2026, the San Mateo County 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury released a report entitled “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” (“Report”). The Report is provided as Attachment 1. The purpose of the Report is to examine whether Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) operators in San Mateo County are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies. California has enacted legislation governing the use of ALPR systems, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and limitations on data sharing. The primary statutory framework was enacted by Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) (Stats. 2015, Ch. 532), codified at Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55.

The Grand Jury requests written responses from the Town Council for Report Findings F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, and F9 and Recommendations R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, and R9. By law, responses must be submitted within 90 days — no later than November 2, 2026 — and must meet the following requirements:

For all findings made by the Grand Jury, the Town is required to indicate one of the following:

1. The respondent agrees with the

2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall 31 specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons, therefor.

Additionally, as to the Civil Grand Jury recommendations, the Town must report one of the following actions by responding in one of the specified manners indicated below:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.

2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation.

3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a time frame for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or director of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This time frame shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the Grand Jury report.

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation, therefor.

DISCUSSION
The Report’s ALPR camera inventory lists Portola Valley among the jurisdictions covered by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office’s (“SMCSO”) 109-camera ALPR deployment, noting that the total “includes unincorporated SMC (except Broadmoor), Portola Valley, San Carlos and Millbrae.” Town staff consulted with SMCSO regarding this listing. SMCSO has confirmed that SMCSO does not operate any ALPR cameras physically sited within Portola Valley’s Town boundaries. The nearest SMCSO ALPR cameras are located outside Town limits on Alpine Road and Portola Road. It therefore appears the Report may be grouping Portola Valley together with jurisdictions that do have SMCSO-operated ALPR cameras, when in fact Portola Valley’s circumstance is distinct: the Town receives contracted law enforcement services from SMCSO but has no ALPR camera infrastructure of its own within Town limits.

Because the Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR technology, ALPR policy, or vendor contract, the six findings and six recommendations directed to the Town Council (F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 and R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9) concern the ALPR program operated by SMCSO rather than any Townoperated program. San Mateo County Sheriff Ken Binder is separately named as a respondent to this identical set of findings and recommendations (Report, p. 18). Accordingly, the Town’s response letter states that the Town does not own or operate ALPR technology, that these findings and recommendations concern SMCSO’s program, and that the Town defers to SMCSO’s response and implementation on matters within SMCSO’s operational control.

Town staff prepared a response letter to the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury Report containing the Town’s responses to each of the Report’s findings and recommendations applicable to the Town. The purpose of this consent calendar agenda item is for the Town Council to approve the Town of Portola Valley’s Response Letter to the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter, and the Town Manager to transmit the letter to the required parties in accordance with the Court’s filing requirements. Council consideration of this item on September 23, 2026 ensures the Town’s response will be filed well in advance of the Grand Jury’s November 2, 2026 deadline.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Town is not expected to incur any fiscal impact from responding to the findings and recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Civil Grand Jury Report

2. Town's Draft Response Letter
32 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 1 Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras
Properly Tended?
San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury
2025-2026
Release Date: August 3, 2026
33 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 2 ISSUE | SUMMARY | BACKGROUND | METHODOLOGY | DISCUSSION | FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS | REQUEST FOR RESPONSES | RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS | BIBLIOGRAPHY | APPENDIX
ISSUE
Over the past year, Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) have come under increasing public scrutiny. This report examines whether ALPR operators in San Mateo County (SMC) are in full compliance with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies.

SUMMARY
Automated License Plate Readers have become widely deployed in SMC, with more than 500 cameras now in operation by law enforcement agencies (LEAs) within the County. The rapid increase in ALPR deployment has been accompanied by California legislation governing ALPR use, and also by increased media coverage of alleged violations. Over the past year, SMC LEAs have made notable operational improvements, particularly with respect to out-of-state data sharing. Most changes were driven by stronger default compliance made by Flock Safety (Flock), now the dominant ALPR platform among the SMC operators reviewed. But SMC ALPR operators continue to have many of the same operational deficiencies identified by a 2019 California State Audit that investigated four operators elsewhere in California. Many of the required policy documents are deficient or need significant revision to accurately reflect current operations, and audit materials produced were inconsistent in scope and rigor. Although the materials reviewed did not identify current sharing by SMC operators with out-of-state entities, most operators did not document criteria, process, or controls governing in-state sharing in a manner sufficient to demonstrate compliance with law. This report presents findings and recommendations to promote transparent operation of ALPR systems consistent with public safety, privacy, and applicable law.

BACKGROUND
Automated License Plate Readers
Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) are camera-based systems that automatically capture and analyze license plates on passing vehicles. Cameras are typically located at fixed roadside locations along high-traffic corridors, major intersections, city entry/exit routes, areas with high crime rates, and transportation infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, freeways). These systems combine high-speed cameras, infrared illumination, and optical character recognition software to convert license plate images into searchable digital data. Law enforcement agencies use ALPR systems to locate stolen vehicles, identify vehicles connected to criminal investigations, generate investigative leads, and assist in locating missing persons. When connected through regional or national networks, ALPR systems allow investigators to reconstruct vehicle movements across jurisdictions.

Digital imaging, optical character recognition, and large-scale data storage allow ALPR systems to process large numbers of license plates quickly and automatically. Modern systems can read thousands of plates per hour and store the results in databases that investigators can search later.

When a motor vehicle is detected by an ALPR as it passes through the camera's field of view, a digital record is generated recording the vehicle's license plate number, an image of the plate, a 34 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 3 contextual image of the vehicle (make, model, color, etc.), the date and time of the scan, the location of the camera, and the identification number of the camera device. Once the image is captured, the digital record is immediately transmitted to a cloud-based database that compares the scanned license plate and other vehicle data against law enforcement watch lists, often referred to as “hot lists,” that may include information on vehicles that have been reported stolen, those associated with criminal investigations, outstanding warrants, or connected to missing persons or Amber Alerts.

When a match occurs, the system can send an alert to officers or dispatch centers in real time.

ALPR cameras are usually deployed as part of a network such that when the same vehicle is detected by multiple cameras, investigators can analyze those detections to determine travel routes and timelines. By default, only data captured by cameras within that local jurisdiction are available.

LEAs typically elect to contribute their data to regional databases or multi-jurisdictional systems that allow sharing across multiple cities, counties, or states. The ability to share data among multiple jurisdictions is more effective in assisting law enforcement in their investigations as suspects rarely limit their travel within a single jurisdiction.

As of March 30, 2026, more than 582 ALPR cameras were deployed across SMC. These cameras are operated by municipal police departments within their respective jurisdictions and by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (SMCSO) in unincorporated areas and in jurisdictions where the Sheriff provides contracted law enforcement services. The only police department in SMC with no ALPR cameras is Broadmoor.

Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
Atherton 53 Earliest in SMC, 2020.

Belmont 10
Brisbane 16
Burlingame 18
Colma 11
Daly City 44
East Palo Alto 25
Foster City 20
Half Moon Bay 14 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO.

Hillsborough 22
Menlo Park 32
Pacifica 10
Redwood City 25
San Bruno 54
San Mateo 66
35 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 4 Operator Cameras as of
3/30/2026
Comments
San Mateo County Sheriff's
Office
109 Includes unincorporated SMC (except
Broadmoor), Portola Valley, San Carlos
and Millbrae.

South San Francisco 37
Woodside 26 Separate Flock contract, operated by
SMCSO
Key Issue
ALPRs and the sharing of image data across jurisdictional lines have created controversy with respect to issues of privacy. While not the focus of this report, some civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that vehicle tracking could affect freedom of association if it reveals attendance at protests, political meetings, or religious gatherings (First Amendment).

Others, including the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) question whether large-scale tracking of vehicle locations over time could constitute a search under constitutional law (Fourth Amendment).

While the focus of this report is not to investigate the constitutional issues surrounding ALPRs, data sharing among law enforcement agencies has become a significant public concern and has, in some communities, resulted in the suspension or termination of ALPR programs. Although no such actions have occurred in SMC, several Bay Area jurisdictions—including Mountain View, Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, and Santa Cruz—have discontinued their use of ALPR systems.

This report evaluates, based on records obtained during the investigation, whether SMC LEAs satisfy California law governing the use of ALPR systems and the sharing of ALPR data. Civil Code section 1798.90.51 requires APLR operators to implement and publicly post a usage and privacy policy. This report also evaluates whether the policies produced accurately describe actual operations.

Legislative Framework
California has enacted legislation governing the use of ALPR systems, with a focus on transparency, accountability, and limitations on data sharing. The primary statutory framework was enacted by Senate Bill 34 (SB 34) (Stats. 2015, Ch. 532), codified at Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55.

Effective January 1, 2016, SB 34 imposes requirements governing the collection, storage, access, and sharing of ALPR data. SB 34 applies to both operators of ALPR systems and entities that access ALPR data. Among other requirements, ALPR operators must adopt written usage policies, maintain detailed audit logs, implement reasonable security measures, and provide an opportunity for public comment prior to implementing an ALPR program. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance on SB 34 in Information Bulletin No. 2023-DLE-06.

In addition to SB 34, Senate Bill 54 (SB 54) (Stats. 2017, Ch. 495), known as the California Values Act (Gov. Code § 7284 et seq.) restricts the use of state and local law enforcement resources for 36 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 5 federal immigration enforcement purposes. SB 54 limits the sharing of certain information with federal immigration authorities and reinforces the principle that local law enforcement data systems, including ALPR databases, must not be used in a manner inconsistent with California law. The California Department of Justice has issued guidance clarifying these restrictions in Information Bulletin No. 2025-DLE-08.

In 2025, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 274, which would have imposed additional restrictions and oversight. The bill proposed limiting retention periods for non-matching records and expanding state-level review of ALPR use. However, SB 274 was vetoed by Governor Gavin Newsom, who concluded that SB 274 did “not strike the delicate balance between protecting individual privacy and ensuring public safety,... particularly with respect to cold cases.” Collectively, these statutes establish a legal framework that emphasizes transparency, accountability, and restricted data sharing, while placing primary responsibility for compliance on individual law enforcement agencies.

Data Sharing and Side-Sharing
The effectiveness of ALPR systems depends in large part on the ability of LEAs to share data across jurisdictions. Within most ALPR platforms, each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks that govern both system configuration and data sharing. Agencies may control which other agencies can discover their networks and whether access requests are automatically approved or require explicit authorization. Once access is granted, authorized users from another agency may query shared ALPR data without further approval.

While this model enhances investigative capability—particularly in cases involving vehicles that travel across jurisdictional boundaries—it also places responsibility on each agency to ensure that data sharing practices comply with California law. Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b) provides that a public agency shall not sell, share, or transfer ALPR information, except to another public agency, and only as otherwise permitted by law. The SMCCGJ found that data sharing practices vary widely among agencies, with some limiting access to nearby jurisdictions and others permitting broad sharing within the state. The decentralized nature of these sharing controls creates a structural risk:
compliance with California law depends not on system-enforced restrictions, but on how individual agencies configure and manage their networks. As a result, even where written policies are compliant, system configurations may permit data sharing practices that are inconsistent with statutory requirements. In general, as the size of a network increases and more law enforcement agencies are granted access, the risk of misuse correspondingly increases.

A related concern is the practice commonly referred to as “side-sharing.” For purposes of this report, “side-sharing” refers to the practice in which a California ALPR operator conducts a network query on behalf of an organization that is not authorized to access the data directly—typically an out-ofstate or federal agency—and then provides the results outside of the ALPR system. In such cases, audit records reflect that the query was initiated and used by a California agency, when in fact the request originated from, and the results were delivered to, an external entity.

