Palo Alto City Council
October 20, 2025

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
52 Packet Pg. 564 of 607

Housing Initiatives & Pipeline
2 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
53 Packet Pg. 565 of 607

3 How We Got Here
FEB 2025 Council study session
MAY 2025 Council Priority Objectives Adopted
JUN 2025 Human Relations Commission (HRC) Feedback
JUL 2025 Growing concern, anecdotal increase in vehicle dwellers Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
54 Packet Pg. 566 of 607

Potential Policy Options – Summary Table

POTENTIAL APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS RESOURCE Potential Actions to Accommodate Some Demand
A. Expand safe parking at Baylands
Athletic Center
• Impact other uses of area
• Adds approximately 10-20 safe parking spaces
• Limits future opportunities for habitat restoration or recreational uses $$$
B. Allow safe parking on privately
owned commercial lot
• Not currently staff resourced
• No identified private property owner willing to lease $$
C. Expand congregation-based safe
parking
• May not be ideal because daily movement is difficult for OSVs • Changing operations to 24-hours would require neighbor outreach and consideration of feedback received
$
D. Increased cleaning and street
sweeping on selected streets
• Impacts all vehicles parking on street
• Could displace OSVs to areas more sensitive to impacts $$
E. Enhance services, with or
without new regulations
• Increased outreach worker staffing to cover evenings/weekends • Buyback program efficiency and cost not known
• Pump-out likely uptake and costs not known
$$-$$$
$ ≤50,000 $$ 51,000-400,000 $$$ ≥ 400,000
$-$$$ Scales over time, increasing resource impacts as various actions are implemented. 4 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
55 Packet Pg. 567 of 607

Potential Policy Options – Summary Table

POTENTIAL APPROACH IMPLEMENTATION CONSIDERATIONS RESOURCE Potential Actions to Increase Regulation
F. Prohibit renting of public parking
spaces
• Identifying/investigation ‘vanlords’ can be difficult $ G. Prohibit storage of detached
trailers/inoperable vehicles on
public streets
• Applies equally to all vehicles $
H. Limit OSVs to certain streets • Identifying adequate parking locations for OSVs $-$$$ *I. Prohibit OSVs on certain streets • May lead to escalating restrictions • Could displace OSVs to areas more sensitive to impacts $-$$$
*J. Prohibit OSVs citywide • See litigation described above $$$ Phased Approach
Phased Approach • Combines above, with the exception of *asterisked approaches $-$$$ *Not recommended in the phased approach
$ ≤50,000 $$ 51,000-400,000 $$$ ≥ 400,000
$-$$$ Scales over time, increasing resource impacts as various actions are implemented. 5 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
56 Packet Pg. 568 of 607

Phased Approach
Combines multiple strategies for flexibility and resource alignment. Requires redeploying staff from other work.

Phase 1 Upon Council approval, staff would:
- Develop ordinance to prohibit detached/inoperable vehicle parking on public streets - Develop ordinance to prohibit renting of public parking spaces (vanlording) - Refine scope and begin implementation of additional street cleanups and sweeping - Return to Council for approvals of ordinances and contract amendments (street sweeping) - Implementation and enforcement of these actions would follow Phase 2 Concurrent of Phase 1 implementation, staff would initiate work on:
- Design small-scale enhanced services pilot (e.g., mobile pump out, additional outreach, garbage pick-up, etc) - Return to Council for direction on preferred option for safe parking - Begin exploration of “limiting OSV parking to certain streets” approach, including process for designating streets 6 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
57 Packet Pg. 569 of 607

Phased Approach
Phase 3 Following completion of related Phase 2 components, Council would:
- Approve pilot and any related contracts/agreements for small-scale enhanced services pilot, - Approve preferred option for expanded safe parking
- Identify streets where OSV parking will be allowed, develop necessary ordinances and program design for ‘limiting OSV parking to certain streets’ approach
- Implementation of these actions would follow
Phase 4 Following completion of related Phase 3 components, staff would:
- Evaluate the enhanced services pilot
- Pursue implementation of expanded safe parking
- Obtain related Council approvals for ‘limiting OSV parking to certain streets’ and began enforcing new approach 7 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
58 Packet Pg. 570 of 607

