Agenda packet — Los Altos City Council, August 25, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
August 25, 2026 - 7:00 PM
Hybrid
PARTICIPATION: Members of the public are invited to participate by attending the meeting at the Los Altos Council Chamber, located at Los Altos City Hall, 1 N. San Antonio Rd, Los Altos, CA, during the meeting.

Public comments are accepted in person at the physical meeting location, remotely using Zoom technology, or via email to [email protected] or through the Public Comment forum on the city website: Public Comments Form.

RULES FOR CONDUCT: According to Los Altos Municipal Code, Section 2.05.010 "Interruptions and rules for conduct": Understanding that the purpose of the city council meetings is to conduct the people's business for the benefit of all the people, in the event that any meeting of the city council is willfully interrupted by a person or group of persons so as to render the orderly conduct of the meeting impossible, the mayor, mayor pro tem, or any other member of the city council acting as the chair may order the removal of the person or persons responsible for the disruption and bar them from further attendance at the council meeting, or otherwise proceed pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.0 or any applicable penal statute or city ordinance.

REMOTE MEETING PARTICIPATION: Members of the public may view the meeting via the link below and will be permitted to provide public comment via Zoom or telephone. Those viewing the meeting via Zoom may use the "Raise Hand" feature to provide public comment on agenda items. Those calling in by telephone over Zoom may use the *9 feature to "raise their hand" to provide public comment. Public comments will also be accepted in person, and members of the public may submit written comments by following the instructions below.
https://losaltosca-gov.zoom.us/j/92708268808?pwd=vW7kasEboV4ihFiVODZsLyWnQIRbSM.1 Telephone: 1-669-444-9171 / Webinar ID: 927 0826 8808 / Passcode: 534671 SUBMIT WRITTEN COMMENTS: Before the meeting, comments on matters listed on the agenda may be emailed to [email protected]. Emailed public comments sent directly to the City Council, either as a group or individually, will not be included in the agenda packet but may be disclosable as part of a public records request. Emails sent to [email protected] will be included in the appropriate agenda packet and are also disclosable as part of a public records request.

Please note: Personal information, such as e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information, is not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included in your written comments, it will become part of the public record. Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Correspondence submitted in hard copy/paper format must be received by 2:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting to ensure distribution prior to the meeting. Hard copy/paper format comments presented during the meeting will be distributed to the City Council the following day. Members of the public may present a copy of their comments or attachments to the City Clerk for distribution to the City Council.

The Mayor will open public comment and will announce the length of time provided for comments during each item.

Page 1 of 261 ends

AGENDA

CALL MEETING TO ORDER

ESTABLISH QUORUM

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA

SPECIAL ITEMS
Recognition of 2026 Annual Employee Award Winners

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Members of the audience may bring to the Council's attention any item that is not on the agenda. The Mayor will announce the time speakers will be granted before comments begin. Please be advised that, by law, the City Council is unable to discuss or take action on issues presented during the Public Comment Period.

According to State Law (also known as “The Brown Act”) items must first be noted on the agenda before any discussion or action.

CONSENT CALENDAR
These items will be considered by one motion. Prior to consideration of the Consent Calendar, a Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Calendar. Any item removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion will be handled at the discretion of the Mayor.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes - Draft Regular Meeting of July 14, 2026

2. Acceptance of Treasurer's Report
Receive and file the City's Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026

3. Adoption of Resolution - History Museum Roof Replacement Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Diablo Roofing Incorporated, to replace and repair the roofing at the Los Altos History Museum in an amount notto-exceed $147,500 with a contingency of up to 15% (not-to-exceed $22,125.00), for a total combined project cost not-to-exceed $169,625

4. Approval of Draft Response - Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Approve the draft responses to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports: Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County and VTA's Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II

5. Adoption of Resolution – Award Construction Contract for the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. of Stockton, California, to complete the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project in an amount not to exceed $363,220, and authorize up to 15% construction contingency in an amount not to exceed $54,483, for a total amount not to exceed $417,703

Page 2 of 261 ends

6. Adoption of Resolution - Woodland Library Patio Expansion Project Acceptance Adopt a resolution accepting completion of the Woodland Library Patio Expansion project and authorizing City staff to record a Notice of Completion as required by law

PUBLIC HEARING

7. Public Hearing - Resident Petition to Rename Lee Street to Tubman Street Receive the report and take one of the following actions:
• Rename Lee Street to Tubman Street; or
• Forward the item to the Historical Commission, or other relevant Commission, for further study and recommendation

8. Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at 349 First Street Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes (Application No.

TM23-0002) for the creation of 19 condominium units at 349 First Street, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Attachment 1)

9. Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at Sherwood and Acacia Avenue Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes (Application No.

TM25-0002) for the creation of 33 condominium units at 966, 994, and 988 Sherwood Avenue, and 987, 994, and 1005 Acacia Avenue, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 21080.66 (Attachment 1)

DISCUSSION ITEMS

10. Provide Direction - Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Provide direction on how the Joint Volunteer Awards Committee shall proceed moving forward

INFORMATIONAL ITEMS / COUNCIL Q&A
There will be no discussion or action on Informational Items. The Council Q&A will be included in the packet the day of the meeting.

11. Tentative Council Calendar and Housing Element Implementation Schedule

12. 08-25-2026 Council QA

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

ADJOURNMENT

SPECIAL NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC
According to the City Council Norms and Procedures: It will be customary to have a recess at approximately 9:00 p.m. Before the recess, the Mayor shall announce whether any items will be carried over to the next meeting. The established hour after which no new items will be started is 11:00 p.m. Remaining items, however, may be considered by consensus of the Council.

Page 3 of 261 ends

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, the City of Los Altos will make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. If you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please get in touch with the City Clerk at least 72 hours before the meeting.

All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure according to the California Public Records Act, and that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body, will be available for public inspection at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body.

Page 4 of 261 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Friday, August 7, 2026 9:03:50 AM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Redactions and/or edits will not be made to public comments, and the comments will be posted as they are submitted. Please do not include any information in your communication that you do not want to be made public.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment Easier Access to Lucky Shopping Center I have lived in South Los Altos for many years on Farndon Ave and typically walked or biked along Grant Road to get to Lucky’s Adding a pedestrian/bike entrance at the end of Neston Way and Annette Lane would encourage people to walk or bike to the grocery store (or Woodland Library) instead of driving while not increasing car traffic.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Tom Gabrielson
Email [email protected]
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 5 of 261 ends

From: Brian Jones
To: City Council; Public Comment; Gabriel Engeland; Saskia Lagergren Subject: Flock Network Audit Clarification
Date: Tuesday, August 18, 2026 11:47:57 AM
Attachments: Flock Network Audit Clarification .pdf
Dear Council, Chief, and City Manager,
We have discussed various interpretations of the meaning of the Flock network audit.

Recently, an email from Flock has come to light in which a Flock employee clarifies what exactly is contained in the network audit.

The bottom line is that if it appears in the Network Audit, then that means our camera data was accessed. The details can be found in the attached PDF.

Thank you,
-Brian Jones
(This is a comment for items not on the agenda for the Aug 25th meeting of City Council)

Page 6 of 261 ends

Dear City Council, Chief Lagergren, and Mr. Engeland,
Information from Flock Safety has recently come to public attention that indicates out-of-state agencies unlawfully accessed Los Altos ALPR data up until the nationwide search feature was turned off sometime in February of 2025.

There has been some confusion about whether or not any data was shared with those agencies. This communication from Flock clears up that confusion.

The facts are as follows:
● Before March 2025, when the “nationwide search” feature was turned on, many out-of-state and Federal agencies did search our data. If a license plate in question had been in Los Altos, that license plate data would have been returned. ● It was not recorded whether any license plates were actually found in the Los Altos data. Contemporaneous accounts say that there were not. ● According to the California Attorney General, SB 34 controls access to ALPR data:
that is, the ability to search, regardless of whether that search is successful or not. “This prohibition applies to ALPR database(s) that LEAs access through private or public vendors who maintain ALPR information collected from multiple databases and/or public agencies.”
1 As a result, it is clear that there was unauthorized access to Los Altos data in precisely the same way that Mountain View data was accessed unlawfully. In both cases, local law enforcement was unaware that the Flock settings were allowing that access, but nonetheless access was occurring.

Was Los Altos Data Being Searched?
The network audit of Los Altos’ Flock data prior to March 2025 clearly showed entries from out-of-state agencies. Flock offered assurances that those entries did not mean that Los Altos data was being shared.

In fact, they were carefully choosing their words. They said things like “No data was transferred,”or “No images were shared.” Those statements were likely correct, but only because the license plates being searched were not present in Los Altos. Still, there was 1 California Automated License Plate Reader Guidance, Office of the Attorney General, 2023-DLE-06, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/2023-dle-06.pdf

Page 7 of 261 ends

confusion as to whether Flock was claiming that the searches were blocked, or whether they were simply saying the searches did not turn up a hit.

That question can now be resolved. On October 14, 2025, Trevor Chandler of Flock emailed Chief Lagergren with subject “Re: Network Audits & Community Backlash”:
2 (Below in bold
are questions sent to Chief Lagergren, answered by Flock.) “1. Do records in the network audit indicate a requested search, whether or not it was allowed, or an actual search of the Los Altos network (whether or not that search resulted in a hit)?
A Search record in Network Audit shows a search that had access to the agency’s cameras/network. However, it does not necessarily mean that it resulted in images from their cameras.
[...]

4. If so, how can one tell from a network audit whether the search was actually permitted or not?
If there is a record of the Search in Network Audit, then the search was permitted.”
According to Flock, then, any record in the Network Audit indicates that the requesting agency had “access” to Los Altos’ data.

Were Any Searches Successful?
We don’t know. After that time, Flock added a feature to allow filtering on searches that actually returned a result. From that same email: “As of 8/08/25, agencies can now filter Network Audit on all exact plate match searches (Lookups) to see if it actually resulted in an image from their networks (see checkbox in top right corner).” It appears that for searches before 8/8/25, it is not recorded whether a search was successful or not. Again, from the same email:

2. Can you confirm, for each of the 8 search records below, that that search did not access the Los Altos network?
Given when these searches occurred, we are not able to confirm whether they did or did not result in images from your cameras. 2 Los Altos Public Records Request 26-456

Page 8 of 261 ends

Note that Mr. Chandler is paltering: he is not actually answering the question being asked.

He was asked about access, but answered about successful searches.

Does mere “access” violate SB 34?
SB 34 says 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 legislation intentionally distinguishes between “share” and “transfer”. From a common sense meaning the law recognizes that viewing, searching, or querying a large database is distinctly different from downloading particular pieces of data from that same database. The Attorney General of California has clarified that providing access to the data constitutes sharing, both in their official guidance
3 , and in their motion in California v. City of El Cajon. 4 Indeed, this passes the common sense test as well. It can hardly be permitted to allow outside agencies to search data, as long as they don’t find anything. It would be impossible to know whether a search was legal or illegal until it was performed.

Instead, Flock’s continuing effort to focus on whether or not images were returned appears to be designed to deflect culpability in allowing prohibited searches: no harm, no foul, as it were. This position could significantly cost the City: SB 34 grants a private cause of action and authorizes a penalty of $2,500 per violation.

Conclusion
The entries in the Flock Network Audit are properly understood to mean that a search of our data was performed. Whether or not that search led to a match, such searches are considered by the State Attorney General to be in violation of SB 34. Flock’s claims that “no data was shared” are misleading – they mean that no matches occurred, but not that no search occurred. The legality of a search cannot depend on whether or not anything is found.
4 California v. City of El Cajon,
https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press-docs/Memorandum%20of%20Points%20%26%2 0Authorities.pdf
3 Ibid.

Page 9 of 261 ends

Appendix
Here is the entire email produced in Los Altos PRR 26-456:

Page 10 of 261 ends

Page 11 of 261 ends

Page 12 of 261 ends

From: Yvette Stout
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment on Agenda Item #9
Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 3:45:36 PM
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in support of the proposed townhome development (Sherwood and Acacia Avenue) and to offer a perspective informed by nearly two decades working in residential real estate in Los Altos and the
surrounding communities, as well as my own past experience living in a townhome community
nearby on Sherwood over 10 years ago.

Over the past several years, I have been involved in selling a number of the parcels that make up this proposed development. Through that process, I watched this developer assemble properties in a part of Los Altos that has historically received far less investment and attention than many of our other neighborhoods. From the beginning, the vision was not simply to build housing, but to create a cohesive residential community in a pocket of our city with significant unrealized potential.

Los Altos has a very real need for more family-sized housing options. Three- and four-bedroom
townhomes provide a realistic path into our community for families who simply cannot reach the
price point of a detached single-family home. The economics of our market have become extraordinary. We recently saw what was essentially a teardown property in North Los Altos sell for nearly $5.8 million Recent North Los Altos Sale. At that level, even highly successful working families can find themselves priced out of Los Altos.

Townhomes can fill an important gap. They offer families enough space to raise children while allowing them to live close to some of the most highly regarded schools in the state, with many children able to walk or bike to school and neighborhood amenities.

This is also increasingly important as Los Altos competes with Palo Alto, Mountain View, and surrounding communities for younger families. Many buyers I work with would strongly consider Los Altos, but there is very little housing inventory that gives them a realistic way to choose our community. When that option does not exist, they go elsewhere.

Over time, that has broader implications for the character of our city. If entry into Los Altos becomes limited almost exclusively to buyers with substantial

Page 13 of 261 ends

accumulated wealth or significant equity compensation, we narrow the range of people who can become part of this community. A healthy city should have room for physicians and dentists, teachers and small-business owners, electricians,entrepreneurs and people in creative professions.

More attainable, family-sized housing helps make that possible.

I have also personally experienced what this type of housing can contribute to Los Altos. At one point during my years living here, I owned and lived in a townhome on Marcelli Circle in the Sherwood community. That development created something much more meaningful than a collection of attached homes. It created a neighborhood.

Many of those families remained there for years because of the relationships they formed with
one another. Children rode their bikes to Almond, Egan, and Bullis Charter School.

Neighbors
knew one another. Families built the kind of lasting connections that we often associate with the
best parts of traditional Los Altos neighborhoods.

Finally, I believe it is important to recognize how difficult it is to find a developer willing to take
on properties like these. Because I was directly involved in marketing and selling parcels in this area, I saw that firsthand. I met with multiple developers who evaluated these opportunities and ultimately chose
to invest elsewhere, including Palo Alto and Mountain View, where they believed more urban
downtown environments would provide a more predictable draw for younger buyers.

This developer saw something different. They were willing to take a risk on an overlooked part of
Los Altos and had a vision for what it could become. In my view, this development addresses a genuine housing need, gives younger families a more realistic opportunity to choose Los Altos, and reflects the kind of thoughtful investment that can strengthen an underutilized part of our city.

For those reasons, I encourage you to support this project.

Sincerely,
Yvette

Page 14 of 261 ends

Page 15 of 261 ends

From: Jim Wing
To: Public Comment
Cc: Gabriel Engeland; Sean Gallegos; Stephanie Williams ([email protected]); Steven Son Subject: Council 8/25/2026 Agneda Item 8 Development at 349 First Street Date: Friday, August 21, 2026 8:12:27 PM
Los Altos Mayor Meadows and Distinguished Council Members Subject: Council 8/25/2026 Meeting Agenda Item 8, Development at 349 First Street I [regretfully]recommend you approve affordable housing project at 349 First Street without the Whitney / First Street corner pedestrian bulb-outs. Make a second motion to request Los Altos staff to immediately remove existing First Street single car parking space in front of 349 First Street, paint curb red, add “No Parking” sign.

At a later date upgrade existing Whitney/ First Street corner ADA ramp for “Vision Impaired” as part of Annual ADA CIP.

No street parking in front of 349 First is a “root cause” solution for long standing pedestrian safety problem because parked car blocks oncoming First Street traffic visibility of pedestrians entering crosswalk going to Draeger’s. Whitney is a very busy street with Dreager’s trucks from 101/ El Camino and north Los Altos Dreager’s customers use of San Antonio to Whitney for downtown congestion bypass. Drawings for 349 First show westbound traffic on Whitney that turn right to northbound First, cross over into on-coming First Street traffic lane as they are making turn because pedestrian bulb outs extend into normal turn lane. Bulb-outs and parked car removal, are a “Win! Win!” for developer because it saves them money and provides “dropoff curb space out of travel lane” for Amazon, UPS, FedEx, Uber, Waymo.

This section of First Street is becoming a busy traffic / pedestrian street with 3 housing buildings already built plus 3 housing buildingd [81 Units] approved near Whitney / First.

Prior Los Altos Council has approved safety circulation change to Dreager’s parking lot [move First Street entrance/ exit to parking lot center near streetlight pole] this will help reduce traffic congestion from current entrance/exit near Whitney. You may want to encourage staff to work with Dreager’s to make this change happen. Recent discussion with Dreager’s owner confirmed this change is on their list based on customer safety concern.

Following are some safety changes that hopefully developer will make:

Per California Vehicle Code, Whitney / First corner street light must be within 15 feet of corner.

Whitney center of building parking entrance / exit should have a “flashing yellow light” to warn pedestrians walking on sidewalk that a car is about to exit.

Street tree branches next to Whitney travel lane will be hit by trucks. A low-profile bush would avoid being hit and damaged.

Thank you for your consideration!
Jim Wing, Milverton Road, Los Altos

Page 16 of 261 ends

From: jill reimann
To: Public Comment
Subject: Keep the “Lee” street name.

Date: Sunday, August 23, 2026 2:09:29 PM
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to express my opposition to the proposal to change the name of Lee Street.

As a resident at 611 Palm Ave, located near Lee Street, and with my family having lived here since 1956, I feel strongly about preserving the history of our neighborhood, which is designated as "Old Los Altos." While I respect Harriet Tubman and her significant role in American history, I believe that changing long-standing street names alters the historical fabric of our community.

I request that the current street name be maintained to preserve the history of Los Altos.

Sincerely,
Jill Reimann

Page 17 of 261 ends

From: Janet Corrigan
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 - AUGUST 25, 2026 Date: Monday, August 24, 2026 12:11:06 PM
Attachments: 26-375 Responsive Record_Redacted-2.pdf
Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Councilmembers, We are writing regarding the proposal on the August 25 City Council agenda to rename Lee Street to Tubman Street.

We respectfully ask the City Council not to decide on the renaming until it has obtained meaningful, statistically valid input from the Old Los Altos neighborhood.

The proposal appears to have originated with a small group of residents. Records obtained through a California Public Records Act request show that the request was presented to City officials in June 2026 (the PRA response is attached). To date, there does not appear to have been a broader effort to determine what Old Los Altos residents want—whether they would prefer to:
retain Lee Street, a name dating to the neighborhood's original development in 1907; change it to Tubman Street; or
consider another name.

This is an important distinction. The question should not be decided simply by comparing Robert E. Lee and Harriet Tubman. Harriet Tubman is worthy of recognition. The question is whether a historic public street should be renamed, and what the affected community believes should happen.

There are two particularly important reasons for seeking broader community input:

First, a public street is a community asset. Its name belongs to the community, not to any particular group of residents. A decision to change a name that has existed for nearly 120 years should reflect the views of the broader neighborhood, not simply those of the residents who initiated the proposal.

Second, Los Altos has established a high bar for renaming public facilities. Municipal Code §9.28.010 states that, once adopted, name changes should occur "on an exceptional basis only." The ordinance also specifically identifies historical or cultural significance and the articulated preference of residents of the neighborhood as considerations.

Lee Street is part of the original Old Los Altos street plan, which included streets named Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and Lee. Before changing one of these historic names, the City should ensure that it understands the historical context and, importantly, the views of the community that will be affected.

A statistically valid survey of Old Los Altos homeowners would provide the Council with objective information rather than relying on whoever happens to organize first or submit the most letters. The survey should neutrally present the relevant history and ask residents whether they prefer to retain Lee Street, rename it Tubman Street, or consider another name.

Vice Mayor Larry Lang has a particularly important role in this discussion as the Councilmember representing District 4, which includes the affected community. We respectfully ask that he and the full Council ensure that Old Los Altos residents have a meaningful opportunity to be heard before this historic name is changed.

This request is not about opposing Harriet Tubman or defending Robert E. Lee. It is about fair process, community participation, historical context, and adherence to the City's own standard that renaming should be exceptional.

We respectfully ask the Council to defer any decision on the renaming and direct City staff to conduct an independent, statistically valid survey of Old Los Altos homeowners before proceeding. In addition, several

Page 18 of 261 ends

neighbors in this community are prepared to assist the city in this endeavor.

Thank you for considering this request.

Respectfully submitted,
Janet Corrigan, John Corrigan, John Reimann

Page 19 of 261 ends

Page 20 of 261 ends

Page 21 of 261 ends

Page 22 of 261 ends

Page 23 of 261 ends

Page 24 of 261 ends

From: Janet Corrigan
To: Public Comment
Subject: Re: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 - AUGUST 25, 2026 -- Updated with. more signatures Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 9:13:26 AM
Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Councilmembers, As more neighbors learn about this topic, I have been asked to add more names. Accordingly, those names have been added below.

Respectfully submitted,
Janet Corrigan
On Monday, August 24, 2026 at 12:09:33 PM PDT, Janet Corrigan <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Councilmembers, We are writing regarding the proposal on the August 25 City Council agenda to rename Lee Street to Tubman Street.

We respectfully ask the City Council not to decide on the renaming until it has obtained meaningful, statistically valid input from the Old Los Altos neighborhood.

There are two particularly important reasons for seeking broader community input:

Page 25 of 261 ends

Thank you for considering this request.

Respectfully submitted,
Janet Corrigan, John Corrigan, John Reimann, James Burns, Sarah Shreve

Page 26 of 261 ends

From: jill reimann
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 AUG 25, 2026
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 10:57:40 AM
Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Council Members, I am writing to follow up on my previous email regarding the proposal to rename Lee Street in the Old Los Altos neighborhood, following recent conversations with several neighbors on Palm Avenue.

We respectfully ask that you consider the following points before making a decision:
- Community Input: Please seek formal input from the Old Los Altos neighborhood and avoid rushing this decision.
- Historical Preservation: We ask that you preserve the original street names and layout of Los Altos. The original street plan included four significant historical figures: Generals Washington, Sherman, Sheridan, and Lee.
- Neighborhood Heritage: The Lee Street name is permanently imprinted in the sidewalk at the corner of Orange and Lee. This historic detail holds personal significance for long-term residents and reflects the character of our neighborhood.

We have a wonderful community of well-intentioned residents, and we hope to preserve this piece of Old Los Altos history.

Sincerely,
Jill Reimann

Page 27 of 261 ends

From: Planning Services
To: Public Comment
Subject: Fw: [External Sender]public comments re items 8 & 9 for tonight"s Council meeting Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 1:36:42 PM
Attachments: Los Altos - Sherwood and Acacia Avenue - HAA -CC.pdf Los Altos - 349 First Street - BR - CC.pdf
CalHDF v LCF - compressed.pdf
image.png
Sean Gallegos
Senior Planner
Planning Division
City of Los Altos
1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA | 94022
Ph: (650) 947-2641 | [email protected]
From: James Lloyd <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 12:13 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Sally Meadows <[email protected]>; Larry Lang <[email protected]>; Pete Dailey <[email protected]>; Jonathan Weinberg <[email protected]>
Cc: Melissa Thurman <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>; Gabriel Engeland <[email protected]>; Planning Services <[email protected]>
Subject: [External Sender]public comments re items 8 & 9 for tonight's Council meeting Dear Los Altos City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits the attached two public comments (and a court case referenced in the 339 First Street letter) regarding items 8 and 9 for tonight's Council meeting:
the proposed 19-unit housing development project at 349 First Street, which includes four low-income units; and
the proposed 33-unit housing development project at 966, 994, and 988 Sherwood Avenue, and 987, 994, and 1005 Acacia Avenue, which includes 1 low income unit and 4 moderate income units.