Because the ALPR audit logs reviewed by the SMCCGJ record only the identity of the querying agency and do not capture the ultimate recipient of the data, side-sharing is inherently difficult to detect. Activity that appears compliant on its face may, in fact, circumvent the restrictions imposed by California law, including limitations on sharing ALPR data with entities outside the state. 37 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 6 Side-sharing may involve attempts to access ALPR data outside of established sharing arrangements, including by law enforcement personnel who do not have authorized access. For example, a federal immigration agency may seek to obtain ALPR data from a California jurisdiction in a manner inconsistent with the restrictions imposed by SB 54. Such access could be facilitated by directly contacting personnel within a California LEA and requesting that they conduct an ALPR query on behalf of the external agency.

This issue has been the subject of media reporting and public concern, although verification in specific instances is challenging due to the limitations of available audit data. Media coverage of public statements by certain law enforcement officials has further highlighted the potential risk.

The SMCCGJ found that existing controls to prevent or detect improper data sharing, including sidesharing, are limited. While the ALPR platform provides audit logs, role-based access controls, and, more recently, anomaly detection tools, these features rely on agency-level oversight and do not provide a comprehensive or system-enforced safeguard. There is no centralized mechanism to prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of an unauthorized entity or to ensure that query results are used solely for authorized purposes.

As a result, compliance with California law in this area depends largely on the policies, training, and oversight practices of individual agencies. In the absence of stronger technical controls or more robust audit capabilities, the risk of unauthorized data access—whether through misconfiguration or side-sharing—remains a significant concern.

Flock Safety
Flock Safety is the largest provider of ALPR systems in the United States and the primary provider of ALPR systems used by LEAs in SMC. The company provides both the physical camera infrastructure and a cloud-based software platform that enables agencies to collect, store, search, and share vehicle detection data. This represents a significant market shift from Vigilant Solutions, who was the most common provider in 2019.

Note that while nearly all ALPR cameras in SMC are provided by Flock, Pacifica also operates 4 Axon mobile cameras that were not investigated by SMCCGJ. Also, ALPR data collected by Flock cameras may also be forwarded to intelligence fusion systems that include other types of surveillance data. Some SMC LEAs use C3.ai, and SMC has recently funded a pilot with Peregrine Systems. These systems are capable of sharing data among agencies and across state boundaries but were not investigated by SMCCGJ and have not received wide media attention.

Flock cameras are typically installed at fixed locations such as major intersections, highways, and entry or exit points to a community. These cameras do not continuously track vehicles; rather, they capture individual “snapshots” or detections as vehicles pass through a camera’s field of view. Each detection includes a license plate number, vehicle characteristics (such as make, color, and body type), and metadata including the date, time, and location of the observation.

This information is transmitted to Flock’s cloud-based platform, where it is indexed and made searchable. Authorized users access the system through a web-based interface, allowing them to query historical detections or monitor real-time alerts. For example, agencies may create “hotlists” of vehicles of interest—such as stolen vehicles or those associated with criminal investigations— which trigger notifications when detected by any connected camera. 38 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 7 A key feature of the system is its ability to aggregate data across multiple cameras and jurisdictions.

While a single camera provides only a point-in-time observation, multiple detections across different locations can allow investigators to infer travel patterns or identify a vehicle’s movement over time.

All user activity—including searches, alerts, and administrative actions—is recorded in audit logs.

These logs are intended to support oversight and accountability by providing a record of how the system is used. Although Flock hosts the data and provides the technical infrastructure, each customer agency retains control over its own data and is responsible for determining who may access it and under what conditions.

Data Sharing Framework
A defining feature of the Flock platform is its ability to facilitate data sharing among law enforcement agencies. This capability is implemented through a system of configurable “Networks,” which function as both administrative groupings and sharing mechanisms. Each agency organizes its cameras into one or more networks and determines whether those networks are visible to other agencies within the platform. When a network is made visible, other agencies may discover it— typically through a map-based interface—and request access.

These access requests are routed to a designated administrator within the owning agency. Depending on how the system is configured, the administrator may review and approve each request individually, or the system may automatically approve requests based on predefined criteria. Once access is granted, users from the approved agency can query the shared data directly, without needing to request permission for each individual search.

This model allows investigators to search for vehicles across jurisdictional boundaries, which can be particularly useful in cases involving regional travel or coordinated criminal activity. At the same time, it introduces complexity, as each agency must determine which other agencies should be granted access and under what conditions.

Agencies can limit sharing in several ways, including restricting access to specific agencies, geographic regions, or operational groupings. Importantly, sharing permissions are not transitive: if Agency A shares data with Agency B, and Agency B shares data with Agency C, Agency C does not automatically gain access to Agency A’s data.

Private entities, such as commercial businesses or homeowners’ associations, participate in the system differently. Their cameras are not visible within the shared network interface, and they do not independently request access to law enforcement data. Instead, data from private cameras is typically shared directly with local LEAs through arrangements managed with Flock outside the standard user interface.

While this network-based architecture enables collaboration and enhances investigative capabilities, it also places primary responsibility on each agency to manage its sharing relationships in a manner consistent with applicable laws and local policy.

Concerns
Beginning in 2025, a number of media reports and public records analyses brought increased attention to the use of ALPR systems, particularly with respect to how data was being shared among law enforcement agencies. These reports identified instances in which California agencies had configured their systems in a manner that allowed access to ALPR data by out-of-state entities, a practice inconsistent with California law.
39 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 8 Within SMC, the Menlo Park Police Department acknowledged prior instances in which ALPR data had been shared across state lines. Similar issues were identified in other jurisdictions throughout California, suggesting that these were not isolated occurrences but rather reflected broader challenges in how the systems were configured and used.

In addition to concerns regarding system configuration, analysis of audit data highlighted issues related to how queries were conducted and documented. In some cases, users entered generalized descriptions such as “Investigation,”1 without specifying a particular law enforcement purpose.

While such entries are not necessarily improper, they limit the ability of agencies, auditors, and the public to determine whether queries were conducted for authorized purposes.

Taken together, these findings raised questions not only about compliance with legal requirements, but also about the adequacy of system controls and oversight mechanisms. They also underscored the degree to which proper use of the system depends on both technical configuration and user behavior.

System Controls and Vendor Response
In response to these concerns, Flock implemented a series of changes beginning in 2025, aimed at reducing the likelihood of improper data sharing and improving the ability of agencies to monitor system use. These changes reflect a shift from a system that relied heavily on user discretion to one that incorporates more structured controls and constraints.

One of the most significant changes involved restrictions on data sharing across state lines. Prior to 2025, agencies had broad discretion to configure sharing relationships, including the ability to enable “Nationwide” access or establish direct connections with out-of-state agencies. Although such configurations were inconsistent with California law, they were technically permitted within the system.

To address this issue, Flock implemented a phased set of changes. Nationwide sharing was first disabled by default in February 2025 and then permanently removed in March 2025, eliminating the ability for California agencies to broadly expose their data to agencies outside the state. In June 2025, Flock further restricted sharing by disabling the ability to create new out-of-state sharing relationships.

Importantly, these changes did not automatically terminate existing shared relationships. Instead, Flock undertook a process of customer outreach and education, encouraging agencies to review and modify their configurations. As a result, most agencies voluntarily discontinued such arrangements, although some pre-existing relationships remain subject to ongoing legal proceedings. As of this writing, the City of El Cajon is the only California agency with ALPR network sharing relationships extending outside the state. In October 2025, the California Attorney General filed an action against El Cajon alleging non-compliance with SB 34; the case is currently in litigation.

In addition to changes in sharing controls, Flock introduced enhancements aimed at improving how system use is documented and monitored. Historically, users were able to enter free-form text to 1 Analysis done by the SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the “Reason” for performing the query. 40 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 9 describe the purpose of a query in a “Reason” field. In practice, this resulted in inconsistent and often vague entries2, limiting the effectiveness of audit review.

In December 2025, Flock augmented this approach by requiring users to select an “Offense Type” from a standardized list3based on National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) codes.

Within California, categories inconsistent with SB 54 are disabled. This change provides a more consistent framework for documenting queries and enables more meaningful analysis of system use.

Many agencies have supplemented this requirement by mandating the entry of a case number, linking each query to a specific investigation. This case number is useful for auditing queries within a department but is ineffective for analysis of network queries as LEAs in California do not share a common case management system.

Flock also expanded its audit and monitoring capabilities. Audit logs continue to record all user activity, but additional tools have been introduced to support review. Activity logs track changes to system configuration, including modifications to sharing settings, while the Transparency Portal allows agencies to publish usage statistics and audit summaries.

In April 2026, Flock introduced “Audit Assistance,” an automated tool that analyzes system activity and identifies patterns that deviate from an agency’s typical usage. These alerts are intended to assist administrators in identifying potential misuse, including unusual query patterns or activity that may warrant further review (side-sharing).

Additional controls have been implemented to restrict system access and reinforce appropriate use.

These include limitations on “guest” users outside the agency’s domain and role-based access controls that allow agencies to tailor system permissions based on user responsibilities. Flock’s terms of service also prohibit use of the system on behalf of unauthorized individuals or agencies.

While these changes represent meaningful improvements, they are primarily designed to support and guide user behavior rather than to enforce compliance directly. As such, their effectiveness depends on how agencies configure and use the system.

Training and Compliance Support
Flock provides training on system operation, legal use, and compliance requirements as part of its onboarding process. Agencies may supplement this training with local policies, procedures, and internal controls tailored to their operational environment. While these resources support compliance, they do not substitute for agency responsibility to ensure that system use is consistent with applicable laws and policies.

Remaining Limitations
Notwithstanding these enhancements, important limitations remain in the system’s ability to prevent or detect improper use.

First, while audit logs provide a record of which agency conducted a query and when it occurred, they do not capture how the resulting information is ultimately used or shared. This means that even 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. Numeric strings typically correspond to sections of California penal code, but many LEA’s listed a crime category such as “theft” or “burglary”.

The SMCCGJ found no accepted usage of the “Reason” field across or even within LEAs. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. 41 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 10 where a query appears appropriate on its face, there is no direct way to determine whether the results were subsequently provided to an unauthorized party.

Second, the system does not technically prevent a user from conducting a query on behalf of another individual or agency (side-sharing). Although such conduct may violate policy or law, it is not inherently detectable through system controls alone. As a result, certain forms of misuse— particularly those involving indirect access—are difficult to identify through audit data.

Finally, the effectiveness of audit and monitoring tools depend on active review by agency personnel. Identifying potential issues requires not only access to audit data but also the time, expertise, and judgment to interpret that data. This introduces variability in how different agencies monitor system use and respond to potential concerns.

These limitations illustrate that, while system-level controls can reduce risk, they cannot fully eliminate it. Effective oversight requires a combination of technical controls, clear policies, and consistent enforcement.

Conclusion
Flock has implemented a number of substantive changes to its platform in response to concerns regarding data sharing and legal compliance. These changes have improved transparency, standardized key aspects of system use, and provided agencies with additional tools to monitor activity.

At the same time, the system continues to rely heavily on agency-level decisions regarding configuration, access, and oversight. Certain risks—particularly those associated with indirect or unauthorized use—cannot be fully mitigated through system design alone.

As a result, responsibility for ensuring compliance with Civil Code sections 1798.90.5 through 1798.90.55 ultimately rests with each individual law enforcement agency. The effectiveness of the system, therefore, depends not only on the capabilities of the technology but also on how it is implemented and governed at the local level.

METHODOLOGY
To determine whether ALPR operators in SMC comply with applicable California law and whether their practices align with their adopted ALPR policies, the SMCCGJ began by reviewing the content available on the public websites of each LEA in the County. Most LEA websites include information regarding ALPR usage and transparency, often with a link to the agency’s Flock Transparency Portal, which is maintained by Flock on behalf of its customers.

The SMCCGJ issued document requests to all ALPR operators in SMC, seeking ALPR policies, recent audit reports, current Flock contracts, and any supporting documentation demonstrating compliance with California law and agency policy. Findings based on nonproduction reflect the absence of responsive records produced to the SMCCGJ, not a conclusive determination that no responsive record exists.