Phased Approach
• Accommodates some OSV parking demand while increasing regulation to manage impacts • Sequencing considers current resources, effectiveness, scalability and timing needed • Begins with easier to implement actions and gradually progresses to the more complex and expensive
• Responsive to varied community perspectives (e.g., the needs of unhoused neighbors, the needs of housed neighbors, the shared use of public space, etc.) 8 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
59 Packet Pg. 571 of 607

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Policy & Services Committee discuss and recommend Council approval of a phased approach to addressing oversized vehicle impacts. 9 Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
60 Packet Pg. 572 of 607

MELISSA McDONOUGH
Assistant to the City Manager
[email protected]
650-329-2533
Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
61 Packet Pg. 573 of 607

RHNA and Housing Element Progress
Item 16
Attachment B - Policy and Services
Committee August 25, 2025 Staff
Report

Item 16: Staff Report
Pg.
62 Packet Pg. 574 of 607

City Council
Staff Report

From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Utilities

Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2509-5258

TITLE
Informational Report on the City of Palo Alto One Water Plan and Associated Letter from the Utilities Advisory Commission for Future Water Supply and Conservation Planning Purposes; CEQA Status – Not a Project

RECOMMENDATION
This report is provided for information only and requires no Council action. This report was reviewed by both the City Council Climate Action & Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee and Utilities Advisory Commission.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The One Water Plan1 (OWP) presents a framework for evaluating water supply and water conservation alternative portfolios that may mitigate the impact of future water supply uncertainties such as severe multi-year drought, changes in climate, water demand, and regulations. Transmission of the report completes a key action in the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) Update to develop a plan for implementing a One Water portfolio, a water supply plan that will analyze the City’s potential water supply priorities and conservation opportunities. Specifically, development of this report completed one goal and one key action in the Council-approved 2022 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan. • Goal: Develop a water supply portfolio which is resilient to droughts, changes in climate, and water demand and regulations, that supports our urban canopy. • Key Action W4: Develop a tool for dynamic water planning in the future.

The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) unanimously voted to forward a letter to the City Council (Attachment A) offering additional context on water supply and conservation planning.

The letter was intended to accompany the transmittal of the plan—not as a request for acceptance or approval, but for Council to receive it as informational. The Climate Action and Sustainability Committee (CASC) received both the report and the UAC letter for staff’s use as a

1 One Water Plan https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=c42ee7f3- 8caf-4c48- 99e3-57bb8e437775
Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 575 of 607

framework for evaluating future projects considering, where appropriate, the opinions expressed in the UAC’s letter. After discussing the plan and the UAC’s concerns, the CASC voted unanimously to receive the One Water Plan and forward for City Council information. OWP provides an adaptive tool to aid in evaluation of future projects or actions. Such future projects or actions may be implemented by Palo Alto or, more likely, through regional partnerships.

One Water Plan Summary: The OWP compares potential water supply and conservation portfolios using the City’s weighted criteria, offering an initial analysis of alternatives and a framework to support future Council decisions on which project types to explore further. A key product of the OWP effort is the excel-based tool which may be used to adjust its overall water supply strategy as the future unfolds, conditions change, and uncertainties are resolved.

Assumptions that may be adjusted in the tool include water demand, project costs, and expected supply reductions during droughts or other events. The weighting or scoring methodology may be modified as well. The OWP water supply and conservation options and the resulting portfolios that scored highest, given the rough cost estimates and evaluation criteria, include:
• Portfolio A – Baseline: Existing potable water supply from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (RWS);
• Portfolio B: Baseline with enhanced water conservation; • Portfolio C: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus desalinization; • Portfolio D: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus groundwater; • Portfolio E: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus Palo Alto-operated Direct Potable Reuse (DPR);
• Portfolio F: Baseline with enhanced conservation plus Palo Alto-operated Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR); and
• Portfolio G: Baseline with enhanced conservation Regional DPR.

Before the Council approves any water supply or conservation project, further project-specific studies and analyses will be required to assess the need for additional supplies or conservation, as well as to evaluate project feasibility, including detailed cost estimates and potential funding sources. To support this future evaluation and refinement, the One Water Plan (OWP) includes a comparative scoring of the portfolios.