Page 28 of 261 ends

Sincerely,
James M. Lloyd
Director of Planning and Investigations
California Housing Defense Fund
[email protected]
CalHDF is grant & donation funded
Donate today - https://calhdf.org/donate/

Page 29 of 261 ends

Page 30 of 261 ends

Page 31 of 261 ends

Page 32 of 261 ends

Page 33 of 261 ends

Page 34 of 261 ends

Page 35 of 261 ends

Page 36 of 261 ends

Page 37 of 261 ends

Page 38 of 261 ends

Page 39 of 261 ends

Page 40 of 261 ends

Page 41 of 261 ends

Page 42 of 261 ends

Page 43 of 261 ends

Page 44 of 261 ends

Page 45 of 261 ends

Page 46 of 261 ends

Page 47 of 261 ends

Page 48 of 261 ends

Page 49 of 261 ends

Page 50 of 261 ends

Page 51 of 261 ends

Page 52 of 261 ends

Page 53 of 261 ends

Page 54 of 261 ends

Page 55 of 261 ends

Page 56 of 261 ends

Page 57 of 261 ends

Page 58 of 261 ends

Page 59 of 261 ends

Page 60 of 261 ends

Page 61 of 261 ends

Page 62 of 261 ends

Page 63 of 261 ends

Page 64 of 261 ends

Page 65 of 261 ends

Page 66 of 261 ends

Page 67 of 261 ends

Page 68 of 261 ends

Aug 25, 2026
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at 349 First Street To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Los Altos City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) writes regarding item 8 on the agenda for the August 25, 2026 Council meeting: a Vesting Tentative Map for a proposed 19-unit housing development project at 349 First Street, which includes four low-income units. We urge the City to approve the project, as is required by the Housing Accountability Act (Gov.

Code, § 65589.5; the “HAA”).

Under the HAA,
1 a local agency may not disapprove a qualifying affordable housing project (i.e., a housing development project that provides at least a certain percent of the total units to lower income households, as defined by Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) on the grounds it does not comply with the city’s zoning and general plan if the developer submitted either a statutorily defined "preliminary application" or a "complete development application" while the city’s housing element was not in substantial compliance with state law. (See Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subds. (d)(5), (h)(5), (o)(1) 2 .) This statutory provision temporarily
suspends the power of non-compliant local agencies to enforce their zoning rules against qualifying affordable housing projects. (See, e.g., California Housing Defense Fund v. City of La Cañada Flintridge, Case Number: 23STCP02614 (attached), for a recent court decision affirming the plain language of the statute in this regard.) 2 These code section numbers correspond to the HAA as it existed when the preliminary application for the project at issue was submitted (i.e. before AB 1893 went into effect). 1 AB 1893, effective January 1, 2025, has amended the “Builder’s Remedy” provisions of the HAA.

However, the AB 1893 allows for vested Builder’s Remedy applications to proceed under the previous version of the law.
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

Page 69 of 261 ends

The City’s Housing Element was not in substantial compliance with state law when the preliminary application under SB 330 was submitted. The City must therefore allow the project to be developed as proposed.

Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21080.66.) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v.

County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit; it will provide vital affordable housing; it will enhance the City’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in more urban areas as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.

CalHDF is a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation whose mission includes advocating for increased access to housing for Californians at all income levels, including low-income households. You may learn more about CalHDF at www.calhdf.org.

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
2 of 2

Page 70 of 261 ends

Aug 25, 2026
City of Los Altos
1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, CA 94022
Re: Proposed Housing Development Project at Sherwood and Acacia Avenue To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected];
Dear Los Altos City Council,
The California Housing Defense Fund (CalHDF) submits this letter to remind the City of its obligation to abide by all relevant state laws when evaluating the proposed 33-unit housing development project at 966, 994, and 988 Sherwood Avenue, and 987, 994, and 1005 Acacia Avenue, which includes 1 low income unit and 4 moderate income units. These laws include the Housing Accountability Act (HAA), the Density Bonus Law (DBL), AB 130, and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines.

The HAA provides the project legal protections. It requires approval of zoning and general plan compliant housing development projects unless findings can be made regarding specific, objective, written health and safety hazards. (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j).) The HAA also bars cities from imposing conditions on the approval of such projects that would reduce the project’s density unless, again, such written findings are made. (Ibid.) As a development with at least two-thirds of its area devoted to residential uses, the project falls within the HAA’s ambit, and it complies with local zoning code and the City’s general plan.

Increased density, concessions, and waivers that a project is entitled to under the DBL (Gov.

Code, § 65915) do not render the project noncompliant with the zoning code or general plan, for purposes of the HAA (Gov. Code, § 65589.5, subd. (j)(3)). The HAA’s protections therefore apply, and the City may not reject the project except based on health and safety standards, as outlined above. Furthermore, if the City rejects the project or impairs its feasibility, it must conduct “a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and environmental effects of the action.” (Id. at subd. (b).)
2201 Broadway, PH1, Oakland, CA 94612
www.calhdf.org

Page 71 of 261 ends

CalHDF also writes to emphasize that the DBL offers the proposed development certain protections. The City must respect these protections. In addition to granting the increase in residential units allowed by the DBL, the City must not deny the project the proposed waivers and concessions with respect to commercial space, rear setback, upper-story step-back, facade articulation, ground level open space, ground floor height, window recess, primary entrance orientation, loading zone, and pedestrian scaled entrances. If the City wishes to deny requested waivers, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (e)(1) requires findings that the waivers would have a specific, adverse impact upon health or safety, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. If the City wishes to deny requested concessions, Government Code section 65915, subdivision (d)(1) requires findings that the concessions would not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions, that the concessions would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or that the concessions are contrary to state or federal law. The City, if it makes any such findings, bears the burden of proof. (Gov. Code, § 65915, subd. (d)(4).) Of note, the DBL specifically allows for a reduction in required accessory parking in addition to the allowable waivers and concessions. (Id. at subd. (p).) Additionally, the California Court of Appeal has ruled that when an applicant has requested one or more waivers and/or concessions pursuant to the DBL, the City “may not apply any development standard that would physically preclude construction of that project as designed, even if the building includes ‘amenities’ beyond the bare minimum of building components.” (Bankers Hill150 v. City of San Diego (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 755, 775.)
Furthermore, the project is eligible for a statutory exemption from CEQA pursuant to AB 130. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21080.66.) Caselaw from the California Court of Appeal affirms that local governments err, and may be sued, when they improperly refuse to grant a project a CEQA exemption or streamlined CEQA review to which it is entitled. (Hilltop Group, Inc. v. County of San Diego (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 890, 911.)
As you are well aware, California remains in the throes of a statewide crisis-level housing shortage. New housing such as this is a public benefit: by providing affordable housing, it will mitigate the state’s homelessness crisis; it will increase the city’s tax base; it will bring new customers to local businesses; and it will reduce displacement of existing residents by reducing competition for existing housing. It will also help cut down on transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions by providing housing in denser, more urban areas, as opposed to farther-flung regions in the state (and out of state). While no one project will solve the statewide housing crisis, the proposed development is a step in the right direction. CalHDF urges the City to approve it, consistent with its obligations under state law.
2 of 3

Page 72 of 261 ends

Sincerely,
Dylan Casey
CalHDF Executive Director
James M. Lloyd
CalHDF Director of Planning and Investigations
3 of 3

Page 73 of 261 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 2:52:20 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment Thank you for the opportunity to comment.

As a resident who lives at the corner of Lee and Orange, I see the Lee street sign every day. Renaming this street is a small, simple step easily taken. Changing this street name to honor a woman, whose courage and willingness to put her own life on the line to free people from slavery, also sends a clear signal about the community we want to be. This change costs little but is meaningful to residents like me who see this sign every day.

Again, thank you.

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Joan LeMahieu
Email [email protected]
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 74 of 261 ends

From: margie alving
To: Public Comment
Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT AGENDA ITEM 7 AUG 25, 2026
Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:26:04 PM
Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Council Members, I just recently learned that the city is considering changing the name of Lee Street in the Old Los Altos neighborhood without any attempt to solicit the thoughts and inputs from the neighborhood residents. Removing Lee’s name isn’t going to change what happened 165 years ago. When my family first moved into the neighborhood, we wondered what the names of the cross streets Lee, Sheridan, and Sherman had in common - they were all generals in the cilvil war and represented both sides of the conflict, this lead to a dinner table discussion with my children about the Civil War, its cause, its outcome, and how it divided the country. Folks should not forget Lee and what he represented in order to prevent a similar repeat in the future. There are many heroes like Harriet Tubman from the Civil War who deserve recognition - if the name is going to be changed - the broader community should have an opportunity to learn about the proposal and express its views.
thank you
Margie Alving
620 Palm Ave
Los Altos, CA

Page 75 of 261 ends

From: [email protected]
To: Public Comment
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Public Comment Submission to City Council Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:15:07 PM
Public Comment Submission to City Council
Submitting Written Comments on Agenda Items
Please note: Personal information, such as email addresses, telephone numbers, home addresses, and other contact information are not required to be included with your comments. If this information is included, they will become part of the public record.

Public comments submitted by 5:00 PM of the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet.

Public comments and any associated attachments are subject to the California Public Records Act.

Your Public Comment As a resident at the corner of Orange Ave and Lee Street, I want to voice my strong support for renaming Lee Street to Tubman Street. This is a small change with an outsized meaning: it's a chance to choose, deliberately and publicly, who our community honors.

The call for a 'statistically valid survey' sounds fair, but in practice it would be a costly, slow way to avoid a straightforward decision.

It's also worth asking: whose voice should carry more weight here — someone who drives past a sign once in a while, or someone who lives under it every day? Silicon Valley didn't build what it built by studying every small decision to death. This is a simple, low-risk change with a clear, positive direction.

Dear Mayor Meadows, Vice Mayor Lang, and Councilmembers, History doesn't disappear when a street sign changes. Books, libraries, and museums can do that and preserve context and nuance better than a green sign on a corner. Both Lee and Tubman are now covered there.. I'd rather honor someone that fought for freedom from oppression than someone that fought to preserve states rights to keep some humans enslaved. Streets are a way we show who we choose to honor now. Let's make the change and keep moving forward, towards a more perfect union.

Jim Forster
Los Altos resident for over 35 years

Page 76 of 261 ends

Attachments Field not completed.

Name Jim Forster
Email [email protected]
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

Page 77 of 261 ends

From: Kat Winant Carpenter
To: Public Comment
Subject: public comment regarding renaming of Lee Street in Los Altos Date: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 4:02:03 PM
Attachments: 1000026194.png
Hello, I sent an email to this effect to Mr Lang in July and I don't know if my comments have already been recorded, but my comment is on the topic of renaming Lee Street to Tubman Road. I would like to urge the council to refer the topic to the historical commission for further research, rather than at this time changing the name.

I first learned of this issue when I saw an article on July 2, 2026 in the Daily Post, "From Lee Street to Tubman Road?" discussing the possibility of renaming a street currently honoring Confederate general Robert E Lee.

For lack of a better term, it seemed so random that Los Altos, California, would have a street named after a Confederate general, so I referred to the book, "Early Los Altos and Los Altos Hills," written by Don McDonald and the Los Altos History museum. We have this at home, and it's interesting to flip through to find out about people who helped form the town, and after whom many of our streets, parks, and landmarks are named.

So, I refer to page 45 in the book, in a section which is calling out a number of notable buildings, and the caption on the photograph (attached) says "Margaret Wallace, the wife of Ryland Wallace, sits on the steps of Red Gables, her East Coast style 'cottage' built in 1911 for summer entertainment. Situated on the corner of University Avenue and Burke Road, the home has a history tied to the name of Leland 'Lee' Smith, the black chauffeur and handyman who lived there many years. He was hired in 1922 by Mrs Wallace who had become a reclusive widow by then. Because she rarely used him for work, he busied himself with helping others around town and in doing so, became popular as the town's unofficial mayor." I checked on the map, and Lee Street is only a couple of blocks from the corner of University Avenue and Burke Road, where the home is tied to 'Lee' Smith. I wonder, could Lee Street have actually been named after him? I don't have any issue with a street in Los Altos being named after Harriet Tubman, and certainly wouldn't want a street in my town named after Robert E Lee, but the reason why I raise the question is just because I wonder if in renaming, would we inadvertently be erasing the history of a former citizen, who is also a person of color, who was very important to the community. Has the Los Altos history commission been consulted on the renaming?
As Los Altos was former as a suburb of San Francisco which has always had a thriving Asian population, I'd consider that possibly Lee Street could have been named after an Asian member of the community.

The article also says, "Grant Road, honoring former general and President Ulysses S Grant, runs through the city..." but that's perhaps not true either, as President Grant's eldest son, Jessie Root Grant, lived his last years in Los Altos Hills- I would wonder if the road is actually named after him.

And near Lee Street I know there's a Sherman Street, but the book also mentions a local child named Rocky Sherman- that may have been an early family in Los Altos as well with no connection to the general!

Page 78 of 261 ends

If Los Altos did name this street, or any other, after a Confederate figure or other divisive member of our country's history, I would completely support a renaming of that street. I would just hope that the historical commission should would be consulted on the reason why a street name is named as it is. If not then, what is even the point of having a historic commission in this town? There's a lot of remarkable local history around here, I would hate for any of it to be quickly erased without knowing the origins.

Thanks so much for looking into it,
Katherine Carpenter
1809 Farndon Ave, Los Altos
Sent from my phone, please excuse the inevitable typo or awkward autocorrect!

Page 79 of 261 ends

Page 80 of 261 ends

Page 81 of 261 ends

Page 82 of 261 ends

Page 83 of 261 ends

Sent from my phone, please excuse the inevitable typo or awkward autocorrect!

Page 84 of 261 ends

1 Melissa Thurman
From: Toni Moos <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2026 7:51 PM
To: Public Comment
Subject: Please change Lee Street to Tubman Street
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I strongly support changing the name of Lee Street to Tubman Street.

This is not about erasing history. We should absolutely remember the Civil War and understand the history of Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy. But there is an important distinction between remembering history and honoring someone by putting their name on a public street.

Robert E. Lee chose to lead the Confederate Army in a war against the United States—a war fought to preserve a system of slavery. Harriet Tubman represents the opposite. She risked her own life repeatedly to help enslaved people escape to freedom, and she continued fighting for freedom and equality throughout her life.

So when we choose whose name belongs on a street in our community, we have an opportunity to ask a simple question: Whom do we want to honor?
I believe the answer should be Harriet Tubman.

And in this particular case, there is an especially compelling reason to make the change: no one has Lee Street as their residential address. That means we are not asking homeowners, families, or businesses to go through the disruption and expense that typically accompanies a street-name change. We can make this change without imposing that burden on residents.

This is therefore an unusually straightforward opportunity to replace a Confederate-associated name with the name of an American hero whose legacy is one of courage, freedom, perseverance, and service to others.

Harriet Tubman is a name that our children can learn from and our entire community can be proud to see on a street sign.

We cannot change the history that happened. But we can decide which values we choose to honor today.

I respectfully ask you to support changing Lee Street to Tubman Street.

Thank you.

Toni Moos

Page 85 of 261 ends

2 On behalf of Los Altos for Representation and Equity (LARE)

Page 86 of 261 ends

CITY OF LOS ALTOS

CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
TUESDAY, JULY 14, 2026
7:00 p.m.
1 N. San Antonio Rd. ~ Los Altos, CA
Sally Meadows, Mayor
Larry Lang, Vice Mayor
Pete Dailey, Councilmember
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember
CALL MEETING TO ORDER – Sally Meadows, Mayor, called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.

ESTABLISH QUORUM – All Councilmembers were present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Sally Meadows, Mayor, led the Pledge of Allegiance.

REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
No reportable action was taken during the Closed Session meeting on July 14, 2026.

CHANGES TO THE ORDER OF THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the order of the agenda.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
The following members of the public spoke during Public Comment:
• Jon Baer
• Alice Mansell

CONSENT CALENDAR
The following members of the public spoke during the Consent Calendar:
• Lynette Lee Eng (Item 5)
• Jon Baer (Item 5)
• Alice Mansell (Item 5)
Jonathan D. Weinberg, Councilmember, requested to pull Items 4 and 8 from the Consent Calendar for further discussion.

Sally Meadows, Mayor, moved Items 4 and 8 to the Discussion Items section of the agenda.

Motion by Lang and Second by Weinberg to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Items 4 and 8. Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.

1. Approval of Meeting Minutes – Draft Special and Regular Meeting of June 23, 2026

2. Designation of Voting Delegates- CalCities 2026 Annual Conference Designate by motion, Vice Mayor Lang to serve as Voting Delegate, and Councilmember Weinberg to serve as Alternate for the General Assembly of the Annual League of

Page 87 of 261 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

California Cities (CalCities) Conference to be held on Friday, September 25, 2026 at the Anaheim Convention Center

3. Adoption of Resolution - Agreement with ADP Workforce Now Authorize the City Manager to execute amendment No. 1 to the ADP Workforce Now Comprehensive Services Agreement extending the agreement three (3) years with a term through April 25, 2029 and related implementation documents necessary to implement Workforce Manager services, in a form approved by the City Attorney and subject to available appropriations

4. Item 4 was moved to Discussion Items

5. Adoption of Resolution - Appropriation of Funds
Adopt a resolution appropriating funds as part of annexation into the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District

6. Adoption of Resolution - Amending Joint Volunteer Awards Committee Adopt a resolution reclassifying the Los Altos-Los Altos Hills Joint Volunteer Awards Committee as a non-Brown Act advisory committee

7. Adoption of Resolution - Amendment for Roadway Landscape Maintenance Authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the agreement with Del Conte's Landscaping in the amount not to exceed $277,053 annually for city median and roadway shoulder maintenance

8. Item 8 was moved to Discussion Items

9. Adoption of Resolution – Agreement for Consultant Services Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement in the amount not to exceed $160,000 with Cumming Group for temporary project management services to assist in completing CIMMP projects in fiscal year 2026/27

10. Adoption of Resolution – SB1 Project List
Adopt a resolution that identifies a list of projects that will be funded by Senate Bill 1 in the FY 26-27 budget and find the Council’s action exempt from review under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and that one of the circumstances in the CEQA Guideline

11. Adoption of Resolution - Weed Abatement Assessment Report Adopt a resolution confirming the report and authorizing collection of the assessment charges

Page 88 of 261 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

DISCUSSION ITEMS
Items 4 and 8 were moved from the Consent Calendar:

4. Contract Renewal - Orchard Maintenance Agreement
Authorize the City Manager to execute the contract renewal, totaling $75,000 annually, for orchard maintenance with the Los Altos History Museum The City Council asked clarifying questions regarding the item.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
• Jon Baer
• Alice Mansell
Motion by Dailey and Second by Weinberg to authorize the City Manager to execute the contract renewal, totaling $75,000, for orchard maintenance with the Los Altos History Museum, and to begin evaluation of changing the contracting dynamic and have the contract term be no more than one year. Motion carried unanimously by roll call vote.

Due to a technical issue, the City Council took a roll call vote on the item.

8. Adoption of Resolution - Change Order Approval and Project Acceptance Adopt a resolution:
• Approving Change Order #1 for the Hillview Outdoor Fitness Project in the amount of $4,669 to Greenfields Outdoor Fitness for design and apparatus modifications.
• Accepting completion of and directing the Community Services Director to file a Notice of Completion for the Hillview Outdoor Fitness Project (CF-01041) The City Council asked clarifying questions regarding the item.

There were no public comments regarding the item.

Motion by Meadows and Second by Weinberg to adopt a resolution approving change order #1 for the Hillview Outdoor Fitness Project in the amount of $4,669 to Greenfields Outdoor Fitness for design and apparatus modifications, with a contingency that when staff determines the project is complete, staff will execute a resolution accepting completion of and directing the Community Services Director to file a Notice of Completion for the Hillview Outdoor Fitness Project (CF01041). Motion carried unanimously by electronic vote.

12. Receive Report - Draft General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles Receive and provide feedback on the Draft General Plan Vision and Guiding Principles

Page 89 of 261 ends

City of Los Altos
City Council Regular Meeting Minutes
July 14, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

Andrew Hill, Dyett & Bhatia Representative and Brittany Whitehill, Senior Planner, presented the report.

The following members of the public spoke regarding the item:
• Cindy Andrews
• Alice Mansell
• Jon Baer
• Eric Steinle
• JoAnne Estill
• Pierre Bedard
Informational item only. No motion taken.

COUNCIL/STAFF REPORTS AND DIRECTIONS ON FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS • Sally Meadows, Mayor – Requested a future agenda item:
o Discussion item regarding the Joint Volunteer Community Service Awards Committee (Supported unanimously)
ADJOURNMENT – The regular meeting adjourned at 10:06 p.m.

The meeting minutes were prepared by Melissa Thurman, City Clerk, for approval at the regular meeting on August 25, 2026.
_________________________________ __________________________________ Sally Meadows Melissa Thurman, MMC
Mayor City Clerk
The July 14, 2026, City Council meeting recording may be viewed via the following external website: https://www.youtube.com/@CityofLosAltosCA
The City of Los Altos does not own or operate YouTube. The video referenced in these minutes was live at the time the minutes were published.

Page 90 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Jessie Kim
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Acceptance of Treasurer's Report

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file the City's Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
None.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 23, 2026

BACKGROUND
The City Treasurer provides the City Council with a quarterly report of the City's cash and investment balances. The report lists the balance held in each treasury and investment account at quarter end and transmits the check register for the period, which documents the disbursements made during the quarter.

ANALYSIS
All City funds are held in accounts authorized by the City's Investment Policy, which prioritizes safety of principal, liquidity, and return, in that order. At June 30, 2026, $69,702,486, or 55.7 percent of the portfolio, was held in the general checking account, LAIF, and California CLASS, each of which is available on a same day or next day basis. The remaining $55,542,821 is invested through PTMA in the short term and strategic portfolios. The portfolio earned $909,564 in investment income during the quarter.

DISCUSSION
The Treasurer's Report for the quarter ending June 30, 2026, is attached for review. The report provides quarter-end balances for all City treasury accounts and the check registers for the period April 1 through June 30, 2026, documenting disbursements made during the quarter.

As of June 30, the City maintained funds in the following treasury and investment accounts.

Page 91 of 261 ends

1. US Bank General Checking: This account is used to meet the City's daily operational cash needs, including the deposit of City revenues and disbursement of funds for payroll, vendor payments, and other obligations. It provides immediate liquidity for all day-today transactions. Balances not needed for same-day obligations are swept nightly to a government money market sweep account; the balance shown below includes the sweep account.

2. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF): Managed by the California State Treasurer, LAIF serves as the City's primary liquidity reserve beyond the general checking account.

It is a fully liquid investment pool used to fund short-term operating expenses when checking balances are insufficient. During the quarter, the City transferred a net $11.5 million of available operating cash into LAIF, and LAIF credited $275,628 in quarterly interest.

3. California Cooperative Liquid Assets Securities System (CalCLASS): CalCLASS is a Joint Powers Authority investment pool created specifically for California public agencies. It offers daily liquidity and invests in high-quality short-term instruments.

While similar to LAIF, CalCLASS provides portfolio diversification and competitive yields, helping the City balance safety, liquidity, and return. The City uses both CalCLASS and LAIF to reduce risk and improve flexibility in managing short-term cash.

CalCLASS earned $133,017 during the quarter.

4. Public Treasury Management and Advisory Financial Solutions (PTMA): PTMA (previously PTA) is a professional investment advisory firm that manages the City's longer-term investment portfolio. Investments with maturities of 1 to 12 months are held in a custody account at US Bank and managed by PTMA using a ladder strategy to support cash flow needs. Funds not expected to be needed for 12 months or more are invested by PTMA in a strategic portfolio. The two PTMA accounts earned $455,632 in interest during the quarter.

The balances for each of the City's Treasury accounts as of June 30, 2026, are as follows:

Treasury Account Balance as of June 30, 2026
US Bank General Checking (including sweep) $14,818,599.25 Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $40,360,770.70
California CLASS (CalCLASS) $14,523,116.16
PTMA Short Term Account $20,458,152.68
PTMA Strategic Account $35,084,668.74
Total $125,245,307.53

Page 92 of 261 ends

In addition, the City's check register for the quarter has been organized by month for clarity. The disbursement totals for each month are as follows.
• April 2026: $3,064,244
• May 2026: $5,086,225
• June 2026: $3,336,549
Total disbursements for the quarter amounted to $11,487,018

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Treasurers Report

2. Attachment 2 - Check Register

Page 93 of 261 ends

Total portfolio
$125.2M
$125,245,307.53
Change this quarter
+$20.2M
+19.2%; +$11.1M excluding
sweep timing
Interest earned
$909,564
Less $207,420 change in
market value
A/P distributions
$11.5M
881 checks, Nos. 202375–
203255
Highlights
The City's total portfolio rose to $125.2 million at June 30. Of the $20.2 million increase, $9.1 million is sweep settlement timing, primarily a June 30 sweep sale credited to checking that settled in July. Excluding that timing item, the portfolio grew $11.1 million, or 10.5 percent.