The SMCCGJ was able to identify an ALPR policy document for every SMC ALPR operator, which guided the examination of compliance with that policy. For some operators we were provided an organization audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated within that LEA. The organization audit was visually reviewed in a spreadsheet, which is feasible for what is at most a few hundred rows. Some operators provided a network audit report, which lists all ALPR queries initiated by 42 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 11 other Flock customers on that operator’s data. As the network audit report can be quite large (upwards of 25,000/month), analysis of this data was carried out by first loading it into a database.4 The SMCCGJ examined network sharing reports from the operators that provided them. This information is also publicly available through Flock Safety’s Transparency Portal. The network sharing reports identify the agencies and entities with which each operator shares ALPR data.

The SMCCGJ conducted interviews with several LEAs in SMC, with representatives of Flock, and with the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center (NCRIC).The SMCCGJ collected media reports related to ALPR implementations in SMC, in the state of California, and nationwide.

DISCUSSION
Public Interest
Issues related to the use of ALPR systems have received significant public attention in both SMC and throughout California. Several communities within the County have debated canceling their ALPR contracts or exploring alternative provider. As of this date, all have decided to continue operations with Flock. An article on ALPR usage published by Palo Alto Online on December 29, 2025, was the publication’s most-downloaded article of the year.

For the general public, it can be difficult to determine the root cause of security breaches reported in the media. Coverage has variously attributed these incidents to product design limitations, accidental or intentional misconfiguration, and inadequate operator training. As discussed earlier in this report, ALPR system functionality has evolved in response to public concerns, with enhancements intended to facilitate compliance with applicable laws.

Sharing Within San Mateo County
This investigation found that the extent of data sharing among SMC ALPR operators varies significantly, with the number of network sharing relationships ranging from three in Woodside to 335 in San Bruno. During the course of this investigation, one SMC operator reduced the scope of their network sharing after evaluating the public safety value of broader data access against local privacy considerations. Some LEAs felt that broad access was valuable in addressing the pattern of crimes committed in their community. Others felt that sharing too broadly would not solve more crimes and could risk losing the support of their local community.

As of December 2025, no SMC operators were found to be sharing ALPR data with entities outside California. The investigation did identify instances in which SMC operators shared ALPR data with private organizations, specifically security agencies serving Stanford University and University of the Pacific. Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(b), a public agency may share ALPR information only with another “public agency” and only as otherwise permitted by law. The materials produced did not establish that the private university security recipients meet the definition of a “public agency” or that an applicable statutory exception authorizes the sharing. It remains the responsibility of each LEA to determine whether such entities qualify as public agencies under applicable law. If deemed public agencies, these entities would be subject to the same statutory and policy requirements governing ALPR use.
4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value format, was then bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and then queried using the Structured Query Language. 43 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 12 The table below summarizes these findings.

Operator Network
Shares
2/26/2026
Network
Shares
4/13/2026
Private University
Security Shares
4/13/2026
Apparent Sharing
Guideline
Atherton 315 317 2
Belmont 157 145 2 Adjacent Counties
Brisbane 93 92 1 50-mile radius
Burlingame Not available 357 2
Colma 321 326 2
Daly City Not available Not available not available Flock portal is not enabled.

East Palo Alto 303 308 2
Foster City Not available Not available Not available Flock portal excluded network sharing report.

Half Moon Bay Not available 290 0
Hillsborough 303 318 2
Menlo Park 247 242 1
Pacifica 276 283 2
Redwood City 102 100 1 Bay Area Counties
San Bruno 331 335 2
San Mateo 283 280 0
San Mateo County
Sheriff's Office
299 300 2 Reduced in February to
adjacent Counties.

South San Francisco 15 15 0 San Mateo County
Woodside 3 3 0 Adjacent towns
Public Commentary
Under Civil Code section 1798.90.55(a), a public agency that operates an ALPR system must provide the opportunity for public comment. The SMCCGJ did not identify any instances in which ALPR cameras were deployed without the required public notice and discussion.

ALPR Policies
California law requires each ALPR operator to adopt a written ALPR policy and to post that policy in a conspicuous manner (Civ. Code, §§ 1798.90.53(a)–(b); 1798.90.51 (a)–(b)). The California Department of Justice provides a model ALPR policy template, which agencies may adopt or 44 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 13 modify. Some departments also utilize policy templates developed by Lexipol, a provider of standardized law enforcement policy materials.

The following section evaluates each SMC law enforcement agency’s ALPR policy, including whether it is conspicuously posted, and assesses whether the agency’s actual operations are consistent with its stated policy.

Summary Matrix of ALPR Policy and Operational Findings
Policy Posting and Currency. Most LEAs and police departments provided an ALPR policy in response to the SMCCGJ document request. The SMCGJ reviewed each policy for alignment with the policy templates and guidance provided by the State of California and Lexipol. The SMCCGJ also reviewed each department’s public website to determine whether the policy was conspicuously posted in accordance with California DOJ guidance 2023-DLE-06, and whether the publicly posted version matched the version provided in response to the document request.

Audit Practices. The SMCCGJ requested copies of recent audit reports from each LEA. Where an audit frequency was specified in an agency’s ALPR Policy, the SMCCGJ reviewed the materials provided to determine whether audits appeared to have been conducted at the stated intervals. The SMCCGJ also examined the contents and scope of each audit report.

For purposes of this investigation, a “strong” audit is one that substantiates compliance with both applicable California law and each material element of the LEA’s stated ALPR Policy. California law requires a policy to describe monitoring and “a process for periodic system audits,” but does not prescribe a uniform audit report format or methodology. The labels “strong,” “partial,” and “weak” are assessment terms used in this report and are not statutory classifications.

In the absence of meaningful audit controls, the public has limited assurance that an agency’s stated policies are being consistently implemented in practice. By contrast, a “weak” audit examines only selected legal or policy elements and does not comprehensively evaluate operational compliance.

Finally, the SMCCGJ reviewed whether audit reports were made available to the public or presented to the relevant city, town, or county governing body.

Data Retention. Civil Code section 1798.90.51(b)(2)(D) requires each ALPR policy to specify a data retention period after which ALPR data will be deleted unless it is associated with an active investigation or otherwise retained pursuant to law. The SMCCGJ compared the retention period stated in each agency’s ALPR policy with the retention period displayed on Flock’s Transparency Portal and, where available, the retention provisions contained in the agency’s Flock contract.

Matching retention periods were classified as “consistent,” while differing retention periods were classified as “inconsistent.” We did not examine in detail the process by which Flock deletes data after the stated retention period, as this topic has been addressed by third-party audits.

Data Sharing Process. Each policy must describe criteria and a process for sharing ALPR data. We examined this statement to ensure that it prohibits the sale of ALPR data, out-of-state sharing, sharing to private parties, and usage for other than valid law enforcement purposes. We examined any written guidelines and processes for receiving and approving requests for sharing data, and for any documentary evidence supporting the implementation of that process. Most policies included the sharing process description and documented from templates, but our interviews and document requests did not find an LEA who followed the process described in this “Template.” Several LEAs described the sharing process provided by the Flock platform, which is what we heard described 45 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 14 during interviews as the adopted process. The LEAs with outdated policies described an outdated sharing process mediated by NCRIC. No LEA’s policy described guidelines for ALPR data sharing within California, though several outlined coherent criteria for what sharing requests to approve.

Contract Terms. The SMCCGJ reviewed the 14 Flock contracts provided in response to its document requests. One contract included an addendum with California compliance provisions (“CA terms”) requiring Flock to adhere to California law governing the protection, access, and disclosure of ALPR data maintained on behalf of California LEA customers, consistent with recommendations previously issued by the California State Auditor.

The absence of express contractual compliance terms does not itself establish a violation of California law, which applies regardless of contract language. In this report, the presence or absence of such terms is evaluated as an additional contractual compliance control.

The table below summarizes the SMCGJ’s assessment of ALPR policy compliance and operational alignment among LEAs in SMC.

Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Atherton Not conspicuous;
current, but with
multiple versions
Strong;
published in
Council
Minutes
Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Belmont Conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
Brisbane Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template No CA
terms
Burlingame Not conspicuous;
current
Audit reports
not provided
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided
Colma Not conspicuous;
current
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Template CA terms
included in
addendum
Daly City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong, regular
audit; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
East Palo Alto Conspicuous;
current
Partial; publicly
posted
Consistent Not
described
No CA
terms
46 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 15 Agency Policy Posting /
Currency
Audit Practices Data
Retention
Data
Sharing
Process
Contract
Terms
Foster City Conspicuous;
current, but broken
link to policy
Audit reports
not provided.

Inconsistent Template No CA
terms
Hillsborough Not conspicuous;
Outdated (NCRIC
references)
Audit reports
not provided.

Consistent Outdated No CA
terms
Menlo Park Not conspicuous;
current
Weak;
published in
City Council
minutes.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Pacifica Conspicuous;
current
Brief, but
strong; not
published
Consistent Flock Contract
not
provided
Redwood City Conspicuous,
outdated (NCRIC
references)
Strong; not
published
Inconsistent Outdated No CA
terms
San Bruno Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published
Consistent Flock No CA
terms
San Mateo Conspicuous;
current
Weak; not
published
Consistent Template No CA
terms
SMC Sheriff's
Office
Conspicuous;
current
Partial;
published in
BOS minutes.

No stated
retention
Template No CA
terms
South San
Francisco
Conspicuous;
current
Partial; not
published.

Consistent Template No CA
terms
Woodside Conspicuous (via
SMC SO) and
current
Strong;
published in
Town Council
minutes
Consistent Template Contract
not
provided.

As shown above, while several agencies demonstrate strong alignment between policy and operational practices, others exhibit deficiencies in audit procedures, inconsistencies in stated data retention practices, and incomplete or inaccurate documentation of data-sharing processes and decisions. These findings highlight the absence of standardized ALPR governance and oversight practices across SMC.
47 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 16

FINDINGS
This section summarizes findings based on evidence produced or otherwise reviewed by the SMCCGJ. The accompanying table identifies the findings assigned to the governing body of each LEA based on the evidence described in this report.

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.

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.

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).

F4. The ALPR operator did not produce records demonstrating that audits required by its ALPR policy had been conducted.

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.

F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

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.

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.

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.

RECOMMENDATIONS
While the recommendations below are generally applicable to all LEAs in SMC, some recommendations have already been implemented by some LEAs. The accompanying table identifies the recommendations directed to the governing body of each LEA reviewed by the SMCCGJ.

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).

R2. The ALPR operator with outdated ALPR policies should revise those policies to accurately reflect current operational practices.

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. 48 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 17 R4. The ALPR operator should prepare audit reports in accordance with the frequency stated in the operator’s published ALPR policy.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

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.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

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.

R9. The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.

REQUEST FOR RESPONSES
Pursuant to Penal Code 933.05, the Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Respondent Findings Recommendations
Atherton Town Council F1, F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 Belmont City Council F3, F6, F8 R3, R6, R8
Brisbane City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Burlingame City Council F1, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Colma City Council F1, F3, F5, F7, F8, F9 R1, R3, R5, R7, R8, R9 Daly City City Council F3, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R6, R7, R8, R9 East Palo Alto City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Foster City City Council F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Half Moon Bay Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Hillsborough Town Council F1, F2, F3, F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 Menlo Park City Council F1, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8 R1, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8 Millbrae City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 Pacifica City Council F3, F5, F6, F8 R3, R5, R6, R8
Portola Valley Town Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 City Council of Redwood City F2, F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R2, R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 San Bruno City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 San Carlos City Council F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9 49 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 18 Respondent Findings Recommendations
Ken Binder, San Mateo County
Sheriff
F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, F9 R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, R9
San Mateo City Council F4, F5, F6, F7, F8 R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 South SF City Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8
Woodside Town Council F5, F6, F7, F8 R5, R6, R7, R8

RESPONSE REQUIREMENTS
California Penal Code Section 933.05 provides as follows (emphasis added):
(a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the following actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable with an explanation therefor.