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 576 of 607

BACKGROUND
In June 2022, Council approved a contract with Carollo Engineers to develop the OWP (Staff Report 134342). City staff from the Public Works and Utilities Departments closely collaborated and worked with the consulting team to develop the attached OWP .

One of the City Council’s priorities for 2024 was Climate Change and Natural Environment – Protection and Adaptation. The attached OWP fulfills a key action in the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) and identifies an evaluation framework for water supply and conservation projects as well as possible project alternatives for meeting the community’s water needs in the future.

Palo Alto’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP) was completed in 2023, and it includes two water-specific goals:

1. Reduce Palo Alto’s potable water consumption by 30% compared to a 1990 baseline (subject to refinement based on forthcoming California water efficiency standards expected in 2025).

2. Develop a water supply portfolio which is resilient to droughts, changes in climate, and water demand and regulations, that supports the City’s urban canopy.

Two of the key actions supporting these goals are satisfied by the OWP: 1) Develop and implement projects that result from a “One Water” portfolio of alternative water supply and water conservation options for Palo Alto, including but not limited to: stormwater, recycled water, on-site-reuse, conservation and groundwater, and 2) develop a tool for dynamic water planning in the future.
“One Water" is an integrated approach to water management that views all forms of water – imported water, groundwater, wastewater, stormwater, water conservation and efficiency and more-- as interconnected resources. The primary purpose of the OWP for the City of Palo Alto is to provide a 20-year adaptable roadmap of prioritized alternatives, organized into water supply portfolios, and a project evaluation tool, to guide decision-making around the City’s water supply and conservation goals.

ANALYSIS
The OWP provides a comprehensive list of water supply and water conservation options (“options”) considered, including input from stakeholders. The list of 27 options was sorted into three “buckets”.

Bucket 1 - Ongoing or Already Planned
• Planned/ongoing conservation
• Advanced metering program
• Distribution system water loss reduction

2 Staff Report 13434 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59530&repo=r -704298fc Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 577 of 607

Bucket 2 - Not Currently Feasible (due to cost or lack of partnership interest) • Indirect potable reuse at Lake Lagunita (groundwater recharge using purified water) • Blackwater capture and reuse
• Valley water treated water via a new pipeline
• Interagency transfer agreements
• Tuolumne River purchases
• Atmospheric water generators
• Local surface water reservoir
• Temporary dewatering sites (basement construction)
• Permanent dewatering (as a way to increase the volume of other reuse options)

Bucket 3 – Selected to be Included in the Screening Process • Regional Water System supply (current potable water supply) • Enhanced conservation
• Next-level enhanced conservation
• Groundwater
• City park irrigation with groundwater
• Direct potable reuse of purified water via a Palo Alto facility • Direct potable reuse of purified water via a Palo Alto facility and utilizing the new salt removal equipment at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant • Direct potable reuse of purified water via a regional facility • Indirect potable reuse via groundwater injection of purified water • Expanded distribution of non-potable water (recycled water to Stanford Research Park and customers in the foothills)
• Greywater capture and reuse
• Residential rainwater capture
• Green Stormwater Infrastructure
• Multi-source storage including stormwater detention
• Desalination of bay water

The OWP analyzed this initial list of options in a high-level pre-screening process that resulted in 15 remaining options. The One Water Plan (OWP) applied three initial screening criteria to the 15 options, narrowing the list to nine. For these nine options, the OWP developed planning- level cost estimates and conducted a comprehensive evaluation using four criteria, which included unit cost and several non-cost factors. The OWP then assembled seven water supply and water conservation portfolios (“Portfolios”) named Portfolio A through Portfolio G that include groups of top scoring options. The following is a list and a brief description of the seven portfolios.

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 578 of 607

Portfolio Descriptions
• Portfolio A – Baseline: Portfolio A represents the baseline portfolio which is the City’s existing potable water supply from the Hetch Hetchy Regional Water System (RWS) and serves as the benchmark for comparing other potential portfolios. • Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2: Portfolio B builds on Portfolio A with the addition of Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2, each encompassing a series of targeted water conservation measures. Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 includes measures that are easier and less costly to implement while Enhanced Conservation Phase 2 consists of more challenging and more costly measures. Table 1 shows the difference between conservation measures already planned for implementation and the Enhanced Conservation measures contemplated in this OWP.