The City received $12.4 million from the County of Santa Clara in June, the largest driver of receipts for the quarter.

A net $11.5 million of idle checking balances was transferred to LAIF during May and June to earn interest while remaining fully liquid for operations.

The portfolio earned $909,564 in interest and investment income across all accounts, offset by a $207,420 decrease in market value.

The City disbursed $11.5 million in accounts payable checks. The largest payments were $2.4 million in fire protection services to Santa Clara County Central Fire, $1.1 million to the City of Palo Alto for treatment plant service, and $1.1 million to O'Grady Paving for the street resurfacing program.

Where the money is held
June 30, 2026
LAIF $40.4M 32.2%
PTMA strategic (2100) $35.1M 28.0%
PTMA short-term (2101) $20.5M 16.3%
US Bank checking + sweep $14.8M 11.8%
California CLASS $14.5M 11.6%
LAIF PTMA strategic (2100) PTMA short-term (2101)
US Bank checking + sweep California CLASS
Portfolio balance by quarter
Quarter-end totals
$101.0M
Sep 30
2025
$100.8M
Dec 31
2025
$105.1M
Mar 31
2026
$125.2M
Jun 30
2026
Liquidity
The City has sufficient cash flow and liquidity to meet its estimated expenditure requirements for the next six months. At June 30, $69,702,486, or 55.7 percent of the portfolio, was held in accounts available on a same day or next day basis.

CITY OF LOS ALTOS
Treasurer's Report: Quarter Ending June 30, 2026
Portfolio at a Glance
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 94 of 261 ends

Treasury account activity
Quarter ending June 30, 2026
Transactions US Bank Checking LAIF CalCLASS PTMA Total
Beginning Balance 04/01/2026 6,820,220 28,585,143 14,390,099 55,294,609 105,090,070 Deposits 31,658,770 – – – 31,658,770
Withdrawals (21,291,521) – – – (21,291,521)
Interest/Income Earned 45,287 275,628 133,017 455,632 909,564 Accretion/Change in Value – – – (207,420) (207,420)
Fees – – – – –
Sweep items in transit 9,085,844 – – – 9,085,844
Net Transfers (11,500,000) 11,500,000 – – –
Ending Balance 06/30/2026 14,818,599 40,360,771 14,523,116 55,542,821 125,245,308 Checking deposits and withdrawals include automated daily sweep activity between the operating and sweep accounts. The check register reflects accounts payable checks only; the difference is comprised of payroll, electronic payments, wire transfers, and sweep transfers.

Page 95 of 261 ends

Account summary as of June 30, 2026
Account Balance % of
portfolio Liquidity Interest earned(Qtr)
US Bank checking + sweep 14,818,599 11.8% Same day 45,287 LAIF 40,360,771 32.2% Next day 275,628
California CLASS 14,523,116 11.6% Same day 133,017
PTMA: short-term ladder (1–12 mo.) 20,458,153 16.3% Laddered maturities 167,317 PTMA: strategic portfolio (12+ mo.) 35,084,669 28.0% Long-term 288,316 Total 125,245,308 100.0% 909,564
Ten largest disbursements
Quarter ending June 30, 2026
Check # Vendor Amount Purpose
202701 City of Palo Alto, Rev Collections 1,105,480.79 FY25/26 treatment plant service 202894 O'Grady Paving Inc. 1,093,557.58 Street resurfacing program 203100 Santa Clara County Central Fire 792,623.00 Fire protection services contract 202467 Santa Clara County Central Fire 792,298.00 Fire protection services contract 202765 Santa Clara County Central Fire 791,856.00 Fire protection services contract 203072 Webster Bank 532,520.53 Community Center loan payment 203201 JPB Designs Inc. 274,046.50 Woodland Branch Library patio expansion, first payment
202876 Giant Construction Inc. 226,111.00 Retention payment, LAYC project (CF-01044) 202561 Argo Construction Inc. 146,758.16 LACC EOC construction project (10008) 202472 TRB and Associates Inc. 144,694.38 Outside plan checking services, February 2026

Page 96 of 261 ends

Check Register
April 2026
CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202375 04/02/2026 10002 34TH STREET INC 4,950.00
202376 04/02/2026 10092 AACIS INVESTMENTS INC 85.79
202377 04/02/2026 10267 BERLINER COHEN LLP 26,335.39
202378 04/02/2026 13034 CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORP 10,977.80 202379 04/02/2026 10491 CHIEN-SHENG TSENG 264.53
202380 04/02/2026 10539 CITY OF PALO ALTO 1,364.40
202381 04/02/2026 10573 COMCAST 117.90
202382 04/02/2026 10573 COMCAST 753.88
202383 04/02/2026 10573 COMCAST 260.40
202384 04/02/2026 10590 Cooke & Associates Inc. 2,905.15 202385 04/02/2026 10653 Darryl Pang 375.00
202386 04/02/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 1,891.50 202387 04/02/2026 12986 DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL 104,286.27 202388 04/02/2026 99999 Jason Kozy 130.00
202389 04/02/2026 99999 Karolina Lewer 356.13
202390 04/02/2026 10879 FOLSOM LAKE FORD INC 62,691.32
202391 04/02/2026 11274 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES INC 195.00 202392 04/02/2026 11360 KENNETH NJUGUNA MBURU 7,800.00
202393 04/02/2026 11394 KMVT COMMUNITY TELEVISION 16,319.32 202394 04/02/2026 11584 LOS ALTOS HISTORY MUSEUM 48,750.00 202395 04/02/2026 11852 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 2,064.50 202396 04/02/2026 11941 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC 196.17 202397 04/02/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 99.27 202398 04/02/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 100.98 202399 04/02/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 23,096.06 202400 04/02/2026 11959 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION INC. 479.73 202401 04/02/2026 12060 PITNEY BOWES INC 98.19
202402 04/02/2026 12104 Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management 7,645.71 202403 04/02/2026 12104 Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management 1,560.00 202404 04/02/2026 12255 SAN JOSE CONSERVATION CORPS 12,282.04 202405 04/02/2026 12440 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE INC 3,172.78 202406 04/02/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 150.00
202407 04/02/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 25,108.67 202408 04/02/2026 12697 U.S. BANK 2,053.00
202409 04/02/2026 12698 U.S. BANK 42,468.41
202410 04/02/2026 12755 VESTIS 31.94
202411 04/09/2026 10012 A&D; AUTOMATIC GATE COMPANY 2,813.59 202412 04/09/2026 12985 ACTION ROAD SOLUTIONS, LLC 697.63 202413 04/09/2026 10058 AIR FILTER SUPPLY INC 120.89
202414 04/09/2026 10092 AACIS INVESTMENTS INC 85.79
202415 04/09/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1,310.11 202416 04/09/2026 13052 AP TRITON, LLC 5,500.00
202417 04/09/2026 10188 AT&T; 2,340.33
202418 04/09/2026 10242 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 1,123.00 202419 04/09/2026 12702 UDAYAN ENTERPRISES INC 3,499.78 202420 04/09/2026 10361 C2R ENGINEERING INC 33,354.50
202421 04/09/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 103.32 202422 04/09/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 828.20 202423 04/09/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1,755.77 202424 04/09/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 108.41 202425 04/09/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1,253.82 ATTACHMENT 2

Page 97 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202426 04/09/2026 10527 CIARDELLA'S GARDEN SUPPLY INC. 143.94 202427 04/09/2026 10550 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES INC. 36,184.46 202428 04/09/2026 10573 COMCAST 228.92
202429 04/09/2026 10573 COMCAST 652.14
202430 04/09/2026 10574 COMCAST BUSINESS 926.78
202431 04/09/2026 10582 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 113.00 202432 04/09/2026 10753 DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION 524.38 202433 04/09/2026 10861 FERGUSON US HOLDINGS, INC 1,227.66 202434 04/09/2026 10943 GB Auto Service Inc/ Bruce's Tire & Auto 522.00 202435 04/09/2026 10999 GRAINGER 1,620.97
202436 04/09/2026 12995 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INC. 20,200.00 202437 04/09/2026 11041 STRUCTECH ENGINEERING 39,263.32 202438 04/09/2026 11049 Hanson Bridgett LLP 15,875.50
202439 04/09/2026 11105 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 663.60 202440 04/09/2026 11179 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS INC. 4,471.25 202441 04/09/2026 11195 IT MANAGEMENT CORP 169.33
202442 04/09/2026 11250 JET MULCH INC. 2,845.35
202443 04/09/2026 11276 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 291.19
202444 04/09/2026 11394 KMVT COMMUNITY TELEVISION 4,133.78 202445 04/09/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 1,751.00
202446 04/09/2026 11534 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. 76.20 202447 04/09/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 185.46
202448 04/09/2026 11737 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 382.50 202449 04/09/2026 11739 METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 9,900.00 202450 04/09/2026 13046 DAVID R BALL 2,100.00
202451 04/09/2026 11835 NAPA AUTO PARTS 42.17
202452 04/09/2026 11941 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC 61.10 202453 04/09/2026 11921 OAK ALARM COMPANY 477.50
202454 04/09/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 222.19 202455 04/09/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 1,806.83 202456 04/09/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 17.77 202457 04/09/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 13,342.56 202458 04/09/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 5,953.21 202459 04/09/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 603.21 202460 04/09/2026 11999 PAY PLUS SOLUTIONS 728.05
202461 04/09/2026 13051 THE TORO COMPANY 633.62
202462 04/09/2026 13022 ROSS & SCHWARZ 5,075.00
202463 04/09/2026 12252 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY LLC 596.25
202464 04/09/2026 12256 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 260.21
202465 04/09/2026 12256 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 235.03
202466 04/09/2026 13013 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 176.40
202467 04/09/2026 12274 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION 792,298.00 202468 04/09/2026 12490 STEPHANIE ATIGH 2,502.50
202469 04/09/2026 12634 T-Mobile USA Inc. 647.40
202470 04/09/2026 12601 The Lew Edwards Group 6,750.00
202471 04/09/2026 12964 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 5,000.00 202472 04/09/2026 12661 TRB AND ASSOCIATES INC 144,694.38 202473 04/09/2026 12666 TRI-CITY LOCK COMPANY 746.18
202474 04/09/2026 12671 TRI-SIGNAL INTEGRATION INC 746.75 202475 04/09/2026 12694 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 620.00
202476 04/09/2026 12755 VESTIS 471.26
202477 04/16/2026 13016 A-1 FENCE AND DECK, INC 56,350.00 202478 04/16/2026 10125 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHITECTS 64,710.00 202479 04/16/2026 10163 ARGO CONSTRUCTION INC. 36,860.00 202480 04/16/2026 10188 AT&T; 7,421.81
202481 04/16/2026 10188 AT&T; 245.00

Page 98 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202482 04/16/2026 10190 AT&T; MOBILITY 832.38
202483 04/16/2026 10250 BAY CITIES JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 3,291.16 202484 04/16/2026 10261 BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES 6,468.00
202485 04/16/2026 10303 BMI IMAGING SYSTEMS 1,308.00
202486 04/16/2026 10380 CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION 4,025.00 202487 04/16/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 50,703.01 202488 04/16/2026 10388 CALTRANS 1,456.55
202489 04/16/2026 10483 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS CARD SERVICES 603.11 202490 04/16/2026 10530 CITIBANK N.A. 251.97
202491 04/16/2026 13056 CITYREPORTER SOFTWARE INC. 5,843.25 202492 04/16/2026 10573 COMCAST 128.74
202493 04/16/2026 10573 COMCAST 220.15
202494 04/16/2026 10590 Cooke & Associates Inc. 2,684.35 202495 04/16/2026 10592 COPWARE INC 965.00
202496 04/16/2026 13024 COURTESY CLEANERS & DRAPE, INC 749.25 202497 04/16/2026 10614 CRAFCO INC 2,655.40
202498 04/16/2026 10677 DEL CONTE'S LANDSCAPING INC. 17,343.00 202499 04/16/2026 10701 Dex Background Investigations 3,065.98 202500 04/16/2026 10718 DIVISION of the STATE ARCHITECT 187.60 202501 04/16/2026 10768 EDELMAN CORPORATION THE 1,458.00 202502 04/16/2026 10775 EEC ENVIRONMENTAL 9,170.61
202503 04/16/2026 99999 Bryan Van Horn 78.00
202504 04/16/2026 99999 Michael Taylor 706.34
202505 04/16/2026 99999 Steven DeBiasio 1,277.93
202506 04/16/2026 99999 William Lai 23.00
202507 04/16/2026 10855 FEDEX 28.11
202508 04/16/2026 10899 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA INC 174.51
202509 04/16/2026 10962 GIULIANI & KULL INC 510.00
202510 04/16/2026 10977 GOOD CITY COMPANY 1,757.50
202511 04/16/2026 10999 GRAINGER 150.00
202512 04/16/2026 11006 GRANITE ROCK CO 410.71
202513 04/16/2026 12998 GREENFIELDS OUTDOOR FITNESS INC 136,933.33 202514 04/16/2026 12995 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INC. 20,200.00 202515 04/16/2026 11049 Hanson Bridgett LLP 33,052.12
202516 04/16/2026 11146 ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA 1,800.00 202517 04/16/2026 11153 ILENE HILLARY SOTNICK 925.88
202518 04/16/2026 11154 IMPEC GROUP INC 36,841.18
202519 04/16/2026 11169 INTERACTIVE DATA LLC 112.30
202520 04/16/2026 11186 IRVINE & JACHENS INC 829.35
202521 04/16/2026 11332 Kathleen M McCarty 1,050.00
202522 04/16/2026 11358 KENNETH HOWELL PETERSON 1,310.40 202523 04/16/2026 11422 7 KRKA, INC 45.83
202524 04/16/2026 11454 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 49.82
202525 04/16/2026 11455 Language Testing International 165.00 202526 04/16/2026 11509 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGT LLC 153.90 202527 04/16/2026 11509 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGT LLC 988.80 202528 04/16/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 436.10
202529 04/16/2026 11587 LOS ALTOS PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1,820.70 202530 04/16/2026 11647 MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC 1,091.27 202531 04/16/2026 11713 MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL 469.03 202532 04/16/2026 11769 MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS 39,949.07 202533 04/16/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 174.54 202534 04/16/2026 12089 PREFERRED ALLIANCE INC 225.60
202535 04/16/2026 12092 PRESTIGE PRINTING AND GRAPHICS 642.47 202536 04/16/2026 12123 R3 CONSULTING GROUP 23,276.70
202537 04/16/2026 12161 RED WING BUSINESS ADVANTAGE ACCOUNT 450.00

Page 99 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202538 04/16/2026 12187 RICHARD T CAMPBELL 360.00
202539 04/16/2026 12269 SANITARY TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS 1,054.00 202540 04/16/2026 12278 SANTA CLARA COUNTY DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH 566.00 202541 04/16/2026 10607 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF 6,598.78 202542 04/16/2026 12305 SCHAAF & WHEELER Consulting Civil Engineers INC 658.00 202543 04/16/2026 12321 PERMITIUM 250.00
202544 04/16/2026 12353 SHAW HR CONSULTING 740.00
202545 04/16/2026 12475 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 1,035.81
202546 04/16/2026 12613 THOMAS SARSFIELD 4,632.60
202547 04/16/2026 12646 TOP DOG POLICE K9 TRAINING AND CONSULTING LLC 275.00 202548 04/16/2026 12694 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 1,860.00 202549 04/16/2026 12697 U.S. BANK 1,855.00
202550 04/16/2026 12711 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC 794.59 202551 04/16/2026 12725 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 12,447.47
202552 04/16/2026 12755 VESTIS 439.32
202553 04/16/2026 12821 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 30,800.00 202554 04/16/2026 12828 WESTLAKE HARDWARE INC 37.29
202555 04/16/2026 11711 MCGRATH JULIE 765.00
202556 04/16/2026 13043 MALAKA BROTHERS LLC 2,750.08
202557 04/23/2026 10011 A GOOD SIGN & GRAPHICS CO. 7,050.50 202558 04/23/2026 10183 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERMENTS 4,462.04 202559 04/23/2026 10092 AACIS INVESTMENTS INC 73.76
202560 04/23/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 2,773.29 202561 04/23/2026 10163 ARGO CONSTRUCTION INC. 146,758.16 202562 04/23/2026 10190 AT&T; MOBILITY 2,805.32
202563 04/23/2026 10274 BETTE FOLEY 373.62
202564 04/23/2026 10371 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION 1,607.40 202565 04/23/2026 10531 CITIES ASSOCIATION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY 8,500.00 202566 04/23/2026 10550 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES INC. 17,250.66 202567 04/23/2026 10558 COBALT POWER SYSTEMS INC 327.36 202568 04/23/2026 10573 COMCAST 133.51
202569 04/23/2026 10582 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 42.00 202570 04/23/2026 13026 CUMMING MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC 43,548.75 202571 04/23/2026 99998 Lianghao Li 581.22
202572 04/23/2026 99998 Sandra Bliss-Cobalt Construction Company 1,374.21 202573 04/23/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 7,079.25 202574 04/23/2026 10692 DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 4,856.07 202575 04/23/2026 10701 Dex Background Investigations 2,411.25 202576 04/23/2026 10731 Donna Santistevan 48.84
202577 04/23/2026 10775 EEC ENVIRONMENTAL 16,035.00
202578 04/23/2026 10779 EIAN BURTON 1,150.00
202579 04/23/2026 99999 Brittany Whitehill 97.98
202580 04/23/2026 99999 Junjie Hou 101.69
202581 04/23/2026 10815 ERIC ROSENTHAL 127.61
202582 04/23/2026 10821 ETHEL KOPAL 79.49
202583 04/23/2026 10987 GOSERCO INC 4,346.14
202584 04/23/2026 10999 GRAINGER 447.04
202585 04/23/2026 12998 GREENFIELDS OUTDOOR FITNESS INC 7,207.02 202586 04/23/2026 11179 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS INC. 3,850.43 202587 04/23/2026 11180 iPermit 358.70
202588 04/23/2026 11324 KASEYA US LLC 11.64
202589 04/23/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 369.92
202590 04/23/2026 11587 LOS ALTOS PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1,820.70 202591 04/23/2026 11593 LOS ALTOS VILLAGE ASSOCIATION 38,000.00 202592 04/23/2026 13048 MARIE LOUISE P VALDEZ 1,150.00
202593 04/23/2026 11713 MCKESSON MEDICAL - SURGICAL 1,324.12

Page 100 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202594 04/23/2026 11766 Ming Ju Wu 290.64
202595 04/23/2026 99996 Anjali Morales 30.00
202596 04/23/2026 99996 Dingling Han 50.00
202597 04/23/2026 99996 Erin Yuen 20.00
202598 04/23/2026 99996 Hayden Brown 50.00
202599 04/23/2026 99996 Julie Broms 20.00
202600 04/23/2026 99996 Mahintha Chanoramouli 30.00
202601 04/23/2026 99996 Melissa Waggenspack 30.00
202602 04/23/2026 99996 Raquel Escura Aserijo 50.00
202603 04/23/2026 99996 Steven Sanislo 20.00
202604 04/23/2026 99996 Swasti Sharma 30.00
202605 04/23/2026 99996 Weiyi Liu 20.00
202606 04/23/2026 99996 Won Hue Lee 50.00
202607 04/23/2026 11855 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 5,826.60 202608 04/23/2026 11923 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 315.73 202609 04/23/2026 12059 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC 86.69 202610 04/23/2026 13031 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS 20,556.20 202611 04/23/2026 12105 PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS LLC 3,043.96 202612 04/23/2026 99997 Cornelia Lovette 61.83
202613 04/23/2026 99997 Jamie Smith 1,991.00
202614 04/23/2026 99997 June Russell 551.00
202615 04/23/2026 99997 Kalaa Gaurav 551.00
202616 04/23/2026 99997 Kenley Chin 399.42
202617 04/23/2026 99997 Meenakshi Shah 55.88
202618 04/23/2026 99997 Mehdi Kamarei 551.00
202619 04/23/2026 99997 Sandy Mingia 48.92
202620 04/23/2026 99997 Shivayogi Bhusnurmath 492.40
202621 04/23/2026 99997 Snehal Balaji 551.00
202622 04/23/2026 99997 Swathi Bhat 551.00
202623 04/23/2026 99997 Venkatesh Seshadri 49.04
202624 04/23/2026 12250 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT 15,223.78 202625 04/23/2026 12275 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITY MANAGERS ASSOCIATION 300.00 202626 04/23/2026 12495 STERICYCLE INC 676.62
202627 04/23/2026 12526 SUMAN SIDANA 218.96
202628 04/23/2026 12545 Susmita Mukherjee 477.20
202629 04/23/2026 12670 TRIPEPI SMITH and ASSOCIATES, INC. 986.00 202630 04/23/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 5,185.33 202631 04/23/2026 12747 VERIZON WIRELESS 418.27
202632 04/23/2026 12756 VESTRA RESOURCES INC 4,231.75
202633 04/23/2026 12806 WATRY DESIGN INC. 10,572.93
202634 04/30/2026 10092 AACIS INVESTMENTS INC 55.63
202635 04/30/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 760.62 202636 04/30/2026 10293 BKF ENGINEERS, INC 23,525.00
202637 04/30/2026 10361 C2R ENGINEERING INC 91,675.00
202638 04/30/2026 10530 CITIBANK N.A. 2,794.48
202639 04/30/2026 10537 CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW 557.84
202640 04/30/2026 10540 CITY OF PALO ALTO - REV COLLECTIONS 38.20 202641 04/30/2026 10567 COLLEEN ROGAN 79.75
202642 04/30/2026 10573 COMCAST 118.02
202643 04/30/2026 10636 D&M; TRAFFIC SERVICES INC 1,137.08 202644 04/30/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 5,947.83 202645 04/30/2026 13058 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 52.00 202646 04/30/2026 10776 EGAN JR. HIGH SCHOOL 1,340.00
202647 04/30/2026 99999 BO-KYOUNG KIM 613.78
202648 04/30/2026 99999 JT Tannous 107.52
202649 04/30/2026 10812 ePlus Technology inc. 12,905.19

Page 101 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202650 04/30/2026 10999 GRAINGER 367.77
202651 04/30/2026 11007 GRASSROOTS ECOLOGY 26,132.25
202652 04/30/2026 11071 HdL COREN & CONE 2,491.06
202653 04/30/2026 11105 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 126.40 202654 04/30/2026 12942 JC's Tree Service, Inc. 19,350.00 202655 04/30/2026 11250 JET MULCH INC. 2,883.56
202656 04/30/2026 11534 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. 26.04 202657 04/30/2026 11580 LOS ALTOS CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 3,500.00 202658 04/30/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 61.55
202659 04/30/2026 11921 OAK ALARM COMPANY 450.00
202660 04/30/2026 13057 OH, HI! COMMUNICATIONS LLC 12,500.00 202661 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 10,744.22 202662 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 20,010.68 202663 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 1,404.31 202664 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 83.85 202665 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 1,864.34 202666 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 147.17 202667 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 92.14 202668 04/30/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 452.83 202669 04/30/2026 12050 PINA SHAH 518.43
202670 04/30/2026 12096 PRIMO BRANDS 397.45
202671 04/30/2026 13060 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC. 1,600.98 202672 04/30/2026 12149 RANCHO 76 INC 88.00
202673 04/30/2026 99997 Anita Rao 172.16
202674 04/30/2026 12165 REDWOOD CATERING FOOD GROUP INC. 2,999.85 202675 04/30/2026 12320 SCOTT GERDES 255.31
202676 04/30/2026 12475 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 91.87
202677 04/30/2026 12527 SUMMIT AUTO BODY & PAINTING 6,225.57 202678 04/30/2026 12634 T-Mobile USA Inc. 400.00
202679 04/30/2026 12634 T-Mobile USA Inc. 690.87
202680 04/30/2026 12601 The Lew Edwards Group 6,750.00
202681 04/30/2026 12661 TRB AND ASSOCIATES INC 58,508.07 202682 04/30/2026 12694 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 12,900.00 202683 04/30/2026 12698 U.S. BANK 64,305.47
202684 04/30/2026 12755 VESTIS 471.26
202685 04/30/2026 12821 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 9,775.00 Total: 3,064,243.66