Under Penal Code section 933(c), the governing body of a public agency must respond within 90 days after the grand jury submits its final report, and an elected county officer or agency head for which the grand jury has responsibility under Penal Code section 914.1 must respond within 60 days regarding matters under that officer’s or agency head’s control. 50 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 19

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Automated License Plate Readers, Report 2019-118, California State Auditor, February 2020.

California Automated License Plate Reader Data, 2023-DLE-06, California Department of Justice.

National Crime Information Center Administration of Warrants, 2025-DLE-08, California Department of Justice, April 7, 2025.

A Delicate Balance: Privacy vs. Protection, Report of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury, 2016–2017.

FOOTNOTES
1 Analysis done by SMCCGJ on all 2025 network queries in California on one SMC LEA’s data found that 13.1% of queries entered only “Investigation” as the Reason for performing the query. 2 The search reason “warrant” could refer to a warrant issued by a California judge for an authorized law enforcement purpose, or alternatively to an administrative warrant issued by a federal agency such as ICE. 3 A list of these offense codes is provided in Appendix A. 4 The network audit report was delivered in comma-separated value (CSV) format, bulk-loaded into a MySQL database and analyzed using the Structured Query Language (SQL).
5 https://www.paloaltoonline.com/police/2025/11/05/east-palo-alto-leaders-push-back-on-license-plate-readers-amid-privacyconcerns/ 6 https://www.coastsidenews.com/news/half-moon-bay-to-revisit-license-plate-reader-program-and-ice-policies/ 7 https://www.almanacnews.com/news/2025/12/29/the-years-biggest-stories/ 51 2025 – 2026 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Page 20 Appendix A - Flock Safety Offense Types
52 DRAFT
2 Town of Portola Valley
765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
Tel: (650) 851-1700 • www.portolavalley.net
September 24, 2026
Hon. Rachel Holt, Judge of the Superior Court
c/o Jenarda Dubois Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 8th Floor Redwood City, CA 94063-1655.

RE: Response of the Town of Portola Valley to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
Dear Judge Holt:

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Grand Jury report titled “Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?” The Town of Portola Valley’s (“Town”) responses to the findings and recommendations of the report are listed below.

Responses to Grand Jury Findings F3, F5, F6, F7, F8, and F9 F3. 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.

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR cameras, or have an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and this finding does not describe a Town-operated program. To the extent this finding describes ALPR policy-posting practices, it concerns the ALPR program operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which provides contracted law enforcement services to the Town and is a separate respondent to this identical finding. The Town defers to SMCSO’s response regarding the accuracy of this finding as it pertains to SMCSO’s own program.

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.

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR cameras, or have an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and this finding does not describe a Town-operated program. To the extent this finding describes the sufficiency of the ALPR audit reports, it concerns the ALPR program operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which provides contracted law enforcement services to the Town and is a separate respondent to this identical finding. The Town defers to SMCSO’s response regarding the accuracy of this finding as it pertains to SMCSO’s own program.

F6. The ALPR operator’s Flock Safety contract does not include provisions specifically requiring compliance with applicable California ALPR laws.

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR cameras, or have an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and this finding does not describe a Town-operated program. To the extent this finding describes the terms of the ALPR operator’s Flock Safety vendor contract, it concerns the ALPR program operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which provides contracted law enforcement services to the Town and is a separate respondent to this identical finding. The Town defers to 53 DRAFT
Response of the Town of Portola Valley to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “ Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
September 24, 2026
SMCSO’s response regarding the accuracy of this finding as it pertains to SMCSO’s own program.

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.

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR cameras, or have an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and this finding does not describe a Town-operated program. To the extent this finding describes the ALPR data-sharing approval process, it concerns the ALPR program operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which provides contracted law enforcement services to the Town and is a separate respondent to this identical finding. The Town defers to SMCSO’s response regarding the accuracy of this finding as it pertains to SMCSO’s own program.

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.

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR cameras, or have an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and this finding does not describe a Town-operated program. To the extent this finding describes the criteria governing approval and termination of instate ALPR data-sharing relationships, it concerns the ALPR program operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which provides contracted law enforcement services to the Town and is a separate respondent to this identical finding. The Town defers to SMCSO’s response regarding the accuracy of this finding as it pertains to SMCSO’s own program.

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.

Response: The Town partially disagrees with this finding. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain any ALPR cameras, or have an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and this finding does not describe a Town-operated program. To the extent this finding describes ALPR data retention periods, it concerns the ALPR program operated by the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which provides contracted law enforcement services to the Town and is a separate respondent to this identical finding. The Town defers to SMCSO’s response regarding the accuracy of this finding as it pertains to SMCSO’s own program.

Responses to Grand Jury Recommendations R3, R5, R6, R7, R8, and R9 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.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town because it is not warranted or reasonable as applied to the Town. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain ALPR technology or an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) 54 DRAFT
Response of the Town of Portola Valley to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “ Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
September 24, 2026
contract, and therefore has no operational or contractual mechanism through which to implement this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation falls within the authority of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which operates the ALPR program serving the Town under its law enforcement services contract and is a separate respondent to this identical recommendation. The Town defers to SMCSO regarding implementation and will continue to coordinate with SMCSO on matters affecting law enforcement services provided to the Town.

R5. The audit reports produced by the ALPR operator should substantiate compliance with applicable California law and the operator’s published ALPR policy.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town because it is not warranted or reasonable as applied to the Town. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain ALPR technology or an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and therefore has no operational or contractual mechanism through which to implement this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation falls within the authority of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which operates the ALPR program serving the Town under its law enforcement services contract and is a separate respondent to this identical recommendation. The Town defers to SMCSO regarding implementation and will continue to coordinate with SMCSO on matters affecting law enforcement services provided to the Town.

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.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town because it is not warranted or reasonable as applied to the Town. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain ALPR technology or an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and therefore has no operational or contractual mechanism through which to implement this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation falls within the authority of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which operates the ALPR program serving the Town under its law enforcement services contract and is a separate respondent to this identical recommendation. The Town defers to SMCSO regarding implementation and will continue to coordinate with SMCSO on matters affecting law enforcement services provided to the Town.

R7. The ALPR operator should update its ALPR policy to accurately reflect the process used to approve ALPR data-sharing relationships.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town because it is not warranted or reasonable as applied to the Town. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain ALPR technology or an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and therefore has no operational or contractual mechanism through which to implement this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation falls within the authority of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which operates the ALPR program serving the Town under its law enforcement services contract and is a separate respondent to this identical recommendation. The Town defers to SMCSO regarding implementation and will continue to coordinate with SMCSO on matters affecting law enforcement services provided to the Town. 55 DRAFT
Response of the Town of Portola Valley to the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury Report – “ Is Our Flock of ALPR Cameras Properly Tended?”
September 24, 2026
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.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town because it is not warranted or reasonable as applied to the Town. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain ALPR technology or an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and therefore has no operational or contractual mechanism through which to implement this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation falls within the authority of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which operates the ALPR program serving the Town under its law enforcement services contract and is a separate respondent to this identical recommendation. The Town defers to SMCSO regarding implementation and will continue to coordinate with SMCSO on matters affecting law enforcement services provided to the Town.

R9. The ALPR operator should update their ALPR policy or Flock contract terms, as necessary, so that the stated retention rule accurately reflects operations.

Response: This recommendation will not be implemented by the Town because it is not warranted or reasonable as applied to the Town. The Town does not own, operate, or maintain ALPR technology or an active Flock (or other ALPR vendor) contract, and therefore has no operational or contractual mechanism through which to implement this recommendation. Implementation of this recommendation falls within the authority of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office (“SMCSO”), which operates the ALPR program serving the Town under its law enforcement services contract and is a separate respondent to this identical recommendation. The Town defers to SMCSO regarding implementation and will continue to coordinate with SMCSO on matters affecting law enforcement services provided to the Town.

This response was approved by the Portola Valley Town Council at a public meeting on September 23, 2026.

Sincerely,
Craig Taylor
Mayor
Town of Portola Valley
CC: email to [email protected]
Town Clerk
56 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Veronica Dao, Town Clerk
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: Adopt a Resolution Updating Designated Positions and Disclosure Obligations in the Town’s Conflict of Interest Code

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached resolution updating the designated position titles and disclosure obligations for the Town’s Conflict of Interest Code.

BACKGROUND
The Political Reform Act of 1974 ("Act"), Government Code section 87100 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes and review those Codes biennially in even years. On June 24, 2015, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2015-406, amending Section 2.36.010 [Incorporation by reference] of Chapter 2.36 [Conflict of Interest] of Title 2 [Administration and Personnel] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code incorporating by reference the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission and, along with the Resolution approved by the Town Council in which Public Officials and Designated Employees and their disclosure categories identified. This constitutes the Conflict of Interest Code of the Town.

To help identify potential conflicts of interest, the Act requires certain designated public officials, employees, and consultants that make or participate in making governmental decisions to report their financial interests by officially filing a form on an annual basis called Statement of Economic Interests (Form 700). These mandatory Government Code "87200" filers are currently: Town Councilmembers, Planning Commissioners, Finance Director, Town Manager, and Town Attorney. In addition, Government Code section 87200 requires "other public officials that manage public investments" to file Form 700s.

The Town Council last updated its Conflict of Interest Code when it adopted Resolution No. 2952-2024 on November 13, 2024 updating the designated position titles and disclosure obligations for the Town's Conflict of Interest Code.

DISCUSSION
Portola Valley Municipal Code Chapter 2.36 sets forth the Town's Conflict of Interest Code. The Town's code requires the Council to review the designated position titles and disclosure obligations and make any necessary updates by resolution. This review must be completed at least every other year in evennumbered years. This report presents for Council consideration and adoption an updated Resolution identifying the current position titles for public officials, employees, and consultants and their disclosure requirements.

The Act also authorizes local agencies to require additional local officials to file statements of economic interest. According to FPPC Regulation 18730 (Conflict of Interest Codes) these designated positions make or participate the making of decisions which foreseeably may have a material effect on financial 57 interests.

Staff concluded that this would not include the Finance Committee since they are advisory to the Council and the Finance Director and do not directly manage investments. While not mandatory under Government Code section 87200, Council could consider adding the Finance Committee to the list of Town-designated positions if it believes it fits the criteria under FPPC Regulation 18730. The Town's list of designated position titles and disclosure obligations was last updated in November 2024. Since that time, the following positions need amending:

ASCC Commissioners - Per FPPC, they are not 87200 filers and should be placed under "Other Designated Employees, Including Consultants Serving in these Positions" as their role meets the definition under FPPC Regulation 18730;
Finance Director and the newly created Finance Manager positions are 87200 filer positions; and, Finance Technician should be removed as it does not meet the definition per FPPC Regulation 18730.

The amendments are reflected in the attached resolution.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution
58 Revised 9/23 before meeting
1 RESOLUTION NO. 3013-2026

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

DESIGNATING PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES AND THEIR DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES FOR THE TOWN’S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code section 87100 et seq., requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate Conflict of Interest Codes and review those Codes biennially in even years; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2015, the Town Council adopted Ordinance 2015-406, amending Section 2.36.010 [Incorporation by reference] of Chapter 2.36 [Conflict of Interest] of Title 2 [Administration and Personnel] of the Portola Valley Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, with the adoption of Ordinance 2015-406, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are incorporated by reference and, along with the Resolution approved by the Town Council in which Public Officials and Designated Employees and their disclosure categories identified, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the Town; and WHEREAS, the Town of Portola Valley (“Town”) last updated its Conflict of Interest Code when the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 2952-2024 on November 13, 2024 updating the designated position titles and disclosure obligations for the Town's Conflict of Interest Code; and
WHEREAS, the Town’s code requires the Council to review the designated position titles and disclosure obligations and make any necessary updates by resolution.