Table 1: Ongoing and Planned Conservation versus Enhanced Conservation Phases 1 and 2

Each portfolio C through G includes Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and Phase 2 measures, plus one local water supply infrastructure project, with the remainder of the water supplied by the RWS.
• Portfolio C adds a Bay Water Desalination plant that would supply 4,480 acre feet per year of water during a normal year.
• Portfolio D adds groundwater. Under this portfolio, the City would equip two of the existing emergency groundwater supply wells with treatment facilities and convert these from emergency supply to regular potable use. The wells would provide 2,250 acre feet (af) per year of water supply during a normal year. Notably, Valley Water’s 10-year projection anticipates that the groundwater production charge will more than double Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 579 of 607

from the 2023 rate of $1,724/af to $4,147/af by 2032, reflecting approximately 9.5 percent annual escalation. Valley Water expects this increase to primarily pay for critical capital program needs including water treatment plant upgrades and dam seismic retrofit work. For reference, SFPUC’s expected rate in 2032, assumed in the OWP, is $2,630/af.
• Portfolio E adds a Palo Alto Direct Potable Reuse (DPR) facility that would supply 4,723 acre feet per year of water during a normal year.
• Portfolio F adds a Palo Alto Indirect Potable Reuse (IPR) water purification facility with groundwater injection wells. This Indirect Potable Reuse facility would supply 5,150 acre feet per year of water supply during a normal year.
• Portfolio G adds a Regional DPR water purification facility constructed by Valley Water and located in Palo Alto instead of a dedicated Palo Alto DPR facility. The estimated water supply from this facility for Palo Alto is 1,769 acre feet per year during a normal year.

Figure 1 illustrates the water supply and demand for each portfolio during a normal year in 2045.

Figure 1: Normal Year Supply and Demand Analysis by Portfolio in 2045

The OWP calculates a weighted average unit cost for each portfolio considering the volume of supply from each water supply source during a normal year. Table 1 shows the weighted average unit cost for each portfolio in 2023 dollars and 2045 dollars. The cost estimates are planning-level or order-of- magnitude cost estimates with a typical estimating accuracy of -50% to +100% due to limited level of project information often coupled with significant uncertainties at this planning stage. The weighted average unit costs are calculated based upon these cost estimates and are not rounded for consistency across the OWP and appendices.

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 580 of 607

Table 2 – Estimated Weighted Average Unit Cost of Water for Portfolio A through Portfolio G Portfolio Name Est. Weighted Avg Unit Cost
($/Acre Foot)
2023 Dollars 2045 Dollars
Portfolio A – Baseline $2,210 $4,088
Portfolio B – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 $2,075 $3,093 Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Bay Water Desalination
$3,854 $6,663
Portfolio D – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with
Groundwater
$2,556 $5,330
Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR
$2,645 $4,938
Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto IPR $3,323 $6,440 Portfolio G – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Regional DPR
$2,355 $4,552
Effluent Transfer Agreement
In 2019, Council approved an Effluent Transfer Agreement with Valley Water and the City of Mountain View Staff Report #10627.3 This 76-year agreement enables an effluent transfer from the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to Valley Water to be reused in Santa Clara County, likely south of Mountain View. Valley Water has the option to exercise an effluent transfer within 13 years. A Council study session with Valley Water on September 12, 2022 provides updated information Staff Report #14650.4 The governing bodies of Palo Alto, Mountain View and Valley Water have established policy goals for long-term sustainability, including expanding use of recycled water. The RWQCP is a local source of drought-proof, sustainable water. This agreement aims to promote regional collaboration to advance resilient water reuse programs in Santa Clara County.

Some of the OWP portfolios depend on Valley Water not exercising the effluent transfer option, which would ensure there is sufficient treated effluent volume available for constructing local reuse facilities in Palo Alto. Those portfolios are Portfolio E – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto DPR, and Portfolio F – Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2 with Palo Alto IPR. Portfolio G is only feasible if Valley Water exercises the effluent transfer option and decides to build a Regional DPR facility located in Palo Alto. Figure 2 summarizes the dependencies of OWP portfolios on the effluent transfer decision.