Page 102 of 261 ends

Check Register
May 2026
CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202686 05/07/2026 10018 AAUW Silicon Valley 551.00
202687 05/07/2026 12985 ACTION ROAD SOLUTIONS, LLC 159.50 202688 05/07/2026 12982 ALMETEK INDUSTRIES INC 12,972.41 202689 05/07/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 344.68 202690 05/07/2026 10188 AT&T; 2,342.25
202691 05/07/2026 10246 BAY AREA PL SERVICES 510.00
202692 05/07/2026 10257 Bear Electrical Solutions Inc. 3,331.80 202693 05/07/2026 10267 BERLINER COHEN LLP 41,545.39
202694 05/07/2026 10361 C2R ENGINEERING INC 18,320.75
202695 05/07/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1,051.00 202696 05/07/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 102.87 202697 05/07/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 2,116.95 202698 05/07/2026 10388 CALTRANS 4,343.29
202699 05/07/2026 10404 CANTABILE YOUTH SINGERS 551.00
202700 05/07/2026 10530 CITIBANK N.A. 346.19
202701 05/07/2026 10540 CITY OF PALO ALTO - REV COLLECTIONS 1,105,480.79 202702 05/07/2026 10545 CIVICPLUS LLC 7,924.77
202703 05/07/2026 10573 COMCAST 260.58
202704 05/07/2026 10573 COMCAST 228.92
202705 05/07/2026 10574 COMCAST BUSINESS 926.78
202706 05/07/2026 99998 A1 Solar Consulting LLC - Lawrence Sillence 740.00 202707 05/07/2026 10653 Darryl Pang 1,600.00
202708 05/07/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 295.25 202709 05/07/2026 10701 Dex Background Investigations 300.00 202710 05/07/2026 10720 DKF SOLUTIONS GROUP LLC 7,603.00 202711 05/07/2026 10753 DUNN-EDWARDS CORPORATION 49.88
202712 05/07/2026 10775 EEC ENVIRONMENTAL 15,630.00
202713 05/07/2026 99999 Ganesh Santhanam 3,723.01
202714 05/07/2026 99999 Levi Lnenicka 78.37
202715 05/07/2026 99999 Levi Lnenicka 105.71
202716 05/07/2026 10878 FOLGER GRAPHICS INC 13,911.56
202717 05/07/2026 11006 GRANITE ROCK CO 688.29
202718 05/07/2026 11009 GREATAMERICA FINANCIAL SERVICES CORP. 88.31 202719 05/07/2026 11058 HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES 12,000.00 202720 05/07/2026 11142 HY Floor & Gameline Painting 12,508.00 202721 05/07/2026 11155 IMPERIAL SPRINKLER SUPPLY 452.00 202722 05/07/2026 11195 IT MANAGEMENT CORP 168.43
202723 05/07/2026 11274 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES INC 117.00 202724 05/07/2026 11324 KASEYA US LLC 4,217.99
202725 05/07/2026 11394 KMVT COMMUNITY TELEVISION 19,838.04 202726 05/07/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 2,542.00
202727 05/07/2026 11516 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 7,495.00 202728 05/07/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 157.07
202729 05/07/2026 11587 LOS ALTOS PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1,820.70 202730 05/07/2026 11588 LOS ALTOS ROTARY CLUB 551.00
202731 05/07/2026 11737 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 382.50 202732 05/07/2026 13064 MIGHTY WORKS CONSTRUCTION INC 2,520.00 202733 05/07/2026 99996 CHRIST CHURCH RECT WARD AND VEST 14,142.45 202734 05/07/2026 99996 JANE CHALLAS 1,043.93
202735 05/07/2026 99996 SAMPSON ROBER TERRY TRUSTEE 4,518.58 202736 05/07/2026 11769 MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS 41,418.44

Page 103 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202737 05/07/2026 11801 MOUNTAIN VIEW GARDEN CENTER 2,047.45 202738 05/07/2026 11803 MOUNTAIN VIEW-LOS ALTOS UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 115.00 202739 05/07/2026 11852 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 2,071.80 202740 05/07/2026 11866 NEW BEGINNINGS PRINTING LLC 399.22 202741 05/07/2026 11903 NOLL & TAM ARCHITECTS 200.00
202742 05/07/2026 11941 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC 1,260.31 202743 05/07/2026 11921 OAK ALARM COMPANY 1,989.00
202744 05/07/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 5,918.30 202745 05/07/2026 11959 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION INC. 560.39 202746 05/07/2026 11999 PAY PLUS SOLUTIONS 728.05
202747 05/07/2026 13051 THE TORO COMPANY 233.10
202748 05/07/2026 99997 Adrian Chen 172.50
202749 05/07/2026 99997 Camp Kaleidoscope 551.00
202750 05/07/2026 99997 Hiroto Tokusei 10.00
202751 05/07/2026 99997 Jing Zhong 117.00
202752 05/07/2026 99997 John L Fetter 551.00
202753 05/07/2026 99997 Judith Boore 15.00
202754 05/07/2026 99997 Namrita Chettiar 172.50
202755 05/07/2026 99997 Nayana Shah 15.00
202756 05/07/2026 99997 Paramesh Gopi 551.00
202757 05/07/2026 99997 Saint Simon Parish School 389.00 202758 05/07/2026 99997 Zeqing Li 25.00
202759 05/07/2026 12166 REDWOOD TRADING POST 340.56
202760 05/07/2026 12194 RINGCENTRAL INC. 4,915.95
202761 05/07/2026 12252 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY LLC 427.50
202762 05/07/2026 12256 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 268.60
202763 05/07/2026 12269 SANITARY TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS 1,054.00 202764 05/07/2026 13013 SANTA CLARA COUNTY 409.20
202765 05/07/2026 12274 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION 791,856.00 202766 05/07/2026 10607 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF 52.00 202767 05/07/2026 12353 SHAW HR CONSULTING 4,876.50
202768 05/07/2026 13055 SINGER ASSOCIATES, INC 7,021.88 202769 05/07/2026 13028 SINGLE FLUSH PLUMBING INC 8,935.00 202770 05/07/2026 12981 SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP 2,885.70 202771 05/07/2026 12440 SOUTHERN COMPUTER WAREHOUSE INC 1,112.34 202772 05/07/2026 13037 THE PAPE' GROUP, INC 3,841.25
202773 05/07/2026 12646 TOP DOG POLICE K9 TRAINING AND CONSULTING LLC 275.00 202774 05/07/2026 12964 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 5,000.00 202775 05/07/2026 12657 TRANS BAY ELEVATOR CORPORATION 1,000.00 202776 05/07/2026 12666 TRI-CITY LOCK COMPANY 518.26
202777 05/07/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 17,232.39 202778 05/07/2026 12694 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 620.00
202779 05/07/2026 12694 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 83,133.00 202780 05/07/2026 12755 VESTIS 471.82
202781 05/07/2026 12833 WHITE ROCK SECURITY GROUP LLC 9,269.17 202782 05/07/2026 12933 ZORO TOOLS INC 128.98
202783 05/13/2026 10056 AIM ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC. 6,000.00 202784 05/13/2026 10063 ALAMEDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 200.00 202785 05/13/2026 10064 ALAN ENRIQUE UGARTE 1,150.00
202786 05/13/2026 10092 AACIS INVESTMENTS INC 55.57
202787 05/13/2026 10188 AT&T; 3,027.07
202788 05/13/2026 10202 AXON ENTERPRISE INC 6,309.50
202789 05/13/2026 10250 BAY CITIES JOINT POWERS INSURANCE AUTHORITY 16,923.04 202790 05/13/2026 10347 BRYAN TROYER 1,150.00
202791 05/13/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 59.67
202792 05/13/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 78,698.70

Page 104 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202793 05/13/2026 10396 Can V. Huynh 1,150.00
202794 05/13/2026 10483 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS CARD SERVICES 440.56 202795 05/13/2026 10573 COMCAST 652.62
202796 05/13/2026 10582 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 499.00 202797 05/13/2026 13024 COURTESY CLEANERS & DRAPE, INC 844.00 202798 05/13/2026 10620 CRITICAL REACH INC 995.00
202799 05/13/2026 99998 Jim Clark 1,421.43
202800 05/13/2026 13058 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 52.00 202801 05/13/2026 10699 DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC. 1,279.00 202802 05/13/2026 10701 Dex Background Investigations 2,354.05 202803 05/13/2026 12986 DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL 96,148.67 202804 05/13/2026 10790 ELIZABETH LAZO 489.60
202805 05/13/2026 99999 Anthony Friebel 502.62
202806 05/13/2026 11041 STRUCTECH ENGINEERING 31,991.96 202807 05/13/2026 11061 HARRY HALVORSEN 1,150.00
202808 05/13/2026 11075 HECTOR LOPEZ 1,150.00
202809 05/13/2026 11154 IMPEC GROUP INC 36,841.18
202810 05/13/2026 11169 INTERACTIVE DATA LLC 186.10
202811 05/13/2026 11186 IRVINE & JACHENS INC 2,531.70
202812 05/13/2026 11267 JOHN MILLER 70.79
202813 05/13/2026 11269 JOHN W PARKER II 1,150.00
202814 05/13/2026 11454 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 95.88
202815 05/13/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 236.00
202816 05/13/2026 11509 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGT LLC 162.50 202817 05/13/2026 11509 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGT LLC 988.80 202818 05/13/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 98.74
202819 05/13/2026 11695 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, LTD 3,700.00 202820 05/13/2026 99996 Rhonda Stieber 2,032.50
202821 05/13/2026 11776 MNJ TECHNOLOGIES DIRECT LLC 882.21 202822 05/13/2026 13067 NATALIE SMITH 1,150.00
202823 05/13/2026 11923 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 337.91 202824 05/13/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 161.26 202825 05/13/2026 11995 PAUL RAMIREZ 1,150.00
202826 05/13/2026 12027 THOR AUDIO SOLUTIONS 15,480.00
202827 05/13/2026 12089 PREFERRED ALLIANCE INC 225.60
202828 05/13/2026 13031 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS 31,473.91 202829 05/13/2026 13069 QUADIENT FINANCE USA, INC. 1,000.00 202830 05/13/2026 13066 QUINCY GREEN JR 1,150.00
202831 05/13/2026 99997 Azita Gandjei 57.15
202832 05/13/2026 99997 David Park 100.65
202833 05/13/2026 99997 Jacqueline Passanisi 551.00
202834 05/13/2026 99997 Meenakshi Shah 61.05
202835 05/13/2026 10067 Safeway, Inc. 12,036.86
202836 05/13/2026 12250 SAN DIEGO POLICE EQUIPMENT 11,148.10 202837 05/13/2026 12273 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COMMUNICATIONS 489.50 202838 05/13/2026 12321 PERMITIUM 20.00
202839 05/13/2026 12387 TELEMEDICINE GROUP DE 38,184.00 202840 05/13/2026 13028 SINGLE FLUSH PLUMBING INC 4,968.00 202841 05/13/2026 12526 SUMAN SIDANA 100.57
202842 05/13/2026 12535 SUNNYVALE FORD INC 945.68
202843 05/13/2026 12634 T-Mobile USA Inc. 2,000.00
202844 05/13/2026 13020 TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC 15,221.97 202845 05/13/2026 13044 THE ART OF BBQ LLC 1,507.00
202846 05/13/2026 12657 TRANS BAY ELEVATOR CORPORATION 480.00 202847 05/13/2026 12697 U.S. BANK 1,904.00
202848 05/13/2026 12708 UNDERWOOD & ROSENBLUM INC 4,950.00

Page 105 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202849 05/13/2026 12762 VIJAY KUMAR DHIR 109.72
202850 05/13/2026 12889 YOULEE LEE 1,150.00
202851 05/13/2026 12909 ZARI GANDJEI 127.29
202852 05/21/2026 10007 4IMPRINT INC 5,167.75
202853 05/21/2026 13016 A-1 FENCE AND DECK, INC 37,800.00 202854 05/21/2026 10014 AAA RESTAURANT FIRE CONTROL, LLC. 1,580.18 202855 05/21/2026 10050 AGILEBITS INC 6,184.50
202856 05/21/2026 10083 ALLIED NETWORK SOLUTIONS INC 426.25 202857 05/21/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 2,209.87 202858 05/21/2026 10125 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHITECTS 53,475.00 202859 05/21/2026 10188 AT&T; 6,901.36
202860 05/21/2026 10190 AT&T; MOBILITY 4,051.46
202861 05/21/2026 10267 BERLINER COHEN LLP 9,235.75
202862 05/21/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1,386.78 202863 05/21/2026 13025 CHEF GILLY'S LLC 1,932.47
202864 05/21/2026 10491 CHIEN-SHENG TSENG 315.00
202865 05/21/2026 10530 CITIBANK N.A. 387.03
202866 05/21/2026 10573 COMCAST 220.15
202867 05/21/2026 10573 COMCAST 118.02
202868 05/21/2026 10582 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 338.00 202869 05/21/2026 10585 CONSERVATION EARTH 1,000.00
202870 05/21/2026 99998 YUWEN CAI 302.81
202871 05/21/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 1,066.50 202872 05/21/2026 10677 DEL CONTE'S LANDSCAPING INC. 17,343.00 202873 05/21/2026 10749 DUANE WENDEROTH 299.20
202874 05/21/2026 99999 Julia Weinberger 2,287.29
202875 05/21/2026 99999 Sijin Wang 37.52
202876 05/21/2026 10957 GIANT CONSTRUCTION INC. 226,111.00 202877 05/21/2026 10962 GIULIANI & KULL INC 850.00
202878 05/21/2026 10989 GOVCONNECTION INC. 26.73
202879 05/21/2026 10999 GRAINGER 987.37
202880 05/21/2026 12995 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INC. 20,000.00 202881 05/21/2026 11049 Hanson Bridgett LLP 46,541.50
202882 05/21/2026 11105 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 3,568.00 202883 05/21/2026 12942 JC's Tree Service, Inc. 6,750.00 202884 05/21/2026 11250 JET MULCH INC. 7,742.79
202885 05/21/2026 11276 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 80.49
202886 05/21/2026 13071 KURT FERGUSON 1,150.00
202887 05/21/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 156.26
202888 05/21/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 161.45
202889 05/21/2026 11586 LOS ALTOS MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY FOUNDATION 1,200.00 202890 05/21/2026 11647 MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC 1,567.89 202891 05/21/2026 12939 MC CITADEL LLC 1,356.00
202892 05/21/2026 11846 National Construction Rentals Inc. 1,166.16 202893 05/21/2026 11866 NEW BEGINNINGS PRINTING LLC 230.48 202894 05/21/2026 11928 O'GRADY PAVING INC. 1,093,557.58 202895 05/21/2026 13038 OPERATOR XR LLC 83,659.06
202896 05/21/2026 11959 PACIFIC OFFICE AUTOMATION INC. 786.94 202897 05/21/2026 12050 PINA SHAH 284.71
202898 05/21/2026 12092 PRESTIGE PRINTING AND GRAPHICS 108.29 202899 05/21/2026 12096 PRIMO BRANDS 52.90
202900 05/21/2026 12105 PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS LLC 2,952.62 202901 05/21/2026 12123 R3 CONSULTING GROUP 17,389.63
202902 05/21/2026 99997 GGCW 551.00
202903 05/21/2026 99997 Shivayogi Bhusnurmath 238.09
202904 05/21/2026 13029 REXEL USA, INC 428.98

Page 106 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202905 05/21/2026 12252 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY LLC 1,125.00 202906 05/21/2026 12305 SCHAAF & WHEELER Consulting Civil Engineers INC 48,148.35 202907 05/21/2026 12446 SPECTRIO LLC 43.74
202908 05/21/2026 12495 STERICYCLE INC 185.72
202909 05/21/2026 12670 TRIPEPI SMITH and ASSOCIATES, INC. 777.50 202910 05/21/2026 12725 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 14,088.18
202911 05/21/2026 12747 VERIZON WIRELESS 413.34
202912 05/21/2026 12755 VESTIS 42.12
202913 05/21/2026 12756 VESTRA RESOURCES INC 1,086.75
202914 05/21/2026 12767 VIVIAN LEVITT 161.17
202915 05/28/2026 10007 4IMPRINT INC 1,891.49
202916 05/28/2026 10058 AIR FILTER SUPPLY INC 45.84
202917 05/28/2026 10246 BAY AREA PL SERVICES 255.00
202918 05/28/2026 10257 Bear Electrical Solutions Inc. 1,115.00 202919 05/28/2026 10261 BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES 2,026.00
202920 05/28/2026 10267 BERLINER COHEN LLP 23,887.36
202921 05/28/2026 12702 UDAYAN ENTERPRISES INC 467.79
202922 05/28/2026 10293 BKF ENGINEERS, INC 118,915.18
202923 05/28/2026 10515 Christopher K. Boucher 1,574.00 202924 05/28/2026 10515 Christopher K. Boucher 12,642.50 202925 05/28/2026 10534 CITY OF CUPERTINO 1,351.08
202926 05/28/2026 10539 CITY OF PALO ALTO 393.86
202927 05/28/2026 10550 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES INC. 17,285.71 202928 05/28/2026 10573 COMCAST 128.76
202929 05/28/2026 10619 CRIME SCENE CLEANERS INC 130.00 202930 05/28/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 7,776.50 202931 05/28/2026 10698 DEVIL MOUNTAIN WHOLESALE NURSERY 2,833.78 202932 05/28/2026 12986 DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN AND REGIONAL 120,678.39 202933 05/28/2026 99999 Aimee Major 130.00
202934 05/28/2026 99999 Brian Werner 1,126.55
202935 05/28/2026 99999 Brian Werner 19.00
202936 05/28/2026 99999 Bryan Van Horn 699.35
202937 05/28/2026 99999 Erica Ewing 3,214.32
202938 05/28/2026 99999 Jason Kozy 230.00
202939 05/28/2026 99999 Jennifer Pena 1,140.17
202940 05/28/2026 99999 Levi Lnenicka 502.62
202941 05/28/2026 99999 Nick Collacino 97.40
202942 05/28/2026 10827 EVERBRIDGE INC 8,349.28
202943 05/28/2026 10829 EVERYTHING2GO.COM 7,467.39
202944 05/28/2026 10855 FEDEX 34.39
202945 05/28/2026 10999 GRAINGER 906.45
202946 05/28/2026 11006 GRANITE ROCK CO 1,351.81
202947 05/28/2026 11179 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS INC. 143.00 202948 05/28/2026 11276 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 1,795.43
202949 05/28/2026 11277 JOINT VENTURE SILICON VALLEY NETWORK 7,500.00 202950 05/28/2026 11293 JOYCE TSUNODA 77.63
202951 05/28/2026 11331 KATHLEEN BLANCHARD 126.93
202952 05/28/2026 11469 LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES INC 475.00 202953 05/28/2026 11508 LEXIPOL LLC 12,850.09
202954 05/28/2026 11534 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. 25.20 202955 05/28/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 205.66
202956 05/28/2026 11587 LOS ALTOS PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1,820.70 202957 05/28/2026 13059 MADISON ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, INC. 10,000.00 202958 05/28/2026 11642 MALCOLM TAAM 547.50
202959 05/28/2026 11737 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 2,635.87 202960 05/28/2026 99996 Karen Scussel 108.00

Page 107 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202961 05/28/2026 11800 MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC. 1,500.00 202962 05/28/2026 11855 NBS GOVERNMENT FINANCE GROUP 9,852.96 202963 05/28/2026 13030 NEWMARK PARTNERS LP 15,000.00
202964 05/28/2026 11903 NOLL & TAM ARCHITECTS 1,767.52
202965 05/28/2026 13057 OH, HI! COMMUNICATIONS LLC 6,250.00 202966 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 10,425.70 202967 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 91.77 202968 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 1,696.94 202969 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 1,746.20 202970 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 91.18 202971 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 195.17 202972 05/28/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 21,511.35 202973 05/28/2026 12021 PENINSULA UNIFORMS AND ARTISAN EMBROIDERY 6,072.50 202974 05/28/2026 12940 PFM GROUP CONSULTING, LLC 54,850.00 202975 05/28/2026 12104 Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management 7,776.44 202976 05/28/2026 13051 THE TORO COMPANY 233.10
202977 05/28/2026 99997 American Association University Women Silicon 551.00 202978 05/28/2026 99997 Cristina Diaz 551.00
202979 05/28/2026 99997 Lauren Schuetz 551.00
202980 05/28/2026 99997 Meenakshi Mukesh Shah 75.78
202981 05/28/2026 99997 Patel Family Foundation 551.00
202982 05/28/2026 99997 Sunil Kurkure 531.30
202983 05/28/2026 99997 Valentin Aguilera 551.00
202984 05/28/2026 12219 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT INC. 4,110.01 202985 05/28/2026 12304 SCCSET 5,000.00
202986 05/28/2026 12305 SCHAAF & WHEELER Consulting Civil Engineers INC 15,960.00 202987 05/28/2026 12495 STERICYCLE INC 563.85
202988 05/28/2026 12528 SUMMIT UNIFORMS LLC 2,420.00
202989 05/28/2026 12545 Susmita Mukherjee 289.58
202990 05/28/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 5,185.37 202991 05/28/2026 12950 VERITONE, INC. 3,200.00
202992 05/28/2026 12755 VESTIS 430.48
202993 05/28/2026 12762 VIJAY KUMAR DHIR 105.49
Total: 5,086,225.18

Page 108 of 261 ends

Check Register
June 2026
CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
202994 06/04/2026 12985 ACTION ROAD SOLUTIONS, LLC 159.50 202995 06/04/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 540.51 202996 06/04/2026 10188 AT&T; 2,358.08
202997 06/04/2026 10293 BKF ENGINEERS, INC 83,454.60
202998 06/04/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 929.75 202999 06/04/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 244.12 203000 06/04/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1,259.42 203001 06/04/2026 10530 CITIBANK N.A. 186.26
203002 06/04/2026 10573 COMCAST 260.58
203003 06/04/2026 10574 COMCAST BUSINESS 926.78
203004 06/04/2026 10582 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 84.00 203005 06/04/2026 12273 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA COMMUNICATIONS 375.00 203006 06/04/2026 13024 COURTESY CLEANERS & DRAPE, INC 864.00 203007 06/04/2026 10655 DASHER TECHNOLOGIES INC. 84,839.16 203008 06/04/2026 10682 DELL MARKETING L.P. 15,078.22
203009 06/04/2026 10701 Dex Background Investigations 2,572.53 203010 06/04/2026 10717 DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CRIME LABORATORY 19,924.00 203011 06/04/2026 13074 III INTERACTIVE, LLC 12,500.00
203012 06/04/2026 12984 DUKE'S ROOT CONTROL INC. 29,761.10 203013 06/04/2026 10776 EGAN JR. HIGH SCHOOL 1,470.00
203014 06/04/2026 99999 Amanda Fry 314.15
203015 06/04/2026 99999 Andrew Giba 30.00
203016 06/04/2026 99999 Brian Werner 260.09
203017 06/04/2026 99999 Edgar Nava 200.86
203018 06/04/2026 99999 Josh Cottrell 242.66
203019 06/04/2026 99999 Katie Krauss 384.00
203020 06/04/2026 99999 Levi Lnenicka 273.33
203021 06/04/2026 10855 FEDEX 50.29
203022 06/04/2026 10943 GB Auto Service Inc/ Bruce's Tire & Auto 507.92 203023 06/04/2026 10989 GOVCONNECTION INC. 8,141.48
203024 06/04/2026 11006 GRANITE ROCK CO 610.64
203025 06/04/2026 11041 STRUCTECH ENGINEERING 32,782.60 203026 06/04/2026 13012 HD SUPPLY, INC 560.88
203027 06/04/2026 11105 HINDERLITER DE LLAMAS & ASSOC 1,684.24 203028 06/04/2026 11179 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS INC. 1,676.00 203029 06/04/2026 11195 IT MANAGEMENT CORP 168.43
203030 06/04/2026 11250 JET MULCH INC. 8,327.34
203031 06/04/2026 11274 JOHNSON ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES INC 58.50 203032 06/04/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 1,016.00
203033 06/04/2026 11469 LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES INC 475.00 203034 06/04/2026 11509 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGT LLC 154.00 203035 06/04/2026 11509 LEXISNEXIS RISK DATA MGT LLC 988.80 203036 06/04/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 435.69
203037 06/04/2026 11589 LOS ALTOS SCHOOL DISTRICT 18,000.00 203038 06/04/2026 11668 HRWORKS! 962.00
203039 06/04/2026 12939 MC CITADEL LLC 21,449.69
203040 06/04/2026 13063 McCALMONT CORPORATION 500.00
203041 06/04/2026 11737 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 382.50 203042 06/04/2026 11846 National Construction Rentals Inc. 583.08 203043 06/04/2026 11852 NAVIA BENEFIT SOLUTIONS 2,701.45 203044 06/04/2026 11903 NOLL & TAM ARCHITECTS 900.00