This review must be completed at least every other year in even-numbered years. The Town now desires to adopt the Resolution identifying the current position titles for public officials and their disclosure requirements.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley does resolve as follows:

DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS
DESIGNATED PUBLIC OFFICIALS (Govt. Code Sec. 87200 filers) Member of Town Council
Member of the Planning Commission
Town Manager
Town Attorney
Finance Director
Finance Manager
59 2

OTHER DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES, INCLUDING CONSULTANTS SERVING IN THESE

POSITIONS
Member of the Architectural and Site Control Commission Administrative Services Manager
Assistant Town Manager
Associate Planner
Assistant Planner
Senior Planner
Planning and Building Director
Public Works Director
Town Clerk
Town Engineer
Town Geologist
Consultant (if so determined)

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Disclosure Category 1: Full Disclosure and Section 87200 Filers - All investments, business positions, interests in real
property and sources of income, including gifts, loans
and travel payments as required by FPPC Statement of
Economic Interest Form 700.

Disclosure Category 2: Limited Disclosure – All investments, interests in real property, and sources of income if the source provides
goods or services of the type utilized by or subject to the review or approval of the department in which that
person is employed. The Town Manager may also
determine in writing that a particular consultant is
required to provide Limited Disclosure. Such written
determination shall include a description of the
consultant's duties and, based upon that description, a statement of the extent of disclosure requirements. The determination of the Town Manager is public record and
shall be retained for public inspection in the same
manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code.

REQUIRED DISCLOSURES FOR DESIGNATED POSITIONS
Designated Position
Disclosure
Category
Members of Town Council 1
Members of the Planning Commission 1
Members of the Architectural and Site Control Committee 1 Town Manager 1
60 3
Town Attorney 1
Administrative Services Manager 1
Assistant Town Manager 1
Assistant Planner 2
Associate Planner 2
Finance Director 1
Finance Manager 1
Finance Technician [Delete position] 1
Planning and Building Director 1
Public Works Director 1
Senior Planner 1
Town Clerk 1
Town Engineer 1
Town Geologist 1
Consultant 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley held on the 23rd day of September 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

By: ________________________
Craig Taylor, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
Town Clerk
61 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Sarah Cawrse, Planning & Building Director
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: Receive Update and Provide Direction on the Draft Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Notice of Funding Availability

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend that Town Council receive information and provide direction to staff on the Draft Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Notice of Funding Availability.

BACKGROUND
On December 13, 2023, Town Council adopted a resolution adopting an Affordable Housing Fund Policy (Attachment 2) that guides the use of monies in the Town’s Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund, also known as the Affordable Housing Fund. Currently, the Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund has approximately up to $2 million in available funds. Distribution of funds requires an objective application process to ensure that the funds meet the goals outlined in the adopted Affordable Housing Fund Policy. Government agencies at the federal, state, and local level often use Notice of Funding Availability, also known as NOFA’s, to formally announce to the public that funds are available. They include application guidelines and a scoring system that ensures that the goals set forth in the Affordable Housing Fund Policy are met.

The need for an Affordable Housing Fund Policy and subsequent NOFA became apparent in late 2021, during the development of the Willow Commons Supportive Housing Project, an 11-unit development with nine deed restricted affordable units, and two units for on-site occupancy by program and management staff. During that time, the developer sought the waiver of planning fees, as well as $3.5 million in funding from the Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund. On January 12, 2022, the Town Council reviewed the request and did not vote on the resolution and instead sought to establish Inclusionary Inlieu Fee Fund funding guidelines before distributing any funds. The Council adopted the Affordable Housing Fund Policy in 2023, and then on September 10, 2025, the Council approved two resolutions:

A $70,026.76 reimbursement of planning fees, paid from the Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund. $1.35 million in Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Funds to fund the Willows Commons project, as a grant.

While the Affordable Housing Fund Policy was already established when these resolutions were approved, a Notice of Funding Availability ensuring applicants meet the minimum requirements was not yet established. Since then, staff have been unable to distribute the funds due to several legal compliance issues.

On March 25, 2026, the Town received a comment letter from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) on the Town’s Draft Housing Element Amendment (Draft Amendment).

To address the comments from HCD, the Draft Amendment was updated to incorporate a new program, Program 4-5, committing the Town to publish a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) to support the development of affordable housing projects and for the NOFA to include incentives for identified Housing 62 Element sites, with additional funding available for sites with significant development and infrastructure constraints. The updated Draft Amendment was presented to Town Council on June 24, 2026, and was approved to submit to HCD. Town staff submitted it to HCD on July 16, 2026. On September 14, 2026, the Town received a comment letter from HCD outlining its review of the second Draft Amendment noting that the Town continues to comply with Housing Element Law and that the Draft Amendment addresses HCD's previous review/comments from March 25, 2026.

DISCUSSION
Planning staff, with the help of consultants HEART of San Mateo County, a 501(c)3 and Joint Powers Authority serving the cities in San Mateo County, drafted a Notice of Funding Availability, informed by the Town's Affordable Housing Fund Policy.

NOFA’s are formal announcements to the public that funds are available and include application guidelines and a scoring system to evaluate applications. If there are more applications received than there are funds available, jurisdictions can implement a short application window and strict deadline. If there are more funds than there is demand for their use, jurisdictions can keep applications open on a rolling basis until funds are expended.

Funds can be distributed as grants or loans, with underwriting guidelines, specifying the regulatory term, income limits and other requirements. Underwriting guidelines also clarify that prevailing wages are required and note that developers should take prevailing wage requirements and labor standards into account when seeking estimates for contracted work, especially the cost of construction, and other work to which the requirements apply, and when preparing development budgets overall.

Depending on the amount of funds available and estimated demand for them, limits can be placed on the maximum amount of funds per applicant. The scoring system also allows the evaluation of a wide range of proposed projects and gives preference to those who meet the goals outlined in the Town’s housing element and affordable housing fund policy.

The draft NOFA is organized in the following sections:

Eligibility Requirements
Eligibility requirements describe eligible applicants, eligible costs, eligible projects, and the Town's funding priorities. This section is informed by the Eligible fund expenses and Funding priorities section in the Affordable Housing Fund Policy.

Funding
The Affordable Housing Fund Policy provides guidance on project funding in its section entitled Expenditure from fund. The draft NOFA explains that there is no guarantee that funds will be available to fully fund a project request and introduces the underwriting guidelines.

Pre Application Meeting
This section is brief and requires a pre-application meeting. Pre-application meetings are commonly required for NOFA’s with rolling deadlines.

Required Project Information and Selection Process
This section states that applications must be complete, and that applications will be reviewed on a firstcome, first-served basis.

Minimum Criteria for Evaluation for Rental and Ownership Developments The section specifies the minimum criteria for evaluation of housing projects such as the level of AMI of 63 households served. Requested funds must usually fill a financial gap and cannot replace other permanent funding.

Underwriting Guidelines
These are specific guidelines for each of the following items: Loan Term, Interest, Regulatory Term, Income Limits, Maximum Sales Price, Developer Fee (new construction projects), HOA Reserves, Minimum Subsidy Amount, Subsidy Limit, Insurance Requirements, Hard Cost Contingency, Soft Cost Contingency, Contingency Funds, Relocation, Prevailing Wages. This section is informed by the Town’s Housing Element and Affordable Housing Fund Policy.

Application Submittal Requirements
This section specifies submittal requirements, which can include the format of the application, and required documentation.

Application Evaluation
The application evaluation specifies the scoring system used. The following categories have different maximum points associated: Organizational Capacity and Relevant Experience, Non-Profit Organizations, Project Need, Project Design and Readiness, Budget and Financial Management, Percentage and depth of Affordability, Percent of Accessible Units, Percentage of Matching Funds.

Application and Evaluation Timeline
This section is informed by best practices and can be changed to reflect staff capacity.

Funding Award Recommendations
Requires Town Council approval for all applicants. The following sections are also informed by best practices: Questions/FAQ’s, General Information and Insurance Requirements and Certifications.

Analysis
Affordable housing opportunities can take many forms, including opportunities to purchase suitable sites, partnering with an affordable housing provider to build affordable units, or grant opportunity windows that can allow the Town to leverage its Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Funds into additional funding.

This NOFA is the implementation instrument that will allow the Town to act swiftly and pursue affordable housing opportunities as they make themselves available and ensure that applications meet minimum requirements outlined in the affordable housing policy.

Next Steps:

The next steps for the Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA include considering Council feedback, finalizing the NOFA, and publishing it publicly. Staff will then be able to review, score, and recommend applications on a first come first serve basis. Town Council will review and provide final approval of funds during a future agendized Town Council meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this agenda item.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Notice of Funding Availability

2. Affordable Housing Fund Policy
64 DRAFT 9.23.2026

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund
Notice of Funding Availability

CONTACT US
Contact Person:
65 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 2

OVERVIEW
The Town of Portola Valley announces the availability of local funds for affordable housing projects in Portola Valley (the “Program”). The funding will be provided as part of an ongoing program, and projects will be reviewed as they are received. The Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Notice of Funding Availability (“NOFA”) is intended to support Town Council allocation of any available funds in FY2026/2027 and FY2027/2028. The Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund has approximately up to $2 million in available funds. This balance fluctuates on a rolling basis and is subject to change based on internal allocations for affordable housing programs and ongoing award schedules. Please check with Town staff before applying to confirm the availability of funds.

There is no deadline to apply under this NOFA. The Town’s primary objectives for this NOFA are to:
• Create new affordable housing;
• Preserve existing affordable housing;
• Preserve properties occupied by low-income renters; and • Implement priorities identified in the Town’s Affordable Housing Fund Policy (adopted December 13, 2023), and its General Plan, including the Town’s certified Housing Element.

Town staff will consider these objectives when evaluating applications, as well as threshold eligibility requirements and project-specific criteria described within this document.

Applicants are responsible for reviewing this NOFA and all relevant exhibits and attachments to ensure project eligibility and consistency with the above Program objectives. Applicants should seek additional funds to minimize the cost to the Town of Portola Valley.

The Town is seeking Applications that demonstrate:
• An understanding of the community, its unique attributes, and opportunities in the neighborhood where the project would be located;
• Experience successfully developing, preserving, and/or managing affordable housing; and
• Commitment to, and experience in, managing public participation processes.

A. Eligibility Requirements

1. Eligible Applicants
Eligible applicants may submit one or more applications under this NOFA. 66 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 3 Organization Type - Eligible applicants include for-profit or nonprofit corporations, general or limited partnerships, joint ventures, joint powers authorities, or limited liability companies.

Experience - Applicants should have demonstrated experience and capacity in the management, preservation, and/or development of affordable housing. This experience may include ongoing management of affordable housing properties, management of affordable housing rehabilitation projects, construction of new affordable housing, and/or conversion of existing buildings to produce affordable housing.

2. Eligible Costs
Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Funds may be used to:
• Provide funding for pre-development and construction expenses necessary to create new affordable housing, including hard costs, soft costs, developer fees, and reserves.
• Purchase land directly (land banking) or provide funding to affordable housing developers or community land trusts to purchase suitable sites to build affordable housing.
• Engage experts or consultants with demonstrated experience in the development of affordable housing projects to evaluate the feasibility of potential affordable housing sites, projects, or funding programs and/or develop site and building designs that reflect an appropriate affordable housing project on such sites. • Provide funding for purchase and/or rehabilitation of existing multi-family housing for conversion to deed restricted affordable housing.
• Support the development and construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units for low or very low-income households with a recorded deed restriction.
• Pay off a bridge/acquisition loan for preservation projects or land purchases acquired within six months of application submission.

The Town’s funds cannot pay for luxury items or commercial costs (e.g., costs not directly related to the residential portion such as business uses. This does not include laundry, community spaces, or property management office space exclusively used by residents).