Weighted Evaluation Criteria Portfolio Scores
Unit cost was only one of several evaluation criteria used. The One Water Plan (OWP) also scored the options based on factors such as reliability, environmental benefits, and ease of implementation. Table 2 presents the rankings for each portfolio, reflecting the weighted results

3 Staff Report 10627 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas -minutes- reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2019/id-10627-mini-packet-11182019.pdf?t=60382.02 4Staff Report 14650 https://portal.laserfiche.com/Portal/DocView.aspx?id=59240&repo=r -704298fc Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 581 of 607

of both cost and non-cost criteria. If Valley Water does not exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent, the most cost effective and beneficial option to add to the enhanced water conservation options is the Palo Alto DPR Facility, in Portfolio E. This portfolio’s overall weighted criteria score is 3.43, the highest score of any portfolio, as shown in Table 2. If Valley Water exercises its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent, the most cost- effective and beneficial option to add to the enhanced water conservation options is the Regional DPR facility as combined in Portfolio G. The overall weighted criteria score of this portfolio is 3.06 as shown in Table 2. The baseline portfolio scores the lowest of all the portfolios using the weighted criteria

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
8 Packet Pg. 582 of 607

Table 3 - Evaluation Results - Weighted Criteria Scores By Portfolio Criteria Sub-Criteria Criteria
Weight
A.

Baseline
B. Enhanced
Conservation
Phase 1 and 2
C. Enhanced
Conservation
with Bay Water
Desalination
D. Enhanced
Conservation
with
Groundwater
E. Enhanced
Conservation
with Palo Alto
DPR
F. Enhanced
Conservation
with Palo Alto
IPR
G. Enhanced
Conservation
with Regional
DPR
Estimated
Portfolio Weighted
Unit Cost in 2045
($/AF)
- - $4,088 $3,903 $6,663 $5,330 $4,938 $6,440 $4,552 Estimated Start
Year
- - 2025 2025 2035 2025/2030 2035 2030 2040
Unit Cost Unit Cost 20% 0.95 1.00 0.20 0.59 0.70 0.26 0.81 Reliability Reliability 35% 0.35 0.60 1.43 0.85 1.39 1.37 0.90 Environmental
Benefits

Efficient Use of
Water
10% 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.23 0.31 0.27 0.26
Ecological
Benefit
10% 0.20 0.22 0.19 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.22
Reliance on
Tuolumne
10% 0.10 0.14 0.29 0.21 0.29 0.31 0.20
Subtotal 30% 0.50 0.59 0.75 0.68 0.82 0.80 0.68
Ease of
Implementation

Implementation
Timeline
5% 0.25 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.16 0.18 0.21

Operational
Complexity
5% 0.25 0.24 0.17 0.22 0.17 0.18 0.24
Public
Acceptance
5% 0.25 0.24 0.21 0.22 0.19 0.20 0.22
Subtotal 15% 0.75 0.72 0.55 0.66 0.52 0.56 0.67
Total 100% 2.55 2.91 2.91 2.78 3.43 2.99 3.06
Notes:
(1) Based on estimated year 2045.
(2) Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation with Regional DPR) assumes that Valley Water does exercise its option to transfer a portion of RWQCP treated effluent (selected “Yes” in the Tool). All other portfolios assume that Valley Water does not exercise its option (selected “No” in the Tool). (3) The weighted criteria scores are normalized to a scale of 1-5.

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
9 Packet Pg. 583 of 607

Portfolio Evaluation Summary
Figure 2 compares the portfolios’ dependency on the Valley Water Transfer option decision.

Figure 2. Portfolio Results and Dependence on Valley Water Option to Transfer Decision

Sensitivity Analysis
The One Water Plan (OWP) includes a sensitivity analysis to assess how the findings might change under different weightings of the evaluation criteria. The flexibility of the tool enables staff to perform additional sensitivity analyses to assess how findings change as cutback and demand assumptions are adjusted in the future.

Key findings from the sensitivity analysis are:
• Portfolio E (Enhanced Conservation + Palo Alto DPR) is the top-performing option if Valley Water does not exercise its effluent transfer option, even when evaluation criteria weights (cost, reliability, etc.) are adjusted. The only exception is when unit cost is heavily prioritized, in which case Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation only) ranks highest.
• If Valley Water does exercise the effluent transfer option, Portfolio G (Enhanced Conservation + Regional DPR) becomes the highest-scoring infrastructure portfolio.