Page 109 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
203045 06/04/2026 11941 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC 429.43 203046 06/04/2026 11921 OAK ALARM COMPANY 2,439.00
203047 06/04/2026 13076 OSLON REMCHO LLP 15,389.00
203048 06/04/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 5,918.30 203049 06/04/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 648.13 203050 06/04/2026 11999 PAY PLUS SOLUTIONS 728.05
203051 06/04/2026 12036 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 000PET28 65.16 203052 06/04/2026 12038 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN-CITY HALL 474.09 203053 06/04/2026 13031 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SOLUTIONS 21,049.89 203054 06/04/2026 13078 QUADIENT, INC 34.41
203055 06/04/2026 13029 REXEL USA, INC 162.99
203056 06/04/2026 12194 RINGCENTRAL INC. 4,897.78
203057 06/04/2026 13065 R-J INC 2,465.00
203058 06/04/2026 12252 SAN FRANCISCO DAILY LLC 780.00
203059 06/04/2026 13028 SINGLE FLUSH PLUMBING INC 2,700.00 203060 06/04/2026 12475 STAPLES ADVANTAGE 119.58
203061 06/04/2026 12516 STORMWIND LLC 4,995.00
203062 06/04/2026 12535 SUNNYVALE FORD INC 499.70
203063 06/04/2026 12634 T-Mobile USA Inc. 603.83
203064 06/04/2026 12646 TOP DOG POLICE K9 TRAINING AND CONSULTING LLC 275.00 203065 06/04/2026 12964 TOWNSEND PUBLIC AFFAIRS, INC 5,000.00 203066 06/04/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 22,303.84 203067 06/04/2026 12672 TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT 53.62
203068 06/04/2026 12694 TYLER TECHNOLOGIES INC 4,473.00 203069 06/04/2026 12697 U.S. BANK 1,794.00
203070 06/04/2026 12698 U.S. BANK 69,180.72
203071 06/04/2026 12725 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 15,412.58
203072 06/04/2026 12808 WEBSTER BANK 532,520.53
203073 06/04/2026 12809 WECO INDUSTRIES LLC 14,886.33
203074 06/04/2026 12821 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 2,100.00 203075 06/10/2026 10183 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERMENTS 4,462.04 203076 06/10/2026 10183 ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERMENTS 4,462.04 203077 06/10/2026 10058 AIR FILTER SUPPLY INC 120.89
203078 06/10/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1,874.51 203079 06/10/2026 10190 AT&T; MOBILITY 838.97
203080 06/10/2026 13009 AVALARA, INC 75.22
203081 06/10/2026 13061 CATO'S GENERAL ENGINEERING INC. 80,834.40 203082 06/10/2026 10573 COMCAST 228.92
203083 06/10/2026 10623 Crye Precision LLC 2,335.06
203084 06/10/2026 99998 LG Servicing, Inc 725.00
203085 06/10/2026 10682 DELL MARKETING L.P. 1,588.88
203086 06/10/2026 10834 F & S AUTO BODY INC. 5,825.07
203087 06/10/2026 10878 FOLGER GRAPHICS INC 6,944.75
203088 06/10/2026 10937 GARDENLAND CENTER INC 453.04
203089 06/10/2026 10999 GRAINGER 197.32
203090 06/10/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 177.75
203091 06/10/2026 11755 MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 1,692.62 203092 06/10/2026 11769 MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS 41,793.16 203093 06/10/2026 11835 NAPA AUTO PARTS 631.24
203094 06/10/2026 11941 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES LLC 176.02 203095 06/10/2026 11937 OPENPATH SECURITY INC. 3,191.94 203096 06/10/2026 12089 PREFERRED ALLIANCE INC 210.56
203097 06/10/2026 12123 R3 CONSULTING GROUP 19,019.93
203098 06/10/2026 12255 SAN JOSE CONSERVATION CORPS 16,837.20 203099 06/10/2026 12256 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 911.11
203100 06/10/2026 12274 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION 792,623.00

Page 110 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
203101 06/10/2026 13080 SHARJO, LLC 6,387.77
203102 06/10/2026 13055 SINGER ASSOCIATES, INC 8,375.00 203103 06/10/2026 12442 SPARTAN TOOL LLC 7,538.69
203104 06/10/2026 12484 Statewide Traffic Safety and Signs Inc. 2,475.01 203105 06/10/2026 12535 SUNNYVALE FORD INC 241.27
203106 06/10/2026 12570 TANGENT COMPUTER INC 388.70
203107 06/10/2026 13020 TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC 5,833.47 203108 06/10/2026 12657 TRANS BAY ELEVATOR CORPORATION 120.00 203109 06/10/2026 12670 TRIPEPI SMITH and ASSOCIATES, INC. 122.00 203110 06/10/2026 12755 VESTIS 16.02
203111 06/10/2026 13042 ZONES IT SOLUTIONS INC 10,761.98 203112 06/17/2026 10020 ABC STEEL FENCE LLC 8,800.00
203113 06/17/2026 10058 AIR FILTER SUPPLY INC 132.52
203114 06/17/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 84.44 203115 06/17/2026 10125 ANDERSON BRULE ARCHITECTS 54,060.00 203116 06/17/2026 10188 AT&T; 3,298.04
203117 06/17/2026 10242 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 280.00 203118 06/17/2026 10257 Bear Electrical Solutions Inc. 9,033.80 203119 06/17/2026 10261 BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES 616.00
203120 06/17/2026 10293 BKF ENGINEERS, INC 23,281.50
203121 06/17/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 71,707.11 203122 06/17/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 1,435.37 203123 06/17/2026 10381 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE 120.47 203124 06/17/2026 10431 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 1,101.45
203125 06/17/2026 10530 CITIBANK N.A. 2,981.80
203126 06/17/2026 10550 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES INC. 17,274.09 203127 06/17/2026 10554 CMRS-FP 2,000.00
203128 06/17/2026 10573 COMCAST 652.62
203129 06/17/2026 10573 COMCAST 220.15
203130 06/17/2026 13026 CUMMING MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC 28,233.75 203131 06/17/2026 10647 SWAN ENTERTAINMENT CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT 5,000.00 203132 06/17/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 2,157.50 203133 06/17/2026 10677 DEL CONTE'S LANDSCAPING INC. 17,343.00 203134 06/17/2026 10699 DEWBERRY ENGINEERS INC. 348.00
203135 06/17/2026 10733 Dosanjh Family Automotive Retailing Group Inc. 5,797.60 203136 06/17/2026 10775 EEC ENVIRONMENTAL 4,140.00
203137 06/17/2026 10969 Godbe Corporation 40,425.00
203138 06/17/2026 13008 GOLDFARB & LIPMAN LLP 3,239.00
203139 06/17/2026 10977 GOOD CITY COMPANY 416.25
203140 06/17/2026 12995 GRIFFIN STRUCTURES, INC. 9,300.00 203141 06/17/2026 11049 Hanson Bridgett LLP 37,845.50
203142 06/17/2026 11062 HARUN MUSAEFENDIC 102.50
203143 06/17/2026 13012 HD SUPPLY, INC 85.43
203144 06/17/2026 11154 IMPEC GROUP INC 36,841.18
203145 06/17/2026 11179 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTROL PRODUCTS INC. 572.00 203146 06/17/2026 13070 JAMAR TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 7,396.57 203147 06/17/2026 11251 JFG ASSET MANAGEMENT 778.00
203148 06/17/2026 11394 KMVT COMMUNITY TELEVISION 21,597.40 203149 06/17/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 1,318.76
203150 06/17/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 89.17
203151 06/17/2026 11587 LOS ALTOS PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION 1,870.60 203152 06/17/2026 11733 MERCY & THE MANZ ENTERTAINMENT LLC 2,190.00 203153 06/17/2026 13053 MIRAPATH, INC 8,871.67
203154 06/17/2026 11928 O'GRADY PAVING INC. 47,727.04
203155 06/17/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 157.84 203156 06/17/2026 12060 PITNEY BOWES INC 98.75

Page 111 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
203157 06/17/2026 12087 PRECISION EMPRISE LLC 10,168.80 203158 06/17/2026 12096 PRIMO BRANDS 32.90
203159 06/17/2026 12104 Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management 7,778.58 203160 06/17/2026 12104 Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management 1,728.00 203161 06/17/2026 13060 QUADIENT LEASING USA, INC. 1,600.98 203162 06/17/2026 12215 SAE CONSULTING ENGINEERING 8,047.45 203163 06/17/2026 12269 SANITARY TRUCK DRIVERS & HELPERS 1,054.00 203164 06/17/2026 12449 SPOKE HS INC 1,205.00
203165 06/17/2026 12495 STERICYCLE INC 193.25
203166 06/17/2026 12601 The Lew Edwards Group 13,500.00 203167 06/17/2026 12705 ULINE 200.84
203168 06/17/2026 12725 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 10,297.81
203169 06/17/2026 12755 VESTIS 762.43
203170 06/17/2026 12756 VESTRA RESOURCES INC 4,930.25
203171 06/17/2026 12809 WECO INDUSTRIES LLC 7,331.93
203172 06/25/2026 10058 AIR FILTER SUPPLY INC 2,008.72
203173 06/25/2026 10103 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES INC 1,276.42 203174 06/25/2026 10188 AT&T; 6,017.04
203175 06/25/2026 10188 AT&T; 1,045.00
203176 06/25/2026 10190 AT&T; MOBILITY 2,992.28
203177 06/25/2026 10202 AXON ENTERPRISE INC 1,035.30
203178 06/25/2026 12728 CARLOS AUGUSTO VANS 3,733.26
203179 06/25/2026 10431 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. 1,129.56
203180 06/25/2026 13025 CHEF GILLY'S LLC 1,621.52
203181 06/25/2026 10483 CHEVRON AND TEXACO BUSINESS CARD SERVICES 472.88 203182 06/25/2026 10573 COMCAST 118.02
203183 06/25/2026 10573 COMCAST 128.76
203184 06/25/2026 10582 CONCENTRA MEDICAL CENTERS 169.00 203185 06/25/2026 10590 Cooke & Associates Inc. 500.00
203186 06/25/2026 10604 COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA - DEPT OF ENVIRO HEALTH 1,377.00 203187 06/25/2026 10640 DAHL'S EQUIPMENT RENTALS INC 780.40 203188 06/25/2026 10663 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOCIATES INC. 9,605.50 203189 06/25/2026 10722 DLT SOLUTIONS LLC 7,657.04
203190 06/25/2026 99999 Brian Werner 67.45
203191 06/25/2026 99999 Dahlia Gregory 1,000.62
203192 06/25/2026 99999 David Lopez 4,185.58
203193 06/25/2026 10899 FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA INC 95.32
203194 06/25/2026 13073 JOHN ZENDER 6,250.00
203195 06/25/2026 10962 GIULIANI & KULL INC 3,905.00
203196 06/25/2026 10999 GRAINGER 2,575.39
203197 06/25/2026 13079 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY, LLC 696.41 203198 06/25/2026 11169 INTERACTIVE DATA LLC 121.50
203199 06/25/2026 12992 INTERNATIONAL TELE-PATH 7,142.40 203200 06/25/2026 11276 JOHNSTONE SUPPLY 726.91
203201 06/25/2026 13021 JPB DESIGNS INC 274,046.50
203202 06/25/2026 11360 KENNETH NJUGUNA MBURU 9,348.00
203203 06/25/2026 11422 7 KRKA, INC 117.86
203204 06/25/2026 11454 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 279.18
203205 06/25/2026 11463 LATC MEDIA INC 925.00
203206 06/25/2026 11534 LINDE GAS & EQUIPMENT INC. 71.99 203207 06/25/2026 11582 LOS ALTOS HARDWARE INC 1,280.67 203208 06/25/2026 11584 LOS ALTOS HISTORY MUSEUM 48,750.00 203209 06/25/2026 11658 MANUEL MINZER 3,345.00
203210 06/25/2026 11671 Mariann Mangano 1,150.00
203211 06/25/2026 11769 MISSION TRAIL WASTE SYSTEMS 17,793.50 203212 06/25/2026 11913 HONEY BUCKET 550.67

Page 112 of 261 ends

CHECK
NUMBER

CHECK DATE VENDOR
NUMBER

VENDOR NAME AMOUNT
203213 06/25/2026 11920 NUTRIEN AG SOLUTIONS INC. 7,155.70 203214 06/25/2026 11923 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LLC 246.71 203215 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 9,576.81 203216 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 87.71 203217 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 189.83 203218 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 92.85 203219 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 1,616.25 203220 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 2,230.00 203221 06/25/2026 11956 PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC CO 24,000.47 203222 06/25/2026 11985 PATHENS INC 7,101.99
203223 06/25/2026 11986 PATRICIA JONES 162.00
203224 06/25/2026 12021 PENINSULA UNIFORMS AND ARTISAN EMBROIDERY 1,830.85 203225 06/25/2026 12105 PUBLIC TRUST ADVISORS LLC 3,054.39 203226 06/25/2026 12997 R&S; ERECTION OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY, INC 596.00 203227 06/25/2026 12155 RAYMOND C. ROAN 1,261.20
203228 06/25/2026 99997 After School Athletics 551.00
203229 06/25/2026 99997 Bernice Jeworski 119.78
203230 06/25/2026 99997 Cornelia Lovette 83.29
203231 06/25/2026 99997 David Park 146.52
203232 06/25/2026 99997 League of Women Voters 551.00
203233 06/25/2026 99997 Meenakshi Shah 163.93
203234 06/25/2026 99997 Misti Sangani 45.00
203235 06/25/2026 99997 Pravat Khuntia 51.01
203236 06/25/2026 99997 Scott Ellis 551.00
203237 06/25/2026 99997 Shivayogi Bhusnurmath 663.64
203238 06/25/2026 99997 Theodore Park 35.00
203239 06/25/2026 99997 Vatsal Sonecha 76.05
203240 06/25/2026 13077 RECON ROBOTICS, INC. 19,225.00
203241 06/25/2026 10607 SANTA CLARA COUNTY SHERIFF 552.00 203242 06/25/2026 12288 SANTA CLARA VALLEY HEALTH & HOSPITAL SYSTEM 3,807.00 203243 06/25/2026 12321 PERMITIUM 50.00
203244 06/25/2026 12388 SILICON SHORES CORPORATION 420.00 203245 06/25/2026 12441 SPARK HIRE INC. 6,229.00
203246 06/25/2026 12472 STANFORD UNIVERSITY 8,500.00
203247 06/25/2026 12495 STERICYCLE INC 396.30
203248 06/25/2026 12526 SUMAN SIDANA 372.44
203249 06/25/2026 12661 TRB AND ASSOCIATES INC 112,011.57 203250 06/25/2026 12705 ULINE 4,969.21
203251 06/25/2026 12711 UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC 1,171.04 203252 06/25/2026 12725 VALLEY OIL COMPANY 2,296.13
203253 06/25/2026 12747 VERIZON WIRELESS 603.55
203254 06/25/2026 12762 VIJAY KUMAR DHIR 126.37
203255 06/25/2026 12806 WATRY DESIGN INC. 12,133.67
Total: 3,336,548.74

Page 113 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Tyler Botkin
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - History Museum Roof Replacement

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Diablo Roofing Incorporated, to replace and repair the roofing at the Los Altos History Museum in an amount not-to-exceed $147,500 with a contingency of up to 15% (not-to-exceed $22,125.00), for a total combined project cost not-to-exceed $169,625

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Categorically Exempt pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301 Class 1 – Operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures.

FISCAL IMPACT
The project budget was approved as part of the FY 2026–27 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program (CIMMP). Funding for this project is provided through the general fund, with $175,000 allocated for construction.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None.

BACKGROUND
The Los Altos History Museum main roof has begun to deteriorate due to age and general weathering. In order to maintain the museum as a usable public space and continue to support the health of the structure, a proposal was made to replace the aging roof.

ANALYSIS
Roof deterioration can negatively impact the underlying structure if left unattended. In order to avoid future impacts on the museum structure due to water intrusion or other environmental damage, the construction of a new roof is needed. The new construction will include removing the existing surface shingles and examining the sheathing beneath to determine its current condition and replacing it if necessary, followed by the full replacement of the roof tiles.

Depending on the extent of the work, precautions may need to be taken inside of the museum to avoid dust or particulate intrusion from outside construction.

Page 114 of 261 ends

DISCUSSION
The process to begin these roof renovations began with the solicitation of a contractor through a formal Request for Bid using the city's online bid platform PlanetBids. The City received three bids through the online platform and one physical bid at or before the RFB submission deadline of 2:00 PM on June 18, 2026. Proposals were reviewed by staff and the City's project management consultant, Cummings Group.

Two bids were disqualified based on submission type (physical versus electronic) and nonconformity with project general provisions. The process identified Diablo Roofing Incorporated as the lowest responsive bidder for the total bid, including the base bid and add-alternate #1.

Staff is requesting City Council adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Diablo Roofing Inc. to install the new history museum roof in accordance with the proposed not-to-exceed contract amounts.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

Page 115 of 261 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH DIABLO ROOFING, INC. FOR THE HISTORY

MUSEUM ROOF REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $147,500 AND UP TO 15% CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOTTO-EXCEED $169,625 WHEREAS, the Los Altos History Museum main roof has begun to deteriorate due to age and in order to maintain the museum as a usable public space the city is implementing the History Museum Roofing Replacement Project; and
WHEREAS, the City released the bid package for competitive bidding on June 18, 2026, and received three electronic bids through PlanetBids on July 13, 2026 and one physical bid; and WHEREAS, Diablo Roofing, Inc. of Oakland, California, was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Project in the amount of $147,500; and WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, because only maintenance operations will be performed to an existing public facility.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with Diablo Roofing, Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $147,500 and up to 15% contingency funds, for a total amount not-to-exceed $169,625 to complete the History Museum Roof Replacement Project.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 25th day of August, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________

SALLY MEADOWS
Mayor
ATTEST:

Page 116 of 261 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
_________________________

MELISSA THURMAN
City Clerk

Page 117 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Jon Maginot
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Approval of Draft Response - Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the draft responses to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports: Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County and VTA's Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Not applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None

BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2026, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury sent the City a copy of its final report titled Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County. On June 17, 2026, the Grand Jury sent the City a copy of its final report titled VTA's Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.

ANALYSIS
In accordance with Section 933 of the California Penal Code, public agency governing bodies are required to comment on Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations no later than 90 days after the Grand Jury submits a final report.

DISCUSSION
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury has submitted two reports relevant to the City of Los Altos. The first relates to the claim process, in particular as it relates to damage caused by potholes. The second relates to the Valley Transportation Authority's management and oversight of the BART Silicon Valley Phase II project. Responses to the two reports are due September 10, 2026 and September 15, 2026 respectively.

Page 118 of 261 ends

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County

2. Attachment 2 - Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County

3. Attachment 3 - Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: VTA's Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II

4. Attachment 4 - Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: VTA's Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II

Page 119 of 261 ends

1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087

M E M O R A N D U M

ATTACHMENT 1
DATE: August 25, 2026
TO: The Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
FROM: Gabe Engeland, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE 2026 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT “POTHOLE DAMAGE: IMPROVING CLAIMS
PROCESSES WITHIN SANTA CLARA COUNTY”
The City of Los Altos submits the following specific responses as requested on page 15 of the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” related to the Findings and Recommendations set forth in the Report.

Findings and Recommendations
Finding 1:

Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.

Response 1:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding as the City is unable to verify the data provided.

Finding 2:

Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.

Response 2:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, agrees with the finding.

Page 120 of 261 ends

Recommendation 2a:

All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Response 2a:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, has already implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation 2b:

All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Response 2b:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, has already implemented this recommendation.

Finding 3:

Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.

Response 3:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, agrees with the finding as it pertains to the City of Los Altos.

Recommendation 3a:

Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Response 3a:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, has already implemented this recommendation.

Recommendation 3b:

Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Page 121 of 261 ends

Response 3b:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, determines this recommendation requires further analysis to determine whether translation services are warranted for the City of Los Altos. As well, respondent, City of Los Altos, will need to determine the cost for such translation services as this recommendation represents an unfunded mandate for the City.

Finding 4:

When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.

Response 4:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, partially agrees with the finding. Respondent, City of Los Altos, partially disagrees with the statement that “the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration” as it is speculative.

Recommendation 4:

The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Response 4:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, has already implemented this recommendation.

Page 122 of 261 ends

2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 123 of 261 ends

Page 1 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage................................................................................ 3 Why So Many Claims Are Rejected........................................................................................ 3 The California Government Claims Act................................................................................. 4 Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation .................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims..................................................................................... 6 Two Common Reasons for Rejection...................................................................................... 7 Rejection Notices are Often Vague.......................................................................................... 8 Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible .......................................... 9 Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form.................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 18

Page 124 of 261 ends

Page 2 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

SUMMARY
If you hit a pothole within Santa Clara County and damage your vehicle, chances are that your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.

People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.

For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.

The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.

Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.

Page 125 of 261 ends

Page 3 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.

Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicles, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.

According to local media reports, Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages. According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area claims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).

Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road-related damage must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.

For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County is responsible for expressways and county roads, such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.

Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury requested and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.

Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline;

Page 126 of 261 ends

Page 4 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.

These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole, the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.

In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine which agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.

If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.

The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.

In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.

Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.

Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims processes should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.

The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;

Page 127 of 261 ends

Page 5 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded state routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency, is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review. Jurisdictions provided data about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices.

Page 128 of 261 ends

Page 6 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026). Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.

Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga each settled 50% of claims filed (however, they each averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.

The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the significance of this data is limited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.

How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.

First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.

In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator, usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.

If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars, the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.

If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. The California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.

Page 129 of 261 ends

Page 7 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, claims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.

Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.

A road’s location within an agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.

Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.

No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.

Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:

1. The public entity created the condition;

2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;

3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;

4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.

If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.

When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.

Page 130 of 261 ends

Page 8 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.

All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).

Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language, in part, which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to (insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).

WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.

See Government Code Section 945.6.

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.

Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jurisdictions may follow this same approach.

In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will share the reason for rejection. Although the reason for rejection is recorded by the agency, there is no legal obligation to provide this information, and agencies may limit this information.

Page 131 of 261 ends

Page 9 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.

When a local road crosses or overlaps a state route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.

County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airports Department.

Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway

Page 132 of 261 ends

Page 10 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Montague Expressway
• Oregon Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• Southwest Expressway
Complicated Exceptions
Further complicating efforts to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a particular area, cities, Caltrans, the County, and even the federal government (such as near Moffett Federal Airfield) have maintenance agreements that specify which agency is responsible for certain roadway segments – such as onramps, offramps, and other defined areas (City of Mountain View, 2019). It is not always easy to determine which agency is responsible for which segments.

Complicated Maps
Some jurisdictions have no public maps indicating which roads they are responsible for. The County and some cities, including San José, Campbell, and Mountain View, do post searchable maps online that can help the public narrow down which jurisdiction is responsible for a particular road. However, the maps often use complicated interfaces rather than a simple image or printout, and many maps are not specific to just the roads maintained by the jurisdictions.

San José, which maintains more than 4,000 miles of locally maintained lanes within its borders, has its own mapping website (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026; City of San José, 2020). It shows whether a particular street within its boundaries is maintained by San José, the County, a private entity, or another agency. The website provides a large amount of information, although it is complicated for the average user to navigate.

An alternative source of information is pavement management plans that some agencies make available. These plans may list all roads maintained by the jurisdiction and can be used as a reference. As an example, Morgan Hill has a link to its latest 2024 Pavement Management Report with a list of streets at the end. However, there is no direct link from the claim forms webpage, so claimants would not be aware of this reference (AMS Consulting, 2025).

Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form
Once a person has found the proper jurisdiction, the next step is to download the claim form from the local agency’s website.

Of the 16 jurisdictions, the Civil Grand Jury found that only Gilroy, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale provide adequate claims process information on their webpages or on the claim form itself.

Page 133 of 261 ends

Page 11 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Most jurisdictions provide forms only in English. This is an omission that could potentially disenfranchise community members who have limited proficiency in English.