3. Eligible Projects
This NOFA intends to solicit a wide array of eligible project types, including but not limited to:
• New construction of affordable housing for rent or ownership, including mixed-use projects or mixed-income projects, providing housing to income eligible households; • Rehabilitation of existing affordable housing;
67 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 4 • Preservation of existing affordable housing nearing the end of its affordability term; • Conversion of existing deed restricted units to deeper income affordability; • Conversion of unrestricted units occupied by low-income tenants to incomerestricted housing; • Adaptive reuse/conversion of existing buildings into affordable housing; • Acquisition of building or land to build or preserve affordable housing; and • Affordable housing-related predevelopment activities.

4. Funding Priorities
Priority will be given to the following:
a. Identifying, funding the acquisition of, and funding the construction of affordable units on Housing Element Opportunity Sites, or alternative sites that contribute to meeting the RHNA obligations of the Housing Element on an equivalent basis, with input from the Planning Commission and the Town Council.

The Town of Portola Valley further incentivizes the development of the following Housing Element sites, by allowing a $100,000 increase of the maximum per unit subsidy:
i. Skyline Open Space – North of 19501 Skyline Boulevard ii. Village Square – 884 Portola Road
iii. Christ Church – 815 Portola Valley Road
b. Projects that would enable developers to support or increase the percentage of units in a project that are for very low- and low-income households. c. Other projects for which the Town Council determines will have the greatest impact in addressing the Town’s affordable housing needs, consistent with the Town’s General Plan.

The most frequently used Income limits for the Town of Portola Valley and San Mateo County are currently as follows:
2026 Income Limits by Household Size ($)
Income Category Household Size
1 2 3 4 5 6
Extremely Low (30% AMI) $44,150 $50,450 $56,750 $63,050 $68,100 $73,150 Very Low (50% AMI) $73,550 $84,050 $94,550 $105,050 $113,500 $121,900 Low (80% AMI) $117,700 $134,500 $151,300 $168,100 $181,550 $195,000 68 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 5 Moderate (120% of AMI) $168,650 $192,750 $216,850 $240,950 $260,250 $279,500 Source: County of San Mateo, Department of Housing, 2026 County Income Limits. For the latest income limits, please see https://www.smcgov.org/housing/income-limits-and-rent-payments.

B. Funding
The source of funds for this NOFA is generated by fees collected pursuant to inclusionary housing in-lieu fee regulations and other monies controlled by the town for affordable housing. As such, the availability of funds may vary over time, and there is no guarantee that funds will be available to fully fund a project request.

The Town plans to make long-term financing available in the form of a 55-year loan, either on the rental property or the individual homeownership units, depending on the circumstances of the project’s financial need and other funding sources.

For rental projects, the Town will require the loan to be secured by a promissory note and deed of trust, and a 55-year Regulatory Agreement securing project affordability. Loans for rental projects will be residual receipt notes and require a split of residual receipts between the project sponsor, the Town, and other lenders, if any.

For homeownership projects, in lieu of a 55-year Regulatory Agreement, the affordability term will be enforced through a recorded restriction on re-sale imposed by the applicant on the real property acquired by each homeowner for a minimum period of 55 years, using a form of a resale restriction agreement approved by the Town.

C. Pre- Application Meeting
The Town requires all applicants to meet with the Town before applying to discuss the project, any proposed changes to the guidelines, answer any questions, and confirm the current availability of funds. Schedule an appointment by emailing [CONTACT].

D. Required Project Information and Selection Process
Town staff cannot agendize an item for the Town Council to consider an award of funds until the application is complete, and it has been reviewed for eligibility and determined whether it meets the criteria set forth herein. Given that applicants may face circumstances where they cannot produce certain documentation (for example, the developer does not yet have sufficient site control to complete a property needs assessment), prospective applicants are encouraged to meet with Town staff prior to application so that Town staff can provide guidance.
69 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 6 Funding applications will be reviewed on a first-come, first-served basis. All projects that meet the minimum criteria below will be eligible for funding. If multiple projects have applied within a 60-day period, projects that meet the threshold will be scored against each other (see Evaluation Criteria). The Town will use the Evaluation Criteria to score eligible projects to determine the priority for awarding funds.

E. Minimum Criteria for Evaluation (Applicable to All Projects)

1. The Application must be complete.

2. The funding request must be within the amount available at the time of the request.

3. The Application must meet the Program requirements.

4. The applicant must meet the eligible applicant, project, and cost criteria as outlined in Section A. Scattered or multi-site properties will be considered for one project if they are being financed as one project. As such, all the buildings within a scattered site project must be acquired at the same time and rehabilitated under one scope of work. Each of the buildings within a scattered site project must meet program goals related to affordability. Town staff will consider the proximity of the properties, as well as the management and financing plan for such a project.

5. All rental units supported through this Program must serve households at or below 80% of Area Median Income (“AMI”), as published by the County of San Mateo annually (see https://www.smcgov.org/housing/income-limits-and-rent-payments).

All homeownership units must serve households at or below 120% of AMI. Please note that some Program funding sources will require deeper affordability and may use alternative income and rent limits.

Mixed-income projects (i.e., projects that include some units over 80% or 120% of AMI, depending on tenure type) may be eligible, but Town funds may only be used to subsidize the units that meet affordability requirements.

6. All projects must meet the underwriting criteria outlined in Section F or Section G.

7. Applicants with existing Town loans must be in good standing with the Town’s annual monitoring requirements.

8. Applicants must have site control. A purchase and sale agreement, option, disposition and development agreement, exclusive negotiating agreement, or grant deed are acceptable forms of evidence of site control. Applicants with only an offer to purchase may be considered for funding, but final approval is contingent upon having site control as defined above.
70 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 7

9. Requested funds must fill a financing gap or pay off short-term financing, such as a bridge loan or acquisition loan. The project must not already be fully funded with permanent financing, and the Town funds cannot replace other permanent funding on the project. Exceptions to this rule will be made only when a permanent funding source is no longer financially viable.

10.Applicants must be in compliance with all local, state, and federal laws.

The Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA application instructions, application form, and other application supporting materials are designed to assist Town staff and the Town Council in determining whether to award funding. The materials should describe how each project would meet Town goals and priorities for affordable housing in Portola Valley.

More information on the Town’s affordable housing needs can be found online at the Portola Valley Housing Element Page, located at
https://www.portolavalley.net/departments/planning-building-department/housingelement-update-for-2023-2031.

Staff will review all applications for completeness and verify that the applicant and project are eligible. Applicants may be requested to provide additional information or tours of similar projects in their portfolio. Staff will score applications and make funding recommendations to the Town Council for consideration. The Town Council will be the final decisionmaker on all applications.

F. Underwriting Guidelines: Rental Developments
Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Program Loan Underwriting Guidelines:

Rental Developments
Item Requirement
Loan Term 55 Years
Interest 3% annual simple interest, paid from residual receipts.

Regulatory Term 55 years from the Certificate of Occupancy for new construction or upon the closing of financing for
preservation projects.

Income Limits Up to 80% Area Median Income (AMI). Refer to the County website for current income limits
https://www.smcgov.org/housing/income-limits-andrent-payments Maximum Rents (Including
Utility Allowances)
Lower Income, as published by the County at
https://www.smcgov.org/housing/income-limits-andrent-payments Utility Allowances Utility allowances, as published by the County of San Mateo (see https://www.smcgov.org/housing/utility71
DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 8 allowance-schedules) must be subtracted from gross
rents for any utilities paid by tenants, to determine the actual rent paid by tenants.

The developer must outline any monthly fees that may
be charged to tenants. All required monthly fees must
be included in the Utility Allowance.

Rent Increases Maximum rents published by the County (see above) or 5% annually, whichever is less.

Town Monitoring Fee Except where not allowed by law (AB2430) $125/unit per year.

Developer Fee (new
construction projects)
5% to 10% of total project costs, depending on project
complexity and size. Any deferred developer fees may
be paid after all required operating costs and asset
management fees but prior to residual receipts
payments.

Construction
Management Fee
(preservation projects)
5% to 10% of hard costs, depending on project
complexity and size.

Replacement Reserves Replacement reserve funding covers the cost of all repairs needed through year 15 of the project as
described in a Property Needs Assessment (PNA)
prepared by a qualified third-party consultant.

The reserve must include a 3% price escalator, if not
included in the PNA.

The reserve can be funded through an initial reserve
deposit at acquisition or loan closing, or through annual deposits from cash flows (or a combination thereof). A
minimum of $500 per unit per year is required if the
initial reserve deposit does not cover 50% of the 15-year PNA cost.

Capitalized Operating
Reserves
Minimum 3 months’ expenses, including: hard debt,
monitoring fees, and replacement reserves.

Vacancy Loss Percentage Minimum 5% for residential units and 20% for any commercial space.

Debt Coverage Ratio 1.15, except for the purchase/restriction of existing units, which may have a DCR of 1.1 over the first two
years of the project and 1.15 thereafter.

Minimum Subsidy Amount The lesser of $20,000 per unit or $1,000,000 per development, to meet County of San Mateo funding
thresholds.

Subsidy Limit $300,000/unit, $400,000/unit on priority sites 72 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 9 Asset Management Fee Lesser of $1,000/unit per year or $25,000/year with a

3.5% escalator.

Subordination The Town will subordinate its deed of trust to public and private lenders (senior lenders) that require it as a
condition of funding.

Town will not subordinate its regulatory agreement to
any deed of trust but will subordinate its regulatory
agreement to a senior lender’s regulatory agreement.

Insurance See Exhibit A
Hard Cost Contingency At least 10% of hard costs, including general requirements, overhead, profit, and contractor’s
contingency.

Soft Cost Contingency At least 5% of all costs except acquisition, hard costs, reserves, and developer fees.

Contingency Funds Contingency funds shall first be used to cover cost over runs, and the remainder shall be deposited into the
replacement reserve.

Relocation Displacement or permanent relocation of existing tenants is not allowed. Temporary relocation during
renovation is allowed. All relocation must follow local, state, and federal relocation laws.

Property Welfare Tax Budget must clearly show when the property welfare tax exemption is expected to begin, if applicable.

Prevailing Wages Projects are subject to applicable local, state or federal requirements with regard to labor standards.

Developers should take prevailing wage requirements
and labor standards into account when seeking
estimates for contracted work, especially the cost of
construction, and other work to which the requirements
apply, and when preparing development budgets
overall.
73 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 10 G. Underwriting Guidelines: Homeownership Developments
Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund Program Loan Underwriting Guidelines:

Homeownership Developments
Item Requirement
Loan Term 55 years
Interest 0% interest forgivable loan.

Regulatory Term In lieu of a 55-year regulatory agreement on the development as a whole, a homeownership project
will enforce the affordability term through a recorded
restriction on re-sale imposed by the applicant on the
real property acquired by each homeowner for a
minimum period of 55 years, using a form of a resale
restriction agreement approved by the Town.

Income Limits Up to 120% Area Median Income (AMI). Refer to the County website for current income limits
https://www.smcgov.org/housing/income-limits-andrent-payments Maximum Sales Price A sales price for a below market rate unit, based on a 5% down payment, that results in a monthly housing
cost (including mortgage principal and interest,
property taxes, insurance, a reasonable allowance for
utilities (pursuant to a schedule provided by the San
Mateo County Housing Authority), parking, and
homeowners’ association costs, if any, that does not
exceed, for low-income households, one-twelfth
(1/12) of 70% of AMI, adjusted for assumed
household size based on unit size, multiplied by 30%,
and for moderate-income households, one-twelfth
(1/12) of 110% of AMI, adjusted for assumed
household size based on unit size, multiplied by 35%.

Developer Fee (new
construction projects)
5% to 10% of total project costs, depending on
complexity and size.

HOA Reserves Minimum 6 months of HOA fees.