The Civil Grand Jury identified three cities that took the helpful step of providing additional language options:
• Morgan Hill provides a PDF of its claim form in English and Spanish. • Sunnyvale has a translation feature that allows claimants to translate the form into one of 200+ languages. Users can either fill out the translated form online and print a copy or print out a blank translated form and fill it out by hand.
• Saratoga’s website uses a third-party widget to translate its website in addition to an online form to many other languages.

The Civil Grand Jury also investigated how easy it is to find claim forms on each jurisdiction’s website by searching for the term “claim form.”
The Civil Grand Jury could not find any information about submitting a pothole claim in four entities: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno.

Cupertino provides a claim form, but users must use the website’s search function to find it.

Gilroy does not link directly to a claim form, although it does provide instructions on how to request a form by email or in person.

Page 134 of 261 ends

Page 12 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Table 1: Access to online claim process instructions and link to claim form (See References for links)
Jurisdiction Online Claims Process
Instructions
Link to
Claim Form
Caltrans Yes Yes
County of Santa Clara No Yes
Campbell No No
Cupertino No Yes
Gilroy Yes No
Los Altos No No
Los Altos Hills No No
Los Gatos Yes Yes
Milpitas No Yes
Monte Sereno No No
Morgan Hill No Yes
Mountain View No Yes
Palo Alto Yes Yes
San José No Yes
Santa Clara Yes Yes
Saratoga No Yes
Sunnyvale Yes Yes
Many jurisdictions recommend that claimants deliver the claim form in person, including all relevant information, such as photos, receipts, and witness statements. The claimant should retain a signed copy.

Some agencies allow for email submission, but this is the exception. Alternatively, a claimant could submit the claim by mail to the city or town clerk (or, for the County, the Clerk of the Board).

According to the California Government Claims Act, the agency has 45 days from the date the claim form was mailed or delivered in person to respond to the claimant.

Page 135 of 261 ends

Page 13 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

CONCLUSION
Even though state law sets strict rules for filing and reviewing claims, local government agencies retain significant discretion over their processes. By offering clearer online information, improving access to claim forms, expanding language options, and providing more detailed explanations when claims are denied, jurisdictions can significantly improve public trust, reduce frustration, and increase fairness.

Implementing the recommended updates is not only feasible, but it also aligns with the spirit of responsive and transparent public service. The Civil Grand Jury urges all jurisdictions to adopt these improvements by the recommended deadlines to ensure that the claims process is fairer, more consistent, and easier for the public to navigate.

Page 136 of 261 ends

Page 14 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.

Recommendation 1
No recommendation.

Finding 2
Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.

Recommendation 2a
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Recommendation 2b
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Finding 3
Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.

Recommendation 3a
Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Page 137 of 261 ends

Page 15 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Recommendation 3b
Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Finding 4
When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.

Recommendation 4
The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.

The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Page 138 of 261 ends

Page 16 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Campbell 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Gilroy 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Los Altos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
Town of Los Altos Hills 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
Town of Los Gatos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of Milpitas 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Monte Sereno 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Morgan Hill 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Mountain View 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Palo Alto 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of San José 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Saratoga 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a
City of Sunnyvale 1, 2 2a, 2b

Page 139 of 261 ends

Page 17 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.

Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:

Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-aParks-Public-Works-Concern-87 Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/publicworks/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-andcouncil/contact-city-council Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern6/Fix-It-Form-45 Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhoodcomplaints/

Page 140 of 261 ends

Page 18 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-HillPTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.

Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.

Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.

California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.

California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/yourcity/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-aClaim). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.

Page 141 of 261 ends

Page 19 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdatacsj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.

City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequentlyasked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/yourgovernment/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.

County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.

Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).

Accessed April 14, 2026.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-conditionbay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.

Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).

Accessed April 15, 2026.

Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).

Accessed April 14, 2026.

Page 142 of 261 ends

Page 20 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson

Page 143 of 261 ends

1 North San Antonio Road
Los Altos, California 94022-3087

M E M O R A N D U M

ATTACHMENT 3
DATE: August 25, 2026
TO: The Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
FROM: Gabe Engeland, City Manager
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO THE 2026 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT “VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART
SILICON VALLEY PHASE II”
The City of Los Altos submits the following specific responses as requested on page 31 of the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” related to the Findings and Recommendations set forth in the Report.

Findings six and seven are directed at the City of Los Altos. All other findings and recommendations are directed at other agencies.

Findings and Recommendations
Finding 6:

VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” Response 6:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, neither agrees nor disagrees with the finding as the City is unable to verify the claim provided. City of Los Altos is a member of Group 2. With respect to Group 2, Director Pat Burt is in his sixth consecutive year of board membership (he is now an ex oficio member appointed by CalTrain) and Director Jonathan Weinberg is in his second year of board membership.

Recommendation 6:

Page 144 of 261 ends

VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response 6:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, agrees that Groups 2 through 5 should adhere to the VTA Administrative Code admonitions, however, the City cannot independently implement the recommendation as it is only one of the four agencies comprising Group 2, and Group 2 is only one Group of the four groups identified in the recommendation.

Finding 7:

VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.

Response 7:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, agrees with the finding.

Recommendation 7:

The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response 7:

Respondent, City of Los Altos, does not agree with the recommendation as it feels the method for selecting the Group 2 representative is appropriate for the subregion and the individuals represented therein as it provides equal opportunities for each city within the subregion to have a representative appointed.

The Cities of Group 2 share the Grand Jury’s concerns regarding the BART project. The Cities of Group 2 have adopted bylaws governing the appointment of the VTA Group 2 Board Representative, and strive to select representatives with transportation experience and knowledge by selecting individuals who have two or more of the following qualifications: (1) at least one year’s service on the VTA Board within the last 4 years; (2) at least one year’s service on a policy advisory body that reports directly to the VTA Board (Policy Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Board, the Citizens Advisory Committee) and has a minimum 80% attendance record; (3) any other transportation policy credential deemed relevant by the majority of the Working Group as meeting the intent of the experience requirement within the last 4 years; and (4) demonstrates working knowledge of the VTA. Group 2 Cities remain committed to improving VTA efficiency and services and will consider ways the bylaws can be amended to improve VTA service.

Page 145 of 261 ends

2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026
ATTACHMENT 4

Page 146 of 261 ends

Page 1 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 8 Financial Risks .......................................................................................................................... 8 Oversight Concerns ................................................................................................................ 13 Coordination with BART ....................................................................................................... 21 Board Experience and Continuity......................................................................................... 22 Public Communication ........................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter ............................................................................. 32 CONFLICTS ............................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34

Page 147 of 261 ends

Page 2 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

SUMMARY
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) project to extend rapid transit rail service through downtown San José is controversial and the most costly and complex project it has ever undertaken. Known as BART Silicon Valley Phase II (BSVII), the $12.7 billion project extends rail service six miles and includes a large, single-bore underground tunnel and will take 10 years or more from 2026 to complete (VTA, March 2024).

Despite significantly reduced ridership projections and uncertainty about funding sources for both capital and operating costs, VTA has awarded major construction contracts, including for the construction of a launch structure to stage a specialized one-of-a-kind Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), which will be owned by VTA. Over the next few years, VTA anticipates awarding further construction contracts worth billions of dollars. To reduce uncertainty, the spokesperson for an independent peer review of the project urged VTA to move quickly to “build as much as you can, as fast as you can” (VTA Special Board Meeting, 2025). Such an approach assumes that there will be political will and taxpayer support to finish an incomplete project regardless of cost increases, delays, or reduced ridership.

The VTA’s Board of Directors (Board) has recognized the need for additional oversight and guidance, but the Board has failed to exercise its obligation to provide the strategic direction needed for a successful project. The Oversight Committee it created has been left to define its own role. It was not required to, and does not, provide reports that share available independent analyses of critical issues. The Oversight Committee does not routinely make policy recommendations to the Board and does not hold VTA staff accountable for providing the timely analysis it has requested.

The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff, and officials in the management and oversight of the BSVII project.

This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures.

Page 148 of 261 ends

Page 3 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

BACKGROUND
The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by state law. It is responsible for operating public transit services, including buses, light rail, and paratransit within Santa Clara County. In addition to public transit, VTA is a planning and funding agency for transportation infrastructure projects throughout Santa Clara County. As established by the California Public Utilities Code Sections 100060-100070, the VTA is governed by a 12-person Board of Directors composed of elected officials appointed by the County of Santa Clara (County) and the cities in Santa Clara County, who each serve two-year terms. The Board has many responsibilities and its monthly meeting agendas are lengthy.

The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District provides regional commuter rail service and is governed by a nine-person Board of Directors elected to four-year terms from districts representing San Francisco, Alameda, and Contra Costa counties. As part of its larger regional system, BART operates the commuter rail service within Santa Clara County.

By contract with BART, VTA is solely responsible for paying the capital and net operating costs of extending commuter rail service into Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). Although the County was not included in the legislation establishing BART, voters of Santa Clara County supported three sales tax measures which provided funds to plan, build, and operate the extension of BART to Santa Clara County. Today, 1.625% of sales tax collected in Santa Clara County supports VTA and other local jurisdictions (see Table 1). If a currently proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, in November 2026, voters will decide whether to approve an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund local transit, which would increase the County’s base sales tax rate from the current 9.75% to 10.25%.

Page 149 of 261 ends

Page 4 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 1: Countywide Sales Tax in Santa Clara County, Effective April 2026 Description Sales Tax % Expiration Funding Purpose
California Base 7.250% No Expiration
State General Fund
Local Revenue Fund
Local Public Safety
Health & Social Services
1976 Measure A 0.500% No Expiration Transit: VTA
2000 Measure A 0.500% 2036 Transit: VTA, BART Silicon
Valley
2008 Measure B 0.125% 2042 Transit: BART Silicon Valley 2016 Measure B 0.500% 2047
Transit: VTA +
County/City/Caltrain/Caltrans
Infrastructure
2012 Measure A 0.125% No Expiration County General Fund 2020 Measure RR 0.125% 2050 Transit: Caltrain
2026 Measure A 0.625% 2031 General incl. Healthcare
Total Base Sales Tax
Rate 9.750%
Data extracted from: California Department of Tax and Fee Administration. 2026. (https://cdtfa.ca.gov/formspubs/cdtfa105.pdf); VTA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report.

Page 3 ends

Note: Some cities have higher voter-approved rates in addition to the County base rate; Highlighted section of the table refers to sales tax measures that fund VTA.

The first phase of BART to Silicon Valley extended service to Milpitas and then to the Berryessa Transit Center (Berryessa). Construction started in 2012 and was completed in 2020. Ridership for Phase I has not met forecasts, and due to operational, maintenance, and depreciation expenses, VTA has experienced significant financial losses. According to data reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, BART to Silicon Valley Phase I has lost an average of $69 million annually during the first five years of operation.

The second phase consists of a six-mile, four-station extension from Berryessa through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. For this phase, VTA is targeting completion by 2037. As a condition of federal funding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has appointed a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC). The PMOC uses a more conservative schedule and forecasts completion in 2039 (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026).

Page 150 of 261 ends

Page 5 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II At an early planning stage in 2014, the BSVII project cost was estimated at $4.7 billion. By 2020, the cost estimate increased to $6.9 billion. In 2022, based on the PMOC’s projected cost analysis, VTA submitted an estimate of $9.1 billion to the federal government for an Early Start Grant. In October 2023, VTA estimated the construction cost at $12.2 billion with operations to begin in 2036. The most recent estimate is $12.7 billion, and operations are pushed back to 2037 (VTA Auditor General Report, January 2024).

The project's funding sources include federal and state grants, as well as local revenues from voterapproved sales tax measures. All the funding sources are subject to risks, which are identified in this report. Figure 1 shows the funding sources with $700 million to be determined (TBD) and $375 million from a potential ballot measure in November 2026.

Figure 1: Components of $12.7 Billion in BSVII Funding Sources as of April 2026 Source: vtabart.org website (accessed April 9, 2026)
Although two years earlier, VTA had asked for a federal commitment of $6.3 billion, in August 2024, the FTA announced that its share of funding would be capped at $5.1 billion (Geha, 2024).

VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summer 2025). To reduce project costs, VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;

Page 151 of 261 ends

Page 6 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • Modifying the Santa Clara Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility; • Modifying the tunnel and station ventilation systems; • Substituting a surface parking lot for a parking structure; • Reconfiguring the tunnel to use less concrete and steel.

In addition, the funding strategy assumes $375 million from the yet-to-be-approved regional sales tax measure for a total outstanding gap of $1.075 billion.

Due in part to the significant increase in estimated cost and a perceived lack of communication about the project’s cost, risks, and schedule, the Board conducted a workshop in October 2023 to review the project’s status. At this workshop, individual Board members expressed a lack of confidence in the VTA staff’s management of the project and requested a new system of oversight and project management.

In response, the Board chair established an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II oversight committee (Oversight Committee) responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project, focusing on a full, independent, and transparent review of costs, funding, risks, and completion schedule.

The Oversight Committee’s bylaws later stated that its purpose was to provide “guidance and oversight” of the project (VTA, April 4, 2024).

The VTA independent auditor general was tasked with providing staff support to the Oversight Committee and was authorized to contract with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to independently review and comment on VTA staff recommendations regarding costs, risks, and schedule. In turn, the Oversight Committee authorized the SME firm, Gall Zeidler (GZ), to independently assess the risks and viability of cost-saving alternatives.

In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee, which depending on the availability of its members, is scheduled to meet quarterly. BART staff members have been assigned to co-locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSVII designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual. According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.).

Page 152 of 261 ends

Page 7 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed every meeting of the BSVII Oversight Committee, as well as select VTA Board meetings. This included reviewing agendas, minutes, agenda item reports, public comment submittals, and associated discussions.

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.

Page 153 of 261 ends

Page 8 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

INVESTIGATION
The Civil Grand Jury investigation of the BSVII project covered critical aspects of VTA’s management and oversight, including:
• VTA’s funding strategy and its reliance on voter-approved sales tax measures, some of which expire before completion of the project, and some of which have yet to be approved; • The establishment of a separate Oversight Committee which provides guidance on the BSVII project and how it evaluates independent analyses provided by the VTA auditor general, contracted SMEs, and the federally mandated PMOC; • The contractual and practical requirement to closely coordinate with BART, which will serve as the system operator;
• The impact of the VTA Board’s governance structure on the effectiveness of strategic direction, management, and oversight of the project;
• VTA’s approach for keeping the public informed of costs, risks, and schedule.

Financial Risks
The 10-year project completion timeline of BSVII exposes VTA to financial risks that require careful, ongoing assessment of capital and operating costs, including that:
• Rising labor and material costs, combined with aggressive construction methods and schedules, may increase total project costs and strain the budget’s contingency for unforeseen risks and unexpected expenses;
• Delays or reductions in state and federal funding will create greater pressure to rely on local funding sources or scale back the scope of the project; • Lower ridership levels will increase VTA’s ongoing obligation to pay net operating costs, which would necessitate service level reductions or voter approval of new or extended sales tax measures;
• Failure to maintain a cash-flow model exclusive to BSVII, means that contracting options for accelerating work may not be able to be financed with available resources.

Risk of Increased Costs of Labor and Materials
The FTA fiscal year 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment report for BSVII stated the VTA inflation estimate was optimistic. If labor and material costs were to rise above those estimated in VTA’s budget, it could lead to funding shortfalls (FTA, 2024).

Page 154 of 261 ends

Page 9 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The VTA auditor general’s May 1, 2025, report to the Board also identified BSVII financial risks associated with project construction costs. The report found that the assumptions and historical data underlying VTA’s financial plan could be more robust to enable the Board and the public to evaluate the financial risk associated with the potential cost increases (VTA, 2025).

Another factor that increases the difficulty in predicting materials and labor costs is the possible extension of the 2037 project completion date. The longer timeline for BSVII increases the likelihood that future costs will differ from current estimates, thereby increasing financial risk.

Local, State, and Federal Funding Risks
The capital cost of construction and the net operating costs are to be paid by VTA from specific revenue sources, some of which are grants with fixed amounts.

The financial risks identified by the Civil Grand Jury have been experienced by other major transit agencies. For example, the various rail projects of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) faced escalating cost estimates, reductions in federal funding, cuts into smaller construction segments to match available funding, and shifting agency priorities (Shalby, 2026).

Local Funding Risks
VTA’s capital financing plan calls for the 2016 Measure B to pay $2.5 billion and for the 2000 Measure A to pay $2.0 billion of the estimated $12.7 billion BSVII project. Measure A expires in 2036, before BSVII is expected to be completed. Measure B expires in 2047 (VTA, About 2016 Measure B, n.d.). As the project’s cost estimates have evolved, so have the planned funding sources. Measure B has become a much more significant source of proposed funding.

Because Measure B also funds bus transit, local streets, and highway projects, there are built-in limitations on the amount available to close a BSVII financing gap. Measure B limits spending on BSVII to 23.8% of net sales tax revenue over its 30-year life (FTA, 2024). Net sales tax revenue (defined as Program Tax Revenue in the measure) is calculated as the amount remaining after deducting administrative costs and any debt service.

To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid from Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voterapproved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on

Page 155 of 261 ends

Page 10 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the other transportation projects approved by the voters. Because of bond issuance and interest costs, the total project costs would exceed the current estimate of $12.7 billion.

Another risky approach to filling funding gaps would allow the Board to change the rules and permit a greater percentage of Measure B net sales tax revenue to be used for BSVII. One VTA official acknowledged to the Civil Grand Jury that this would be a “heavy lift” because VTA would first have to notify all the local agencies of the proposed increase in the percentage limit and then approve it by a ¾ vote of the Board (9 of 12 Board members). The County and the cities that have planned other transportation measures are likely to object to reduced funding for their projects.

Of course, more Measure B funds could become available to support the capital costs of BSVII if the expected sales tax revenue exceeds previously anticipated levels. While early projections were based on 2016 economic conditions, it is important for the strategic funding plan that the sales tax forecast be updated regularly. The Civil Grand Jury was informed that VTA has ordered an updated forecast.

Because two key sales tax measures are set to expire, several VTA officials stated in interviews that they would simply place a measure on a future ballot for voter consideration if an extension were needed. Given the current sales tax rates applicable within Santa Clara County and the need for management and oversight reforms identified in this report, there is a risk that voters may not approve such a measure.

State Funding Risk
As of April 2026, the capital construction funding strategy required $1.5 billion from two State of California grants. The VTA has received commitments for nearly $200 million of that total. The sources of funding are the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and transportation funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), both of which may be affected by a recent state decision to provide a bridge loan to Bay Area transit agencies (MTC, 2026).

In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12-year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART, and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026).

Page 156 of 261 ends

Page 11 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The state justified the loan on the basis that the transit agencies would be able to stabilize their financial situations and avoid service reductions pending the anticipated approval in November of a regional sales tax measure. If the regional measure does not pass, or if for any other reason the agencies do not repay the loans on time, the timing of the receipt of funding to VTA might create some cash flow risk for the project.

Further, the TIRCP account itself is funded by payments from private parties who agree to purchase pollution credits in the state’s Cap and Invest program. The program’s future is uncertain in light of federal changes to environmental regulations and pending legal challenges from the State of California (California State Transportation Agency, n.d.).

Federal Funding Risk
In August 2024, the FTA advised VTA that the federal government’s total contribution to the project would be limited to $5.1 billion. To receive these funds, VTA plans to apply for a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) by the end of 2026.

Federal support for large-scale rail projects is uncertain. In 2025, the FTA canceled a $4.2 billion commitment to the California High-Speed Rail Project (Shalby, 2025). VTA’s lobbyists have suggested delaying the FFGA application until similar requests from other states are resolved.

Considering the political, economic, and budgetary conditions of the United States, approval of VTA’s request for an FFGA is highly uncertain. It may be delayed, reduced, or denied.

Low Levels of Ridership Could Increase VTA’s Future Costs BART ridership on the current regional system has not recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

Ridership in January 2026 remains only 48% of the levels in January 2019 (BART, January 2026; BART, 2019). Recovering ridership may prove difficult due to the growth of hybrid work patterns.

The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the forecasts for the first phase of the project, which included the new Milpitas and Berryessa stations. For January 2026, ridership was 86% below estimates (see Table 2).

Page 157 of 261 ends

Page 12 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 2: BART Ridership at Milpitas and Berryessa Stations Forecast for Average Daily
Weekday Ridership for
June 2021 at launch
Actual Ridership,
January 2026
Ridership/Day 20,110 2,789
Source: Joint VTA/BART Working Committee Meeting, December 4, 2020; BART February 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot.

Note: VTA created forecasts in 2020, expressed as rides per day. BART actuals are based on recorded station entries and exits. To normalize BART actuals to the VTA forecast, entries and exits were averaged to produce a daily ridership figure.

An overall decrease in ridership has led BART to project a $376 million budget deficit for FY2026-

27. To seek additional revenue, BART is relying on a 0.5% additional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot that would begin in 2027 and remain in place for 14 years. If the ballot measure does not pass, BART has proposed closing up to 15 stations and reducing service hours and train frequency (BART, February 26, 2026). Ironically, the proposed station closures would not affect Santa Clara County because VTA is solely responsible for the net operating costs.

According to VTA records reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, for the first three years of operation, VTA forecasts annual average costs of $274 million for operations, maintenance, and capital costs.

Average fare revenue is forecast at $60 million, offsetting VTA's financial obligation to BART, resulting in an average annual financial loss of $214 million. Any drop in ridership will lead to further financial losses.

The Need for a BSVII Cash Flow Model
With a price tag of $12.7 billion, BSVII is the largest public infrastructure project in Santa Clara County (Aragon, 2025). Nearly 60% of the planned funding sources include revenue from grants that will not be distributed in advance but will be reimbursed in accordance with each grant’s draw schedule (See Figure 1). The timing of those cash inflows must be carefully matched with the timing of payment schedules for construction contracts worth billions of dollars.

VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons: 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overall schedule; and 2) to identify segments for which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. For each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.

Page 158 of 261 ends

Page 13 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II A cash flow model that matches receipts and expenditures for BSVII would enable VTA decisionmakers to fully evaluate the alternative approaches being studied. However, VTA officials have advised the Civil Grand Jury that such a model has not yet been developed. A cash flow model is necessary to avoid unplanned delays from cash shortfalls.

Oversight Concerns
VTA Board Recognizes That Oversight Must be Improved
Independent reports and audits have identified problems with project management and VTA Board oversight, including those identified by a prior Civil Grand Jury, the California State Auditor, and the PMOC (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). VTA’s cost-estimation practices, along with its lack of transparency around changes to project scope and cost, were identified as significant deficiencies. VTA’s oversight and management of the BSVII project have also been heavily criticized by the media, in public comments presented at Board meetings, and in letters to the editor of multiple local publications.

VTA Board Outsources Guidance and Oversight of the BSVII Project Following a workshop on the project’s direction in October 2023, the VTA Board Chairman announced the creation of an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee (VTA, 2023).

However, only the Board can make binding decisions on the project’s scope, funding, risks, schedule, and contracting approach. While ultimately accountable itself, the Board nonetheless effectively delegated oversight to a committee without providing clear direction. By abdicating its responsibility to set its expectations of how the Oversight Committee can best support the Board, the committee has been left to set its own course. That course does not keep the Board fully informed of issues raised by independent experts or the PMOC, hampering its ability to make the best decisions about the project's funding and schedule.

At its meeting on January 15, 2026, the Oversight Committee adopted what it called a revised charter intended to clarify the lines of communication and relationships among the auditor general, SME, VTA staff, and Oversight Committee (VTA, January 15, 2026). Members of the Oversight Committee had expressed concern about a perceived lack of coordination between VTA staff and the SME. Nonetheless, the question remains: Is the role of an SME to provide the Board with an independent review of VTA staff recommendations as originally intended, or is it to help VTA staff improve their recommendations? Notably, in the following excerpt, the Charter requires the

Page 159 of 261 ends

Page 14 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II auditor general to document issues raised by the SME and the VTA staff but does not require that the full Board be advised of the critical issues:

To ensure transparency and balanced oversight, selected advisory input from SME will be documented in Oversight Committee materials. Where consensus exists between the SME and the Project Team, it will be noted. Where minority or dissenting views are expressed, the AG [auditor general] will explicitly record final input received alongside the majority view (VTA Oversight Committee Charter, 2026).

During Oversight Committee meetings, there are few deliberations or actions to provide collective guidance or oversight, leaving individual members to raise questions and propose guidance for VTA staff to consider. VTA staff also receives input from individual members in private premeeting briefings. As a result, the full Board does not benefit from Oversight Committee analysis, and the public is not fully informed about individual Board member perspectives.

The Committee Has Two Purposes: Guidance and Oversight
“Guidance” suggests that the committee helps the Board establish a strategic direction and recommend actions to keep the project on track. “Oversight,” on the other hand, is a separate function that ensures VTA staff is accountable for following the Board’s direction in an efficient and effective manner. “Guidance” looks forward. “Oversight” monitors implementation as it happens.

Better at Oversight than Guidance
The Oversight Committee requires VTA staff to produce a comprehensive monthly report detailing the financing and construction progress of the BSVII project. The auditor general provides insightful periodic reports on his independent review of the project’s costs, risks, and schedule.

The VTA staff’s monthly reports address the information gap identified in the auditor general’s January 2024 report. As a result, the Oversight Committee can effectively monitor compliance with the Board’s direction.

However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction.

Page 160 of 261 ends

Page 15 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Strategic Guidance on Critical Issues is Informal, Intermittent, and Often Late VTA staff routinely provide private briefings to Oversight Committee members prior to meetings.

Those briefings allow VTA staff to explain and advocate for their recommendations and to receive input and questions from individual members. Occasionally, some agenda materials for an Oversight Committee meeting are not published with the rest of the agenda because VTA staff members will modify presentations up to the last minute based on what they have heard in private briefings.

The Oversight Committee has established an informal standard of limiting its once-monthly meetings to no more than two hours, and meetings often do not begin on time. At the meetings, VTA staff often deliver lengthy presentations on issues for which it will subsequently seek Board approval, leaving little time for committee deliberations.

During these presentations, only a few members ask questions, and rarely does a committee member propose a policy recommendation that the Oversight Committee might take action on.

Individual Oversight Committee members are given the opportunity to express support or concern about a proposed VTA staff position, providing VTA staff with some insight into how to frame their recommendations to the Board.

The Oversight Committee receives independent analyses from the VTA auditor general, its contracted SME, and the PMOC. The committee often receives lengthy written comments from the public but limits oral comments to one minute. Members of the committee rarely comment on materials received from the public, many of which are extensive critiques of the VTA staff recommendations. Following each meeting, the Oversight Committee chair submits a short report summarizing discussion topics, which is placed on the VTA Board’s consent calendar.

Following presentation to the Oversight Committee, formal VTA staff recommendations are made to the VTA Board, but without the benefit of a summary or synthesis of the alternative perspectives from the auditor general, SME, PMOC, or informed public comment.

The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner.

Page 161 of 261 ends

Page 16 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Inadequate Guidance: The KST Contract Decision The Oversight Committee endorsed a major contract change without providing independent analysis, articulating its rationale, or conveying identified risks to the Board.

VTA had issued a contract to a construction consortium, Kiewit Shea Traylor (KST), using a “progressive/design/build” approach, under which KST would design the tunnel project and, after reviews by VTA and its construction management consultant, KST would build it. By the spring of 2025, VTA believed that KST’s proposed design could significantly increase the project’s estimated cost by up to $1 billion and that it would be preferable to engage in a competitive bidding process for the remaining tunnel work. In a more traditional contract approach, VTA would prepare the design specifications and contract conditions. To accomplish this, it was necessary to limit the contract with KST to only the work required to prepare for the TBM, which VTA would own but make available to the tunneling contractor to operate and maintain.

At its June 12, 2025, meeting, VTA staff presented its proposal to modify the KST contract to the Oversight Committee, which unanimously endorsed it. Two weeks later, the VTA Board met and approved VTA staff recommendations. Although the VTA staff agenda report did include a reference to the Committee’s recommendation, it did not include the risk analysis that had been reviewed by the Committee. The Oversight Committee’s regular report to the VTA Board was placed on the consent calendar and simply reported the committee’s concurrence with the VTA staff recommendation. There was no report or analysis laying out the reasons for the Oversight Committee’s concurrence or the SME’s risk assessment. Therefore, the Board made its decision without a complete understanding of the risks.

Example of Inadequate Guidance: The Twin-Bore versus Single-Bore Decision The Oversight Committee retroactively requested a side-by-side analysis of tunnel options through Downtown San José.

A preliminary design controversy was whether to tunnel two smaller bores for the downtown San José underground tracks or to tunnel a single larger bore at greater depth. Downtown businesses had raised concerns that the twin-bore approach would require additional work and disrupt their operations during construction.

BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin-bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of

Page 162 of 261 ends

Page 17 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II cooperation, BART officials consented to the single-bore approach after being assured that operational and safety concerns would be met (BART, December 19, 2025).

In December 2022, VTA approved the fabrication and purchase of a large TBM for $76 million, effectively locking in the single-bore approach. In a news article dated November 7, 2023, in the Mountain View Voice, San José Mayor Matt Mahan was quoted as saying: “There is no turning back now” (Hicks, 2023).

Nonetheless, individual Board members and informed public commenters continued to raise questions about whether a twin-bore approach might be cheaper, faster, and safer for BART operations. In response, members of the Oversight Committee commissioned an analysis of the two options for costs, risks, and impact on schedules.

In September 2025, more than 18 months after the request, VTA and its engineering consultants presented their analysis to the Oversight Committee, confirming the single-bore approach.

Although it had requested the analysis, the Oversight Committee did not make a recommendation to the Board. In October 2025, the Board was presented with the VTA staff and consultants’ analysis and confirmed the single-bore approach by declining to take steps to amend the environmental documents or modify the tunneling contracts.

Example of Inadequate Guidance: Scenario 1 versus 1a Decision In October 2025, VTA decided on an approach to the construction of the tunnel without the benefit of the SME’s analysis that the Oversight Committee had requested.

Before design work could progress to a more advanced level, the VTA Board needed to decide between two alternatives for staging the actual tunneling work. The SME had suggested that concurrent tunneling from both ends could reduce costs and accelerate the schedule (VTA, June 12, 2025). The two options were labeled “Scenario 1” (a straight-through tunneling using the larger TBM from west-to-east) and “Scenario 1a” (an option of concurrent tunneling starting at both the east and west portals using two TBMs).

Although this would require two TBMs, the east-to-west work could be done simultaneously with a smaller-bore tunneling machine. Further, the SME reported that a smaller-bore TBM was readily available and would require less lead time than the TBM being fabricated in Germany.

Because the Oversight Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. On

Page 163 of 261 ends

Page 18 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II August 4, 2025, the Oversight Committee authorized an expenditure of $110,000 and directed the auditor general to contract with GZ for the requested work. GZ presented interim reports on September 11, 2025, and October 9, 2025, and promised to deliver its completed report at the November 2025 meeting of the Oversight Committee.

VTA staff subsequently presented its analysis and recommendations to the Oversight Committee on October 9, 2025. Although the Project Manager stated that the VTA staff was aware of some of GZ’s preliminary analysis (especially differing assumptions about the rate at which each of the two TBMs can move forward when digging a tunnel), VTA staff requested a Board meeting to decide between the two alternatives. In prior presentations to the Oversight Committee, VTA staff said that the analysis would be presented at a Board “workshop” (at which no formal action could be taken). However, a special meeting of the Board was called for October 17, 2025, and VTA staff made its recommendations to the Board, neglecting to advise the Board that the Oversight Committee was still awaiting the GZ analysis that the Committee had authorized.

The Oversight Committee failed to present any report or recommendation at the special meeting.

As a result, the Board adopted ‘Scenario 1’ without the benefit of an independent analysis of the risks.

On February 12, 2026, four months after the Board made its decision, the SME presented his written report analyzing the options and raising concerns that should have been considered before the decision.

VTA Staff Accountability for Responding to Oversight Committee Member Requests The auditor general maintains two types of monitoring reports: a tracking report that lists the requests of individual committee members for information or analysis, and a work plan that lists the schedule for upcoming formal reports, including risk assessments such as financing and procurement risks. Both monitoring reports establish a due date, but the deadlines are often not met.

During public meetings, Oversight Committee members rarely discuss the tracking report or the work plan and do not publicly comment on changes to the expected date in subsequent reports.

More importantly, neither the auditor general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:

Page 164 of 261 ends

Page 19 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Lack of Accountability: Prolonged Delay in Analysis of Single-Bore versus Twin-Bore The side-by-side analysis of two design options was not provided until more than 18 months after it was first requested.

At the Oversight Committee’s first meeting in November 2023, a member of the public requested that the committee order a cost and risk analysis of the single-bore versus twin-bore options, which remained controversial following the VTA Board’s selection of the single-bore option in 2018. In 2023, the Chair of the Oversight Committee responded that such an “apples-to-apples” (side-byside) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks. Here are some of the subsequent activities:
• At the committee’s meeting on January 19, 2023, two committee members formally requested the “apples-to-apples” analysis and placed it on the committee’s tracking list. (VTA, March 2025). At its meeting on June 13, 2024, the Project Manager reported that the scope of the twin-bore analysis would be worked on and reported to the Board “over the course of the summer.”
• At its meeting on August 8, 2024, a member of the public asked about the status of the “apples-to-apples” analysis.
• At the September 12, 2024, Oversight Committee, the auditor general announced that VTA staff had asked engineering design contractor Mott Macdonald to conduct the “apples-toapples” review. • The March 2025 tracking report included a comment regarding the “apples-to-apples” comparison: “These items are being evaluated as part of cost savings task force efforts with participation from GZ” (VTA, April 2024).
• One year later, on September 11, 2025, Mott Macdonald presented its analysis of the twinbore versus single-bore options – nearly 22 months after the request was first discussed at an Oversight Committee meeting – concluding that the single-bore option was preferred (VTA, September 11, 2025).

Example of Lack of Accountability: An Alternative Strategy Some Call “Plan B” Despite multiple requests for an alternative strategy to address risks associated with the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision.

Since the Oversight Committee meeting on October 9, 2025, committee members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA

Page 165 of 261 ends

Page 20 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II for the promised $5.1 billion. Some committee members asked whether a “Plan B” might include reducing the number of planned stations or revising the funding strategy. VTA staff reported to the Civil Grand Jury that there was reluctance to discuss a “Plan B” out of concern that the discussion itself might jeopardize the FFGA. At public meetings, VTA staff dismissed requests for an alternative funding strategy, instead reporting that an alternative plan should not be prepared until the FTA made its decision in 2027. This is an example of the VTA staff’s dismissal of the Oversight Committee direction.

Expediency of Decisions versus Rigorous Analysis
The Civil Grand Jury identified tension between VTA Board members’ competing goals: avoiding delays in decision-making and requiring rigorous, independent analysis of costs, risks, and schedule. In public meetings, the Project Manager has often stated that each month of delay adds $20 to $30 million to the overall project cost (Dorsey, 2025).

There is a strong financial incentive to keep the project moving by advancing decisions incrementally—approving one component at a time to show visible progress—without fully evaluating how each step alters the project’s overall cost, scope, and risk. For a project of this size, complexity, and cost, this piecemeal approach masks cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood of cost escalation and delays. These should be identified and addressed through rigorous, frontend analysis.

With two-year terms and constituencies limited to portions of the County, Board members may understandably focus on immediate actions rather than the long-term, systemwide implications that demand a coherent strategic plan.

The Role Assigned to the Auditor General
The Oversight Committee benefits from periodic risk assessments and audits performed by the VTA auditor general on the BSVII project. However, by assigning the auditor general the responsibility to also provide staff support to the Oversight Committee, VTA has created a situation in which the auditor general is asked to provide an independent audit of prior decisions while also assisting the committee in evaluating future policy and management decisions.

At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general.

Page 166 of 261 ends

Page 21 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The Board is best served when it hears all relevant views on an upcoming decision and is presented with options and a recommendation. The auditor general’s participation and input are critical, but he should not be placed in the position of having to synthesize all the competing views, including his own.

The auditor general is better placed to assist the Oversight Committee in its role of “oversight” and less so in commenting on the Oversight Committee's “guidance” functions. Accordingly, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board would be better served if a VTA staff person were assigned responsibility for staffing the committee. This person could be part of the General Manager’s Office and should not report to the Project Manager. The position would be like that of the chief of staff, which was recently assigned to support the chair of the Board.

Coordination with BART
Because the County of Santa Clara is not part of the BART District, the extension of rail service to San José required a contract that established both VTA’s and BART’s commitment to cooperate.

Under the 2001 Cooperative Agreement, VTA is financially responsible for paying for the design, construction, and operation of the segment in Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). BART retained approval authority over design elements that affect operations, maintenance, and safety. To date, this has been accomplished through the joint preparation of a Design Criteria Manual.

As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus twin-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept evaluated in the final environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies:

We also determined that the length of time since the project began, extensive media coverage of the project, conflicting subject-matter opinions, and some public displeasure with the single-bore design have created uncertainty about the project’s direction. We concluded that gaps in transparency and communication, including limited public discussions in recent years, have resulted in mixed messaging on a project that has evolved over multiple decades (BART Independent Office of the Inspector General, 2025).

In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing

Page 167 of 261 ends

Page 22 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the size of the Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility as a capital cost-saving measure. The VTA Project Manager publicly acknowledged a failure to keep BART informed of design issues that might impact BART’s operational efficiency and pledged to develop recommendations to the administrative heads of both agencies on a more formal process to identify and resolve those issues (VTA Oversight Committee, 2025).

Board Experience and Continuity
Since 2019, five audits and reports have critiqued VTA’s governance structure and recommended a series of revisions to improve VTA’s capability to provide Board direction and oversight of the BART extension. Those audits have included the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in 2019; the Auditor of the State of California, in 2024; the BART Independent Office of the Inspector General in 2025; RSM US LLC, a VTA subcontractor, in 2019; and the VTA Auditor General in 2024. VTA has accepted and acted on most of the recommendations for governance reform, except those relating to the terms and required experience level of Board members.

During the investigation of the BSVII project, sources repeatedly raised concerns about the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA Board, which is responsible for the project’s success. Decisions made today will have a direct impact on its ultimate success. Diligent oversight of its schedule, cost, progress, and scope is required.

According to the California Public Utilities Code, which established the VTA Board, “to the extent possible, the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues” (Pub. Util. Code 10000 et seq).

VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code, which states “Appointing Authorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13).

Page 168 of 261 ends

Page 23 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 3: Appointing Authorities Composition of the VTA Board Appointing
Agency
Group
Jurisdiction Represented Number of
Board Members
Method of
Appointment
Group 1 San José 5 members
1 alternate
Appointed by city
council from city
council members/mayor
Group 2 Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 2 members
Group 3
Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
Saratoga
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 3 members
Group 4 Gilroy, Morgan Hill 1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 4 members
Group 5 Milpitas, Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale
2 members
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 5 members
Group 6 County of Santa Clara 2 members
1 alternate
Appointed by County
Board of Supervisors
Source: California Pub. Util. Code section 100060.

While VTA continues to insist that two-year terms are suitable for its governance (as specified in PUC § 100060.2), peer agencies in the state appoint their Board members to four-year terms, leading to much longer average lengths of service and potentially greater experience and transportation-related knowledge (see Figure 2).

Multiple reports and audits have suggested weaknesses introduced by VTA’s approach to the appointment of Board members. For example, the 2019 Board Governance Assessment concluded, in part, that some processes and policies (e.g., committee structure, term limits, and Board member selection guidelines) might not reflect best practices or support long-term Board stability (VTA, 2019). Additionally, a report by the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that the VTA Board suffers from:
• A lack of experience and limited continuity by many Board members; • Inadequate time for the directors to devote to the Board’s oversight and policy-making functions;
• A lack of engagement by some of the directors, fostered in part by the committee system, resulted in VTA functioning largely as a staff-driven organization.

More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses:

Page 169 of 261 ends

Page 24 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The process for selecting directors for the Board is not always transparent enough to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues. • Some groups of cities appoint VTA directors without public deliberation, limiting transparency and sometimes bypassing the statutory recommendation for transportation expertise.
• VTA directors have shorter tenures, on average, than their peers, meaning that VTA’s Board has less experience overseeing the agency’s operations than the Boards of peer agencies.

Figure 2: Average Directors’ Tenure among VTA and Peer Agencies Source: Auditor of the State of California, “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight,” June 2024.

Note: LA Metro stands for Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; OCTA stands for Orange County Transportation Authority; SacRT stands for Sacramento Regional Transit District.

During interviews and in reviewing existing reports and audits about VTA, the Civil Grand Jury learned that Board members and elected officials broadly support a four-year term for directors.

Lengthening terms would require a change to VTA’s enabling legislation. The findings of the State and VTA’s own auditors’ governance reform recommendations remain unchanged.

Page 170 of 261 ends

Page 25 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Public Communication
Following the VTA auditor general’s report in January 2024, public communication and community outreach regarding the BSVII project have improved. The Civil Grand Jury noted improvements to the VTA BSVII project website, including efforts to deliver timely updates to residents about the impact of construction activities, and a section for frequently asked questions (FAQ) (VTA, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project, n.d.). In addition, many interviewees told the Civil Grand Jury that VTA has made efforts to better inform the public and officials since the auditor general's report highlighted communication breakdowns in 2023.

However, there are areas where the public would benefit from VTA focusing more on improving communication.

The VTA’s BSVII project website does not offer a simple, clear dashboard outlining the costs, timeline, and progress of the BSVII project. Although it includes technical reports from the federally sponsored PMOC, it does not include the independent analyses by the SME or the VTA auditor general.

A high-level dashboard would consolidate information from multiple sources, present project metrics to the public, and provide access to source materials. Today, information on funding, expenditures, and schedule status is available on the website, but is buried in layers of reports that are nonintuitive to find or navigate.

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine.

Page 171 of 261 ends

Page 26 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

CONCLUSION
The VTA Board has failed in its responsibility to provide effective management, oversight, and financial control of the BSVII Project.

Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes:
• There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs, reliance on expiring voterapproved sales tax measures, uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership.
• When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VTA project staff, but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues.
• The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee.
• There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence.
• VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project.

Page 172 of 261 ends

Page 27 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The BSVII project currently requires voter approval of additional sales tax measures to address gaps in construction and operations funding.

Recommendation 1
VTA should adopt and publish a strategy for the completion and operation of the project that reduces dependency on new sales tax measures.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 2
VTA does not maintain a cash-flow model for the BSVII project.

Recommendation 2
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare a cash-flow model for the BSVII project and present it quarterly to the Oversight Committee and the Board.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 3
VTA has not developed an alternative funding strategy for the project in the event that planned funding sources are unavailable or insufficient.

Recommendation 3
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare an alternative funding strategy to meet the project’s estimated total capital costs and VTA’s responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and present it to the Oversight Committee and Board for approval.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 4
Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board.

Page 173 of 261 ends

Page 28 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 4
VTA should adopt a policy requiring staff to present an analysis of operating and maintenance costs when considering design and construction alternatives for BSVII.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 5
The VTA Board would benefit from longer terms of office to improve continuity and institutional knowledge.

Recommendation 5
VTA should reconsider its prior rejections of audit recommendations calling for the establishment of four-year terms and direct its legislative advocates to seek a legislative author to amend VTA’s enabling statute to require four-year terms.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” Recommendation 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 7
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.

Page 174 of 261 ends

Page 29 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Recommendation 7
The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 8
The role assigned to the auditor general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among VTA staff and the Oversight Committee. Being involved in the management and policy-making process threatens the auditor general’s independence.

Recommendation 8
The Board should implement an alternative model for supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 9
The Board of Directors has not approved the bylaws, nor the charter of the Oversight Committee.

Recommendation 9
VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues:
• Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy;

Page 175 of 261 ends

Page 30 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to hold subject matter experts accountable for timely analysis of costs, risk, and schedule;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report to the Board on the implications of design and construction issues that impact future ongoing operations and maintenance costs to be borne by VTA.

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 10
VTA’s vtabart.org website is poorly organized and not always intuitive to navigate, making it hard to find information about the status, cost, and schedule of the BSVII project.

Recommendation 10
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to implement and maintain a project dashboard on its vtabart.org website that includes status, cost, and schedule information.

This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.

Page 176 of 261 ends

Page 31 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6
The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7

Page 177 of 261 ends

Page 32 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter

Page 178 of 261 ends

Page 33 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

Page 33 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

Page 33 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

Page 33 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART VTA'S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE SILICON VALLEY PHASE IIII kai BART SILICON VALLEY

PHASE II (BSV I)
BART remains fully committed to the successful delvi ery of this critical regional investment.

However, that commitment depends on VTA's immediate corrective action to restore transparency and accountability.

Sincerely,
Shane Edwards
BART Assistant General Manager, 0perations
BART Project Director
Ce: VTA's BART S i licon Valley Phase II 0versight Committee Members Greg Ri chardson, VTA Deputy General Manager
Robert Powers, BART General Manager
Michael Jones, BART Deputy General Manager
Ni Lee, BART Deputy Proj ect Director
Mon ica Born, VTA Program Director
Tom Maguire, VTA Chief Del ivery Officer of Mega Projects BSVII: Co ll aborati o n , I n n ovat i on, Safety, R e l i ability 2

Page 33 of 40 ends

Page 179 of 261 ends

Page 34 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II

CONFLICTS
Members of the Civil Grand Jury are conflicted from a Civil Grand Jury investigation if, as a result of prior or current employment or associations, investment in public or private enterprise, financial interest, bias, or personal relationship, they are subject to recusal from participating in a matter before the Civil Grand Jury. One juror was recused from this matter.

REFERENCES
Bibliography
2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury. “Inquiry Into Governance of the Valley Transportation Authority.” June 18, 2019.
(https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/cgj-vta-final-report-061819_0.pdf).

Accessed April 5, 2026.

Aragon, Greg, “Single-Bore Tunnel Method Chosen for BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” ENRWest. November 4, 2025. (https://www.enr.com/articles/61798-single-bore-tunnelmethod-chosen-for-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii). Accessed April 29, 2026.

AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC. “Project Monitoring Report.” March 9, 2026. (https://vtabart.org/transparency-commitment/#docaccess8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). Accessed May 1, 2026.

Auditor General, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Auditor General’s Risk Assessment Report on VTA’s BSVII Finance Risks.” May 1, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=4412&ID= 9358). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Auditor of the State of California. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight.” June 2024. (https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2023-101-Report.pdf).

Accessed April 5, 2026.

California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026.

Page 180 of 261 ends

Page 35 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 10000 et seq.

Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 100060 et seq.

Dorsey, Dustin. “Silicon Valley BART Extension construction remains on time, budget.” ABC Eyewitness News. December 8, 2025. (https://abc7news.com/post/silicon-valley-bartextension-construction-remains-time-budget-west-portal-site/18265543/). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Federal Transit Administration. “FY 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment.” June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/bartsilicon-valley-phase-ii-project-profile-fy-0).

Federal Transit Administration. “BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project San Jose, California. June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-08/CABART-Silicon-Valley-Phase-II-Eng-Profile-20240705.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2026.

Geha, Joseph. “Feds Commit $5.1 Billion to South Bay BART Extension.” KQED.org. August 2, 2024. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11998646/feds-commit-5-1-billion-to-south-baybart-extension#:~:text=Joseph%20Geha,increases%20to%20the%20current%20figure).

Accessed April 22, 2026.

Hicks, Tony. “VTA Board approves purchase of machine to bore BART line.” Mountain View Voice. November 7, 2023. (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/11/07/vta-boardapproves-purchase-of-machine-to-bore-bart-line/). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-areatransitagencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026
Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Page 181 of 261 ends

Page 36 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Independent Office of the Inspector General. “Transparency & Communication Gaps in BSVII Project.” December 19, 2025. (https://www.bartoig.org/investigation-reports-2025#docaccess-98152ed2acf38 cd4da53e1efbb737c86cc96ef6c2e1f439edf6ec6f51905271f). Accessed April 5, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Comprehensive Agreement, November 22, 2001.
(www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/O%26M%20Agreement_Silicon%20Valley%20B ART%20Extn.pdf). Accessed May 12, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. “BART Board initially approves Alternative Service Plan outlining budget balancing details.” February 26, 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260226-0). Accessed April 29, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. "January 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot." February 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 02/202601%20Monthly%20Ridership%20Snapshot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. " 2019 Monthly Ridership Reports." 2019. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ridership_2019.zip). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project. n.d. (https://www.vtabart.org). Accessed May 12, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “VTA Board of Directors Workshop Reviews BART Phase II Timeline, Costs, And Next Steps.” October 23, 2023. (https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-board-directors-workshop-reviews-bart-phase-ii-timelinecosts-and-next-steps). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Auditor General. “Auditor General’s Initial Monitoring Report on VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project.” VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Oversight Committee Agenda. Item 8a. January 19, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4233).