Minimum Subsidy Amount The lesser of $20,000 per unit or $1,000,000 per development, to meet County of San Mateo funding
thresholds.

Subsidy Limit $400,000/unit, $500,000 per unit on priority sites Insurance See Exhibit A
Hard Cost Contingency At least 10% of hard costs, including general requirements, overhead, profit, and contractor’s
contingency.
74 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 11 Soft Cost Contingency At least 5% of all costs except acquisition, hard costs, reserves, and developer fees.

Contingency Funds Contingency funds shall first be used to cover cost over runs, and the remainder shall be deposited into
the replacement reserve.

Relocation Displacement or permanent relocation of existing tenants is not allowed.

Prevailing Wages Projects are subject to applicable local, state, or federal labor standards. Developers should take
prevailing wage requirements and labor standards
into account when seeking estimates for contracted
work, especially the cost of construction, and other
work to which the requirements apply, and when
preparing development budgets overall.

H. Application Submittal Requirements
Applications will be accepted until all funds are committed. The Application should be submitted to [Contact].

Applications are to be straightforward, clear, concise, and specific to the information requested. For applications to be considered complete, the applicant must provide responses to all information requested. Submission to this Program is at the applicant’s expense, and no part of the costs of preparation shall be reimbursed by the Town.

Applications in whole or in part are NOT to be marked confidential or proprietary. The Town may refuse to consider any application or part thereof so marked. Applications submitted in response to this Program may be subject to public disclosure.

The Town shall not be liable in any way for disclosure of any such records. Under the California Public Records Act, all documents submitted in response to this Program are considered part of the public record and will be made available to the public upon request.

Applications must include the following, in the following order:

1. Cover letter with applicant name, amount requested, project location, and project summary (max 1 page).

2. Description of the project, including units, incomes served, occupancy status, special populations served (if applicable), commercial spaces (if any), on-site amenities, neighborhood amenities, and accessible units (if any) (max 2 pages). 75 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 12

3. Map identifying the location of the project.

4. Rent roll dated within 30 days of Application with lease start date, rent, and subsidy information (if applicable).

5. Description of the applicant, including years of experience, types of projects, role in projects, and key principals with contact information (max 2 pages).

6. Organizational documents from the State, organizational chart, non-profit status (if applicable), and operating agreements for partnerships.

7. Last 3 Years of Audited Financial Statements of entity or principals. Small organizations that do not conduct audits may request a waiver but must submit 3 years of their financial statements (balance sheets and annual profit and loss statements), and 3 most recent years of their IRS Form 990. For individuals, 3 years of tax returns may be accepted.

8. List of properties developed or preserved within the last 10 years that include developer’s role, funding sources, income levels served, acquisition/new construction/rehabilitation/preservation, special populations served, and total development costs.

9. Description of property management company (if applicable), including years of experience and types of projects managed (if applicable) (max 2 pages).

10.Proof of site control with a date that extends through the acquisition closing (deed, purchase/option contract, lease, exclusive negotiating agreement, Disposition and Development Agreement).

11. Schedule listing key dates through turnover of over-income tenants (if applicable), full lease-up, including acquisition, funding Applications (if applicable), inspections completed, acquisition closing, building permits (if applicable), rehabilitation start and completion (if applicable), etc.

12.Appraisal dated within 60 days of the Application.

13.Preliminary title report dated within 60 days of the Application.

14.Property inspections, as applicable (lead, asbestos, mold, seismic, structural).

15.Proof of Planning approvals, if applicable.
76 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 13

16.Budget spreadsheets with unit mix by bedroom type and income restriction, development sources and uses, operating budget, 20-year cash flow (rentals), and debt coverage ratios (rentals). Applicants should provide information in a spreadsheet (not a PDF) that provides similar information.

17. Financing commitments and any other financing being sought, if any.

18.Operating subsidy commitment, if applicable.

19. Supportive services plan and budget (if applicable) including FTE, staff/client ratios, types of onsite and offsite services, memorandums of understanding between external service providers (if applicable), and funding commitment documents.

20.Relocation Plan and Budget, if applicable.

21. For rehab and preservation projects, a Physical Needs Assessment with replacement reserve analysis completed within 6 months prior to the Application.

22. Signed Certifications in Exhibit B.

23.Description of any changes to this NOFA and Underwriting Guidelines requested.

24.Any other materials that the applicant believes will assist the Town in evaluating the Application.

Due before closing:

1. Insurance as required by Exhibit A.

2. A Phase 1 environmental assessment dated within 1 year of the Application.

I. Application Evaluation
Applications will be evaluated and scored based on compliance with the criteria below. Since projects are considered on a rolling basis, achievement of a particular score does not guarantee Town Council approval of the Application or award of any funding, and scores among various Applications that receive grants may vary.

Category Maximum Points

1. Organizational Capacity and Relevant Experience
The organization is qualified to complete and operate the project, considering years of relevant experience and the number of similar projects completed.
20 77
DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 14 For rental projects, the assessment will focus, in part, on long-term asset management experience. For
homeownership projects, the developer will need to
demonstrate a record of accomplishment of successful
homeownership training and support both before and after homeownership occurs.

2. Nonprofit Organizations 10

3. Project Need
Project clearly addresses the housing goals and priorities listed in this NOFA and the Town’s Housing Element and
Comprehensive Plan.
10 4. Project Design and Readiness
Project design (physical and operational) is cost-effective, feasible, and compatible with the neighborhood, which
includes green building/sustainability considerations, and effective in meeting the stated goals and objectives.

Applicant is ready and able to apply for other financing upon issuance of conditional funding award.
20 5. Budget and Financial Management
Financial Management points are based on clean financial audits and a strong record of financial and regulatory
compliance at other projects owned or managed by the
applicant.
15 6. Percentage and depth of Affordability
Points are awarded based on the percentage and depth of affordability of units in the project.
49% income restricted at 80% of AMI = 5 points
100% restricted at 80% of AMI = 10 points
100% restricted at an average of 60% of AMI = 15 points 15 7. Percent of Accessible Units
10 Points are awarded to projects that provide 10% of units as accessible to persons with mobility, sight, and/or hearing impairments
10 8. Percentage of Matching Funds
Points are awarded based on the following formula:

No match: 0 points
1% to 49% match: 2 points
50% to 99% match: 5 points
100% to 199% match: 10 points
200% match or more: 15 points
15 Total Points Available 115
J. Application and Evaluation Timeline
78 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 15 Please send application materials to [Contact]. Typical application processing times are in business days as follows:

Program Application Process Timing/Duration
Application Submission Ongoing
Staff initial review of complete
Applications
10 business days
Submittal of additional information, if
requested by staff
10 business days, after request(s) for
additional information
Staff final review 10 business days from staff receipt of all information
Staff notification of results 10 business days from final review Recommendation made to Town Council Dependent on Town Council schedule Town Loan Closing Within 6 months of award
K. Funding Award Recommendations
At the conclusion of the application evaluation process, applicants will be notified by letter and email of the funding award recommendation(s), if any, by the Town. To receive an award, Town staff must make a recommendation to the Town Council for approval. An approval by the Town Council may be conditional and include requirements that must be met before final funding is approved.

L. Questions/FAQs
All questions must be submitted to [CONTACT]. The Town will periodically post on its website a list of questions and answers.

M. General Information

1. Revisions
The Town Manager may request that the Town Council consider and approve changes to this NOFA and Underwriting Guidelines. If any such changes are made, the Town will post an addendum to this NOFA on the Town of Portola Valley website.

2. Expense of Preparation
The Town is not responsible for any expense incurred in preparation of submittals or taking any action in connection with the process, or for the costs of any services performed in connection with submittal, interviews, or approval process. 79 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 16

3. Modifications
Applicants may not modify their submittal, except in direct response to a request from the Town for clarification. Any submittal and proposed information items must be valid for at least 180 days after submission.

4. Town Loan Documents
Available upon request.

5. Contact Information
Questions and technical assistance regarding this Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA may be directed to [CONTACT]

6. Town Reservation
The Town of Portola Valley reserves the unqualified right to request additional information from applicants, reject any and all applications (including incomplete and ineligible applications), discuss modifications to applications with the applicants, waive any irregularities in the submittal requirements, or cancel, suspend, or amend the provisions of this NOFA. Submission of an Application in response to this NOFA constitutes an agreement on the part of the applicant to comply with this and all other rules and conditions of this NOFA. The Town reserves the right to refuse funding for any and all applications, and the Town reserves the right to award funds to more than one applicant. 80 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 17 EXHIBIT A – INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
Property Coverage. Evidence of insurance demonstrating fire, lightning, and extended coverage insurance on the facility in a form of commercial property policy, in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the then current replacement cost of the facility, excluding the replacement cost of unimproved real property constituting the site, with a lender’s loss payable endorsement in favor of the Town.

General Liability Insurance of Applicant for the project. During development, sponsors/developers must obtain comprehensive general liability and property (hazard) insurance coverage of at least $2 million. Construction contractors will be required to obtain liability and builders risk insurance in an amount equal to $2 million. Automobile insurance, professional liability, workers’ compensation, and employer’s liability coverage are also required.

Proof of Coverage Related to Site Control. Evidence of insurance as required by those documents demonstrating site control as described in Section D.7. 81 DRAFT 9.23.2026 Town of Portola Valley Inclusionary In-lieu Fee Fund NOFA 18 EXHIBIT B – APPLICANT CERTIFICATIONS
Applicant hereby certifies under penalty of perjury:

1. Truth of Application
That the information submitted in the project application and any supporting materials is true, accurate, and complete to the best of our knowledge. Applicant acknowledges and understands that if facts and/or information herein are found to be misrepresented or otherwise false, funding may not be granted or may be withheld.

2. Applicant Will Abide by Program Rules
That if the Applicant is successful in receiving funds as a result of this application, it will abide by all applicable rules and regulations governing the Program.

3. Applications are Public Records
That Applicant acknowledges that the information submitted as part of this application may be made available to the public pursuant to a request under the California Public Records Act.

4. Material Changes to Project
That Applicant acknowledges that any material changes to the project not disclosed to and approved by the Town may result in termination of funding for the project. Material changes include but are not limited to: changes to the project’s design, amenities, and number and size of units; changes to the development budget; changes to the proposed sales prices, rents or operating expenses; changes to the sources, amounts or terms of financing; changes to the ownership entity or key staff and consultants identified in the Application, or changes to other Application items.

5. Acknowledgement of Financing Commitment Timeline
That Applicant acknowledges their understanding that after receiving approval for the project’s financing commitment, the project will be subject to commitment and expenditure deadlines as applicable to the rules and regulations governing the Program for which funding is sought.

Applicant Name and Title: Organization:
___________________________________ ______________________________________ Signature Date
___________________________________ ______________________________________ 82 WHEREAS, The adoption and implementation of this policy does not, in and of RESOLUTION NO. 2936 - 2023

RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE

TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY ESTABLISHING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING

FUND AND ADOPTING POLICIES THAT GUIDE THE USE OF AFFORDABLE

HOUSING FUNDS
WHEREAS, Goal 1 of the Housing Element adopted in May of 2023 by the Town Council and under review by the State of California Department of Housing and Community Development states – “ Expand the types of housing allowed in the community. Facilitate the development of a range of housing types to meet the Town’s fair share of regional housing needs and accommodate current and new Portola Valley residents of diverse ages, races, and socioeconomic backgrounds”; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to its inclusionary housing requirements ( PV Muni Code

17.20.215) the Town has collected and has on account “ in lieu” housing funds designated for affordable housing purposes; and
WHEREAS, Action T6 of the Post-Adoption Housing Element Plan states that a policy be developed for use of inclusionary funds, which are funds available for affordable housing in Town; and
WHEREAS, A subcommittee of the Town Council was established and was charged with developing a policy consistent with Action T6 of the Post-Adoption Housing Element Plan; and
WHEREAS, The subcommittee, in collaboration with the Finance Committee, Open Space Committee and Race and Equity Committees, has completed its draft of this policy and recommends its adoption to the Town Council, and WHEREAS, The recommended Affordable Housing Fund Policy formally establishes the fund and includes policies that guide the use of the affordable housing funds; and
WHEREAS, This project has been found consistent with California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines § 15061(b)(3), the “ General Rule” exemption which means that CEQA only applies to projects which have the potential for causing a significant impact and if there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant impact, the activity is not covered by CEQA; and 83 Jeff Aalfs, Mayor
ATTEST
Jennifer Torres, Town Clerk
itself, have the possibility of causing a significant impact as it is policy document that provides guidance on the use of funds for affordable housing purposes.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Portola Valley hereby adopts the Affordable Housing Fund Policy included as Attachment ‘A” to this resolution.

REGULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of December, 2023.

84 AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND POLICY
The affordable housing fund and on-going funding.

1. There is hereby established by the town council an affordable housing fund (Fund). All fees collected pursuant to inclusionary housing in-lieu fee regulations and other monies controlled by the town for affordable housing shall be deposited in the Fund.

2. Principal and interest from loan repayments, proceeds from grant repayments, forfeitures, reimbursements, and all other income from Fund activities shall be deposited into the Fund. All monies in the account shall earn interest at least at the same rate as pooled investments managed by the Town. All interest earnings from the Fund shall be reinvested and dedicated to the Fund. Transferred monies shall accrue interest from the time of transfer.

Fund use location.

The Fund shall serve to increase the supply of affordable housing within the limits of the Town of Portola Valley.

Administration.

The Fund shall be administered by the town manager or an outside entity/nonprofit agency selected by the Town Council, subject to an executed agreement between any such outside entity, and the Town and in each case, such administration shall be consistent with this policy.

Eligible fund expenses.

Moneys in the Fund may be used to:

1. Increase and improve the supply of affordable housing through the following means:
a. Provide funding for pre-development and construction expenses necessary to create new affordable housing.
b. Purchase land directly (land banking) or provide funding to affordable housing developers or community land trusts to purchase suitable sites to build affordable housing.
c. Engage experts, consultants, or advisors with demonstrated experience in the development of affordable housing projects to evaluate the feasibility of potential affordable housing sites, projects, or funding programs and/or develop site and building designs that reflect an appropriate affordable housing project on such sites. d. Provide funding for purchase and/or rehabilitation of existing multi- family housing for conversion to deed restricted affordable housing.
e. Support the development and construction of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units for low or very low-income households with a recorded deed restriction of 55 years.

ATTACHMENT 1

85 f. Fund efforts to streamline affordable housing processes in Portola Valley. g. Provide funding assistance to other agencies or housing development corporations, through loans including, equity participation loans, grants, pre -home ownership coinvestment, participation leases, or other public/private partnership arrangements. h. Other affordable housingopportunities as they may arise thatthe Town Council deems appropriate.

2. Cover reasonable administrative expenses not reimbursed through processing or other fees, including:
a. Reasonable consultant and legal expenses related to the establishment and/ or administration of the Fund,
b. Reasonable expenses for administering the process of calculating, collecting, and accounting for in-lieu and housing impact fees, and
c. Town administrative costs for the development, permitting, and the on-going monitoring of affordable housing projects constructed with monies from the Fund.

Funding priorities.

Funding requests shall be considered, giving priority to the following:

1. Identifying, funding the acquisition of, and funding the construction of affordable units on Housing Element Opportunity Sites, or alternative sites that contribute to meeting the RHNA obligations of the Housing Element on an equivalent basis, with input from the Planning Commission and the Architectural and Site Control Commission or other boards or commissions the Town Council deems appropriate.

2. Projects that would enable developers to support or increase the percentage of units in a project that are for very low- and low-income households.

3. Other projects for which the Town Council determines will have the greatest impact in addressing the Town’s affordable housing needs, consistent with the Town’s General Plan.

Expenditure from fund.

1. Expenditures from the Fund shall be controlled, authorized, and paid in accordance with the town’s general budgetary policies. For all funding opportunities, an application shall be submitted to the Town, reviewed by town staff, and a report prepared with input from the Planning Commission and the Architectural and Site Control Commission or other boards or commissions the Town Council deems appropriate, for approval by the Town Council. The report should contain a summary of the current Fund status, assessment of project consistency with this policy, and a review of project ATTACHMENT 1

86 documentation, pro forma, and other reports demonstrating project and applicant readiness and capability.

2. Every recipient shall enter into a written agreement with the town which sets forth the terms and conditions of the grant or loan. At a minimum, the agreement shall describe the allowable uses of the grant or loan funds, the dollar amount and disbursement method, compliance with the applicable town standards and policies for affordable housing and periodic reporting to assist the town in the monitoring of compliance with the agreement.

Accounting of fund.

The Fund shall be accounted for in the town’s annual financial audit.

ATTACHMENT 1

87 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

LIAISON MEMO
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Councilmember Rebecca Flynn
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: 09/14/2026 ASCC Meeting Liaison Memo

BACKGROUND
ASCC considered the Architectural Review for 14 new exterior signs at 302 Portola Road (Woodside Priory); Applicant: EHDD Architecture, Emily Bello; Property Owner: Benedictine Fathers of the Priory; (Max Mendenhall, planner)
ASCC approved signs with a few restrictions, including reducing the size of the entry sign, eliminating one of the seals from entry posts, and moving a sign on the other side of their entry drive.

Concerns raised about the magnitude of the entry sign.

Brown Act training was provided for ASCC members by the Town Attorney with a Specialist attorney.

ASCC members have been conducting preliminary meetings with projects with simplified documents prior to formal submission, allowing homeowners to get feedback before spending large sums on engineering and other documents required by the formal ASCC planning process.

Meeting minutes were approved.
88 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

LIAISON MEMO
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Councilmember Rebecca Flynn
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: 09/14/2026 Friends of PV Library Meeting Liaison Memo

BACKGROUND
Action Items

1. Attend Town picnic on September 19 and enjoy free ice cream.

Notes

1. President’s Report (Kwok Lau)
Cindy and Karen are retiring from Board of FOPVL. Transitioning to Advisory Council.

Board changes (Kwok will finish chairmanship in June 2027) Town Picnic. FOPVL ice cream truck is on the official agenda for the event. Signs will be near boy scouts to direct attendees to the library and ice cream truck. Children will be invited to share what they like best about the library on notes. Event 11-2 pm

2. Library Director Carmen Latona-Adams
Teddy Bear Picnic on Thursday Sept 24 10:30 am at Huddart Park. Friends funds for prizes for scavenger hunt.

October – sign language story time – Librarian Rachel is taking a sign language course with Friends Funds.

Planning school outreach events and Willow Commons partnership Presenting annual report to Town Council in January timeframe.

Fully staffed at Woodside Library. Community Programs position open at Portola Valley.

Deputy Director positions open. Carmen will be do some special projects in November, December, and January for the main library.

Dolly Parton Imagination Library – Special Dolly Parton Day on Friday 9/25 (“9 to 5”).

Butterfly ornament craft project for kids after school 3-4 pm at PV Library.

Libraries closed on Thursday October 1 for staff development day.

3. Town Council liaison (Rebecca Flynn).

Ballot measure on November ballot for real property transfer tax and Charter Town JPA – PV Library Trust Fund has $1,350,907available for future library expansion.

Exploring back up batteries for Portola Valley Town center so the Library could be resilient during power outages and act as a cooling center for residents.

4. Treasurer’s report (Susan Adams)
a. Expense:
i. Outreach and programming support (budget $7500)
ii. Imagination library ($4000)
iii. Volunteer/Staff appreciation ($1500)
iv. Bookmobile ($5000)
v. Friends events (Picnic - $3000)
89 vi. Volunteer/staff appreciation ($600)
vii. Postal fees & costs (($700)
viii. Stationery and Printing ($3250)
ix. Services/Misc. ($500 – web hosting)
x. FFE ($500)
b. Revenues
i. Funds brought forward from FY 2025-26 ($46582.96)
ii. Donations ($3248, budget : $27,500)
iii. Book sales 9$644, Budget: $2000)
iv. Interest/Donations ($4407, $27,500)
v. Earmarked for library expansion ($50,000)

5. Board Recruitment and Nominations (Donna Mackowski)
a. Potential member joined the meeting

6. Events (Ateret Haselkorn)
a. Talking to John Else to give a talk at the library.

7. FOPVL newsletter (Sally Shimada-Lee) upcoming midOctober newsletter topics (Newsletter sent to all 94028 with donation envelope.) a. Staff and recognition
b. Dolly Parton passing
c. Adult literacy (1:1 tutoring at the location of the patron) d. Book Nook and volunteers
e. Mini history of SMC Free libraries
f. Advisory community
g. Laundromat Libraries
h. Photos and captions of programs throughout the year that are sponsored by the FOPVL.

8. Book sales (JoAnn Mitchell & Lin Pearlstein) – continuing to do well selling used books. a. Tuesday at 1 to accept and cull donated books. Average $50/week.

9. Secretary Update (Jennifer Prindiville)
a. Annually, board members need to sign online conflict of interest for to preserve nonprofit status.

10. Origami Book Box workshop
a. Susan planning to offer the board activity for team building in the fall.

11. Next meeting; Thursday January 2027 at 1 pm.
90 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY

LIAISON MEMO
TO: Mayor and Members of the Town Council
FROM: Councilmember Rebecca Flynn
DATE: September 23, 2026
RE: 09/14/2026 SMC Library Joint Powers Authority Meeting Liaison Memo

BACKGROUND
Meeting Notes of interest
Final FY 2026-27 Recommended Budget approved. Strong financial condition.

New annual report release (digital report only) – Bringing personal stories to life. San Mateo County Libraries Annual Report 2025-26
Presentations of the annual report to Municipalities will start in the new year.

The PV trust fund allocation for 26-27 is $249 (after several years of no additional funding).

The Portola Valley Library Trust Funds as of June 30, 2026, totaled $1,350,907 ($12,677 held by the Town of Portola Valley and $1,338,230 held by the Library JPA). The Town of Portola Valley proposes utilizing restricted Library JPA funds in an amount estimated at $78,000 to cover library utilities, maintenance, custodial services, and overhead.

SMC libraries offered digital literacy hubs for multiple languages this past year and are planning more.

SMC libraries offered Immigration support programs, partnering with the CAIR-SFBA Immigration Team and attorneys from the PARS Equality Center.
55+ Adventure. This summer, 254 adults ages 55 and older participated in enriching field trips to destinations including Alcatraz and CuriOdyssey, creating opportunities for learning, exploration and meaningful social connection. Libraries throughout the system hosted trips, many in partnership with local adult community centers.

Trends:

Library visitors, circulation, and digital downloads have all recovered and increased above pre-plague numbers. Digital downloads continue to show very strong growth. The library system has been offering more, smaller, more-targeted programs.

Restricted funds trust fund
Staff have included a $200,000 allocation in the FY 2026-27 Adopted Budget to hire a consultant to complete a facilities needs assessment for all library locations and compile a list of projects with estimated costs. The consultant will also propose a framework for prioritizing identified projects, with the goal of providing safe, healthy, resilient, and consistent facilities across all libraries.

Staff anticipate bringing this report back to the Library JPA Operations Committee for review and further input on next steps by the end of FY 2026-27.

Director’s report
New projects
91 Atherton library new children’s garden – opened this past month North Fair Oaks library – adding a bathroom
San Carlos Makers Space progressing – work has started
New Bookmobile has arrived in California and is now being inspected and outfitted. It will be wrapped in the Library colors and branding. Planning for early fall launch.

Maker Spaces approximate costs:
$400K Millbrae
$730K San Carlos
92