Accessed April 5, 2026.

Page 182 of 261 ends

Page 37 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/RSM US LLC. “Board Governance Assessment – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.” December 20, 2019. (https://www.vta.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-01/VTA%20Board%20Governance%20Assessment%20 %281%29.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. “BART Silicon Valley Extension Project Implements Major Cost Reductions.” November 13, 2024. (https://www.vta.org/blog/bart-siliconvalley-extension-project-implements-major-cost-reductions). Accessed April 23, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/HayGroup. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizational and Financial Assessment Executive Report.” March 2007. (https://ti.org/pdfs/HayGrouponVTA.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Operations and Maintenance Agreement By and Between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.” May 22, 2020. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 12/VTA%20BART%20Operations%20and%20Maintenance%20Agreement_0.pdf).

Accessed April 23, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Administrative Code (With Amendments through March 6, 2025).” March 2025. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/VTA_Administrative_Code_2025-3-

6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Bylaws for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee.” April 4, 2024. (https://www.vta.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/ vta-bsv-oversight-committee-bylaws_0.pdf). Accessed April 8, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Special Board Meeting. October 17, 2025. (https:// santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=4297&Inline=True) Accessed April 9, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.

Page 183 of 261 ends

Page 38 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Agenda Item 4, Item #4. March 13, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4138&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 11a. June 12, 2025.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4430). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “BSVII Project Update.” Summer, 2025. (https://vtabart.org/vtas-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii-extension-project-summer-2025/).

Accessed May 13, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 8. January 15, 2026.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4354&Inline=True ). Accessed April 22, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “2000 Measure A.” n.d. (https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2000-measure-a). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “About 2016 Measure B.” n.d. (https://2016measureb.vta.org/about). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 10b. Slide 21. September 11, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4273&Inline=True ). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Fact Sheet: VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project.” March 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024- 07/VTABSV_FactSheet_2024_OverviewBenefits%201.pdf). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancelsfunding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Page 184 of 261 ends

Page 39 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transitproject-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Page 185 of 261 ends

Page 40 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson

Page 186 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Yongdan Chunyu
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution – Award Construction Contract for the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Environmental Sustainability
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. of Stockton, California, to complete the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project in an amount not to exceed $363,220, and authorize up to 15% construction contingency in an amount not to exceed $54,483, for a total amount not to exceed $417,703

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The proposed project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301 – Existing Facilities, as the project consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility, including the installation of EV charging equipment and related electrical infrastructure.

FISCAL IMPACT
This project is funded as part of the approved FY2026-27 CIMMP budget.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
On June 9, 2026, the City Council adopted the FY2026-27 Operating Budget and FY2027-31 Capital Improvement and Major Maintenance Program, which includes the MSC EV Infrastructure Project.

BACKGROUND
The City is transitioning its fleet to electric vehicles with support from Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) and Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). In 2024, SVCE assisted the City in developing EV infrastructure plans for the Maintenance Services Center at 707 Fremont Avenue. Through PG&E’s Make-Ready Program, PG&E is responsible for utility upgrades, while the City is responsible for installing the EV chargers and associated site improvements.

The project prepares the site for continued fleet electrification.

The construction scope includes one transformer, one switchboard, one electrical panel, four EV chargers, and associated installation, start-up, and sign-off.

Page 187 of 261 ends

Cumming Group is providing project management services for the project.

ANALYSIS
Staff released the bid package for competitive bidding through the City’s PlanetBids procurement portal on June 10, 2026. A Notice to Contractors was published in the Los Altos Town Crier on June 10 and June 17, 2026. A mandatory pre-bid conference was held on June 18, 2026, at the Maintenance Services Center, with thirteen contractors in attendance. During the bidding period, the City issued two addenda to respond to bidder questions and clarify the bid package.

Seven electronic bids were received and opened through PlanetBids on July 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Bockmon & Woody Electric Co. was the lowest responsible, responsive bidder for the project in the amount of $363,220.

On July 16, 2026, the City issued a Notice of Intent to Award the Base Bid to Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. in accordance with the City’s bid protest procedures established by Resolution No. 2015-36.

DISCUSSION
None

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 – Resolution

Page 188 of 261 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-__

A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH BOCKMON & WOODY ELECTRIC CO., INC.

FOR THE MAINTENANCE YARD EV CHARGERS PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOTTO-EXCEED $363,220 AND UP TO 15% CONTINGENCY FUNDS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT-TO-EXCEED $417,703
WHEREAS, the City of Los Altos is transitioning its fleet to electric vehicles and is implementing the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project (Project) at the Maintenance Services Center; and WHEREAS, the City released the bid package for competitive bidding on June 10, 2026, and received seven electronic bids through PlanetBids on July 13, 2026; and WHEREAS, Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. of Stockton, California, was determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder for the Project in the amount of $363,220; and WHEREAS, the Project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities, because it consists of minor alterations to an existing public facility, including installation of EV charging equipment and related electrical infrastructure.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos does hereby authorize the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with Bockmon & Woody Electric Co., Inc. in an amount not-to-exceed $363,220 and up to 15% contingency funds, for a total amount notto-exceed $417,703 to complete the Maintenance Yard EV Chargers Project.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:
__________________________

SALLY MEADOWS
Mayor

Page 189 of 261 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
ATTEST:
_________________________

MELISSA THURMAN
City Clerk

Page 190 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Anthony Carnesecca
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Woodland Library Patio Expansion Project Acceptance

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution accepting completion of the Woodland Library Patio Expansion project and authorizing City staff to record a Notice of Completion as required by law

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The project was incorporated into the approved FY25-26 budget. The City paid $27,000 for its budgeted portion of the work while the Los Altos Library Endowment paid $310,275.64 for the rest of the project expenses on a reimbursement basis.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
November 12, 2024, October 14, 2025, & January 13, 2026

BACKGROUND
In March 2022, the Library Commission Infrastructure Subcommittee presented a report on the Woodland Library Patio Project that had a conceptual framework of proposed programs and amenities for the outdoor space at Woodland Library. The Infrastructure Subcommittee was directed to continue working on the project.

In December 2022, the Library Commission unanimously approved the Woodland Expanded Patio Project as presented.

After that approval, the Infrastructure Subcommittee provided the general proposal for a Woodland Expanded Patio Project to the Los Altos Library Endowment to explore funding opportunities. It was determined that this project would wait until after the Main Library Patio project.

In August 2024, the Los Altos Library Endowment was made aware of a native plant garden project in the proposed area for the Woodland Library Patio so the Los Altos Library Endowment team gathered that group and key library stakeholders to discuss how the two

Page 191 of 261 ends

projects could work together moving forward.

At its September 16, 2024 meeting, the Library Commission received a report from the Chair and LALE Liaison Fawcett regarding recent progress on the Woodland Library Patio project.

This initial conversation amongst key stakeholders, which included individuals from Santa Clara County Library District, Los Altos Library Endowment, Greentown Los Altos, and the Library Commission LALE Liaison.

Since that meeting, the Los Altos Library Endowment team created renderings of what the space could look like that are being circulated for feedback from Library patrons and staff. These renderings were completed based upon the proposal by the Library Commission Infrastructure Committee.

On November 12, 2024, the City Council received a memorandum that provided an update on the Woodland Library Patio Project.

At the January 9, 2025 Library Commission meeting, the Los Altos Library Endowment received additional feedback on this project as they continued to develop the plans for the space.

After that meeting, the Los Altos Library Endowment team has made adjustments based on Library Commission feedback and completed bid-ready documents through collaboration with partner organizations.

On October 14, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager to issue formal bid for the Woodland Library Patio Expansion Plan.

On October 22, 2025 at 2:00 PM, the Formal Bid was posted on the City’s Bid Portal for all prospective bidders.

On November 19, 2025 at 2:00 PM, the Formal Bid period closed and the City received 9 bids.

Through a competitive bid process, JPB Designs Inc was the lowest responsible, responsive bidder for the project.

On January 13, 2026, the Ciy Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with JPB Designs Inc.

ANALYSIS

DISCUSSION
Beginning in spring 2026, JPB Designs Inc started construction on the Woodland Library Patio Expansion.

JPB Designs Inc completed required construction work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

The completed project expands and enhances the Woodland Library outdoor patio area for

Page 192 of 261 ends

library and community use.

On August 15, 2026, the Los Altos Library Endowment, Greentown Los Altos, and City of Los Altos hosted a ribbon cutting for the project.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

Page 193 of 261 ends

Page 1 ends

ATTACHMENT 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-___

A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF THE WOODLAND

LIBRARY PATIO EXPANSION PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF

TO RECORD A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AS REQUIRED BY LAW
WHEREAS, at the October 14, 2025 City Council meeting, the Los Altos City Council authorized the City Manager to issue a Formal Bid for the Woodland Library Patio Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, on October 22, 2025 at 2:00 PM, the Formal Bid was posted on the City’s Bid Portal for all prospective bidders; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2025 at 2:00 PM, the Formal Bid period closed and the City received 9 bids; and
WHEREAS, through a competitive bid process, JPB Designs Inc was the lowest responsible, responsive bidder for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 13, 2026, the Ciy Council authorized the City Manager to execute a Construction Contract with JPB Designs Inc; and
WHEREAS, JPB Designs Inc completed required construction work in accordance with the approved plans and specifications; and
WHEREAS, this resolution is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Section 15301 – Existing Facilities consisting of the minor alteration of existing public structures and facilities.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby:

1. Accepts completion of the Woodland Library Patio Expansion Project; and

2. Directs City staff to execute and file for record with the County Recorder of the County of Santa Clara a Notice of Completion, as required by law.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the 25th day of August, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

Page 194 of 261 ends

Page 2 ends

ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_____________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC

CITY CLERK

Page 195 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Gabe Engeland
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Public Hearing - Resident Petition to Rename Lee Street to Tubman Street

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
General Government
Circulation Safety and Efficiency

RECOMMENDATION
Receive the report and take one of the following actions:
• Rename Lee Street to Tubman Street; or
• Forward the item to the Historical Commission, or other relevant Commission, for further study and recommendation

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
Based on the evidence presented in the administrative record, staff determines that the proposed street renaming is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the following separate and independent bases:
• Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense / General Rule Exemption): CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It can be seen with certainty that the administrative act of renaming a street will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.
• Section 15301 (Class 1 Categorical Exemption - Existing Facilities): The project consists of minor alterations to existing public streets and structures, specifically limited to the installation and replacement of three physical traffic and street signs, involving no expansion of the existing roadway use.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item. If the Council renames Lee Street the amount to change the street signs will be absorbed in the General Fund of the current Fiscal Year budget.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
June 23, 2026

Page 196 of 261 ends

BACKGROUND
On June 23, 2026, a formal petition was presented to the City Council by residents around Lee Street requesting the renaming of Lee Street, currently named after Confederate General Robert E. Lee, to Tubman Street, in honor of the historic abolitionist Harriet Tubman. During the same meeting, the City Council directed staff to place this item on a future agenda to consider the petition.

Lee Street is a short residential side street in Los Altos intersecting University and Orange Avenues. It was originally mapped in 1906 as part of the Altos Land Company’s initial subdivision plans, which included a cluster of side streets named after prominent Civil War figures. There are no residential addresses on Lee Street.

ANALYSIS
Procedural Initiation (Section 9.28.020.A)
The municipal code dictates that street renaming requests may be initiated by a City Council motion or by a petition representing a majority of residents whose addresses will change. As noted in the resident petition, no parcels possess direct mailing addresses on Lee Street.

Therefore, renaming the street will not result in any address changes or logistical disruptions for residents, meaning the petition acts as an advisory request for Council to initiate the change via motion.

Optional Commission Review (Section 9.28.020.A)
If the City Council determines that the renaming request requires additional historical context or community evaluation, it may choose to defer a final vote and forward the matter to the Historical Commission, another appropriate city commission, or a Council subcommittee to generate a formal recommendation.

Evaluation Criteria (Section 9.28.010.B)
Should Council choose to move forward with the name "Tubman Street," the proposed name aligns with the city's established standard to honor individuals of "historical or cultural significance." Staff has verified that the name does not duplicate any existing street names within the city, complying with safety and dispatch standards.

Public Hearing Requirement (Section 9.28.020.B)
Regardless of whether Council decides to act tonight or await a recommendation from the Historical Commission, a formal public hearing must be scheduled and noticed before the street can be officially renamed by a vote of the Council.

DISCUSSION
Under Chapter 9.28 of the Los Altos Municipal Code, the City Council has the legislative authority to initiate and approve the renaming of public streets. Staff has evaluated the submitted petition against the procedural requirements and criteria set forth in the city ordinance. The City Council may consider this petition at the public hearing and either 1) rename the street as requested or 2) forward to the Historical Commission, or other relevant Commission, for further

Page 197 of 261 ends

study and a recommendation.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Tubman St. City Council Letter

2. Attachment 2 - Lee Street Location Map

Page 198 of 261 ends

To the Los Altos City Council:

More than 165 years ago, our nation split apart in war. The North won, putting an end to the evil of legalized slavery throughout the United States.

Just 40 years after the end of the Civil War, in 1906, Paul Shoup formed the Altos Land Company, bought the land that we stand on today from Sarah Winchester, and set out the first plans for what became our beautiful city. In those initial plans were the streets of what is now Old Los Altos — University, Orange, and Palm Avenues, crossed by side streets named for prominent figures of the Civil War — Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, and Lee.

We write to you as residents of Old Los Altos and, in particular, residents who live by or on Lee Street. Some of us own historic homes; we all greatly appreciate and treasure the incredible history of this city. And yet we’re troubled by Lee Street. Robert E. Lee was the General in Chief of the Confederacy, and therefore the leader of the fight to keep Black Americans enslaved.

Every day, as we walk past Lee Street., we are reminded of him and the despicable ideals he fought for. Our history is important to all of us, but those we honor from our past should be those who still inspire us today.

Los Altos city code allows the City Council to initiate a request to rename a street and to 1 approve that renaming in a public hearing . With that in mind, we respectfully request City 2 Council to rename Lee Street. We believe that, in recognition of the history of Old Los Altos, the desire Paul Shoup and the Altos Land Company had to honor people of great significance in the Civil War, and the values that we all hold today so many years later, it would be appropriate to rename the street for Harriet Tubman.

Harriet Tubman is known for her extensive activity as an abolitionist and a rescuer of enslaved people. She made 13 trips through the Underground Railroad, served as a nurse and spy in the Union Army, and was a leader in the women’s suffrage movement. She is widely recognized as an American hero, and we would be proud to see her name on the street by our houses.

No parcels have addresses on Lee Street, so renaming the street would not require any address changes. The city would have to replace three street signs, and of course maps would be corrected over time.

Next year will be the 75th anniversary of our city’s founding. It will undoubtedly be an occasion to look back with pride at what Paul Shoup started so long ago, consider the vibrant city that we have today, and look ahead to what we hope the future will bring for Los Altos. By making this change now, we have the opportunity to correct a mistake of the past and to allow that future to better reflect what we want our city to represent.

Sincerely,
Eric and Lauren Albert, 725 University Ave. (corner of University and Lee) Jim Forster and Joan LeMahieu, 690 Orange Ave. (corner of Orange and Lee) Sheela Pai, 680 Orange Ave.

Jill Ford and Ann Stamschor, 686 Orange Ave.

Raquel Friedman, 673 Orange Ave.
https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9STSIPUPL_CH9.28NAPUSTPAOTPUFA_9.28.020NAREPR 1 https://library.municode.com/ca/los_altos/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT9STSIPUPL_CH9.28NAPUSTPAOTPUFA_9.28.010NACR 2 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 199 of 261 ends

ATTACHMENT 2

Page 200 of 261 ends

City Council Staff Report
Meeting Date: August 25, 2026
Prepared By: Sean Gallegos
Approved By: Gabe Engeland
Subject: Adoption of Resolution - Vesting Tentative Map at 349 First Street

COUNCIL PRIORITY AREA
Housing
General Government

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution approving a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes (Application No. TM23-0002) for the creation of 19 condominium units at 349 First Street, subject to the recommended findings and conditions of approval; and find the project is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 (Attachment 1)

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
The project is statutorily exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code Section 21080.66 as a qualifying housing development project on a 0.16-acre project site consistent with the applicable land-use requirements, considering the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provisions. The site is developed, served by utilities, surrounded by urban uses, satisfies the applicable minimum-density requirement, and is not located in an environmentally sensitive area identified in Section 21080.66(a)(6). The property is not a historic resource, tribal consultation has been completed, environmental site assessments prepared with any remediation to be completed as required, and the site is more than 500-feet from the nearest freeway.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
None.

BACKGROUND
Property Description
The 0.16-acre project site is located at the northeast corner of First Street and Whitney Street and contains a two-story, approximately 3,000-square-foot commercial office building constructed in 1960 and an associated surface parking lot. First Street borders the site to the west, Whitney Street to the south, a public alley to the east, and commercial property to the

Page 201 of 261 ends

north. The surrounding area consists of a mix of commercial and multifamily residential uses.

Project Overview
The project includes a Vesting Tentative Map for condominium purposes to subdivide the site into 19 residential condominium units and associated common areas (see Attachment 2). The approved development project associated with the map includes the construction of a 19-unit multiple-family development and associated parking and site improvements.

Planning Commission Review
On August 6, 2026, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to review the Design Review and Vesting Tentative Map applications. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the Design Review application and recommended the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map. The Planning Commission staff report is included as Attachment 3.

ANALYSIS
General Plan Consistency
The Downtown Commercial land use designation allows residential development and supports additional housing in the Downtown area. The project would contribute to the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation and further General Plan and Housing Element policies encouraging a range of housing types and the production of affordable housing.

Subdivision
The Vesting Tentative Map implements the approved residential project by establishing the condominium ownership structure for the 19 units and common areas. Staff reviewed the map for consistency with the approved site plan, applicable subdivision requirements, and the findings required under the Subdivision Map Act. As conditioned, the map provides for appropriate access, utility, and common-area arrangements for the development and does not create any subdivision-related conflicts with the General Plan, Subdivision Ordinance, or applicable state law. The required findings are included in the Draft Resolution approving the Vesting Tentative Map (Attachment 1).

Housing Accountability Act and Builder’s Remedy
The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) limits a local government’s ability to disapprove, reduce the density of, or render infeasible a qualifying housing development project, including a subdivision resulting in more than two housing units or parcels. The Builder’s Remedy applies when a qualifying preliminary application is submitted before the jurisdiction’s Housing Element is certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

The project’s preliminary application was submitted before the City’s Housing Element was certified, and four of the 19 units, approximately 21 percent, will be restricted to lower-income households, exceeding the applicable 20 percent threshold. The project therefore qualifies for

Page 202 of 261 ends

Builder’s Remedy. The applicant relies on the Builder’s Remedy for all permissible General Plan and zoning deviations and the project does not request a density bonus under State Density Bonus Law.

The City may apply applicable objective subdivision and other lawful requirements that accommodate the proposed density and do not render the project infeasible. However, the Vesting Tentative Map may not be disapproved based solely on General Plan or Zoning Code inconsistencies unless the City can make one of the limited findings authorized by the HAA. No such basis for disapproval has been identified.

Public Notification
A public hearing notice was mailed to property owners within 300 feet of the project site and published in the newspaper. The applicant also posted the site with a public notice sign in conformance with the Planning Division’s posting requirements. At the time of preparation of this report, the Planning Division has not received comments on the proposed Vesting Tentative Map.

DISCUSSION
See Analysis section.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Attachment 1 - Resolution

2. Attachment 2 - Vesting Tentative Map

3. Attachment 3 - Planning Commission Staff Report

Page 203 of 261 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LOS ALTOS

APPROVING A VESTING TENTATIVE MAP FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES FOR THE CREATION OF 19 CONDOMINIUM UNITS AT 349 FIRST STREET WHEREAS, Octane First Street, LLC (the “Applicant”) submitted an application for a Vesting Tentative Map (Application No. TM23-0002) to create 19 residential condominium units and associated common areas on an approximately 0.16-acre site located at 349 First Street; and WHEREAS, the project includes 19 residential units, four of which will be restricted to lowerincome households, and the Applicant submitted an SB 330 preliminary application on May 5, 2023, when the City’s Sixth Cycle Housing Element had not been found in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law; and
WHEREAS, the project qualifies for the protections of the Housing Accountability Act, Government Code section 65589.5, commonly known as the “Builder’s Remedy,” and the Act limits the City’s ability to disapprove the project or impose conditions that render it infeasible based on inconsistencies with otherwise applicable General Plan, zoning, or development standards, except upon findings authorized by State law; and WHEREAS, the Vesting Tentative Map was processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the California Government Code and Los Altos Municipal Code, as limited by the Housing Accountability Act; and
WHEREAS, approval of the project is statutorily exempt from environmental review under Public Resources Code section 21080.66 as a qualifying housing development project on a 0.16-acre infill site consistent with the applicable land-use requirements, taking into account the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provisions. The site is developed, served by utilities, surrounded by urban uses, satisfies the applicable minimum-density requirement, and is not located in an environmentally sensitive area identified in section 21080.66(a)(6). The property is not a historic resource, tribal consultation has been completed, environmental site assessments prepared with any remediation to be completed as required, and the site is more than 500-feet from the nearest freeway; and
WHEREAS, on August 6, 2026, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing at which members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the project, and at the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve the Vesting Tentative Map; and
WHEREAS, on August 25, 2026, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law and considered public testimony, the Planning Commission’s recommendation, the staff report, and all other evidence presented in connection with the project; and WHEREAS, the findings and conclusions made by the City Council in this Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented and the entirety of the administrative record for the project, which is incorporated herein by this reference; and WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 204 of 261 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Los Altos hereby approves the Vesting Tentative Map subject to the findings (Exhibit A) and Conditions of Approval (Exhibit B) attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of a Resolution passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Los Altos at a meeting thereof on the ____ day of ______, 2026 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
_______________________________
Sally Meadows, MAYOR
Attest:
_________________________________
Melissa Thurman, MMC, CITY CLERK

Page 205 of 261 ends

Resolution No. 2026-XX Page 3

EXHIBIT A

FINDINGS
With regard to Vesting Tentative Map Application No. TM23-0002, the City Council finds the following in accordance with Chapter 4, Article 1, section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California:

1. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Government Code section 65451.

This finding cannot be made. The subdivision is consistent with the Los Altos General Plan, including the Downtown Commercial designation, which allows residential-only development and supports the addition of housing in Downtown Los Altos. The subdivision would facilitate 19 residential condominium units, including four units affordable to lower-income households, and is consistent with and advances Land Use Element Policies 1.1, 2.3, 3.1, and 4.4 and Housing Element Policies 1.1 and 2.1. To the extent the Project is inconsistent with otherwise applicable General Plan, zoning, or development standards, the Housing Accountability Act prohibits reliance on those inconsistencies as a basis for disapproval absent a finding authorized by Government Code section 65589.5.

2. The design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

This finding cannot be made. The subdivision design establishes condominium interests and associated common areas within a single residential building and provides for access, utilities, drainage, and required public improvements, as conditioned. The Project is consistent with provisions of the Downtown Commercial designation and CD/R3 District that support residential development. Any remaining inconsistency with otherwise applicable standards is not a basis for disapproval of this Builder’s Remedy Project under the Housing Accountability Act absent an authorized statutory finding.

3. The site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

This finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for the proposed subdivision because it is a generally flat, previously developed urban infill site served by existing utilities and public services. The approved plans and conditions adequately accommodate vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, emergency, utility, and service access while meeting applicable life-safety and service requirements.

4. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

This finding cannot be made. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density because the Downtown Commercial General Plan designation and CD/R3 zoning district allow residential-only development and support the addition of housing in Downtown Los Altos. The site is a previously developed urban infill parcel surrounded by urban uses and served by adequate infrastructure, utilities, and public services. As a Builder’s Remedy project, any inconsistency with otherwise applicable density or development standards does not establish

Page 206 of 261 ends

Los Altos City CouncilAugust 25, 2026

Los Altos City Council
August 25, 2026