However, Portfolio B or Portfolio C (with Bay Water Desalination) may outperform it depending on how cost or reliability are weighted.

Events that May Trigger Revisiting One Water Planning in the Future While staff is not recommending any action or decision at this time, revisiting the One Water planning framework may be appropriate in the future. Some of the conditions that may warrant a re-evaluation of the City’s water supply portfolio include the following.

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
10 Packet Pg. 584 of 607

• 2027: SFPUC updated Alternative Water Supply Plan
• 2032: Valley Water decision regarding option to transfer effluent from RWQCP for south Santa Clara County uses
• State decision regarding Bay Delta Plan implementation • Other events or conditions affecting water supply reliability or cost • New water supply technologies or regional partnership opportunities

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
This report is informational only with no financial resource impact .

The OWP, cost estimates, and Evaluation Tool along with considerations raised in the UAC’s letter provide an adaptable roadmap for the City’s water strategy. To illustrate the potential rate impacts for water utility customers stemming from the various portfolios in the OWP, staff utilized the projected weighted unit costs for each portfolio in FY 2045 as the basis for Palo Alto's water purchase costs. This was coupled with an assumed average annual rate increase of 6% for the distribution system. All other assumptions are the same as outlined in the OWP. This analysis does not take into consideration other unexpected costs that may impact the cost of water and does not consider sensitivities to demand changes. This analysis is for illustration purposes only, and provides an approximation of the relative rate impact of different portfolio average unit costs (from Table 1) under the assumptions stated in the OWP. For reference, under Palo Alto’s current rates in FY 2025, a residential monthly bill at 9 CCF of water usage costs $113.47. Also shown is the capital cost associated with each portfolio.

Table 4 – Residential Monthly Bills in FY 2045 for Each OWP Portfolio This analysis indicates that the difference in residential bills across the portfolios relative to the baseline Portfolio A ranges from negative 1% for the least expensive Portfolio B (Enhanced Conservation Phase 1 and 2) to 17% for the most expensive Portfolio C – Enhanced Conservation with Bay Water Desalination. Note that capital costs are planning level and actual costs are -50% to +100% of estimated.

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
11 Packet Pg. 585 of 607

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The following is a timeline of public meetings and community workshops on the OWP to date:
- July 7, 2021 - the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) reviewed a draft objectives, scope, and community engagement plan for the OWP (Staff Report #12332)5 - November 2021 - Palo Alto Utilities Department in collaboration with the Public Works Department issued OWP Request For Proposals
- June 2022 - Council approved the contract with Carollo Engineers to develop the OWP (Staff Report 13434)6
- September 28, 2022 - First Community Workshop, Community Needs and Priorities7 - December 6, 2022 - Second Community Workshop Exploring Water Supply and Water Conservation Options8
- February 1, 2023 - staff provided an update to the UAC on the development of the OWP (Staff Report 14974)9
- June 3, 2024 - staff provided an update to the UAC on the OWP background, goals, approach, overview and initial results (Staff Report 2404-2968)10 - January 7, 2025 – staff provided the final One Water Plan to the UAC (Staff Report 2407- 3234)11
- September 19, 2025 – the CASC received the final One Water Plan and the related letter from the UAC (Staff Report 2505-469712)

Utilities Advisory Commission Review: At the UAC meeting on November 6, 2024, the SFPUC (Palo Alto’s water supplier) through its Assistant General Manager of the Water Enterprise, Steve Ritchie, provided an overview of the RWS and SFPUC’s planning efforts including drought planning and Alternative Water Supply Program. At the same UAC meeting, the Bay Area Water

5 Staff Report 12332: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2021/07-07-2021- special/id-12332-item-1.pdf
6 Staff Report 13434: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/11/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2022/20220620/20220620pccsm-amended-final-final.pdf 7 Presentation and results from the live polling:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/water -drought/stakeholder-mtg-1-community- meeting.pdf
8 Slides: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/utilities/water -drought/stakeholder-workshop- 2_community.pdf Recording: https://youtu.be/YEguKgxzRNY 9 Staff Report 14974: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas -minutes-reports/agendas- minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2023/02-feb-2023/02- 01-2023-uac-agenda-and-packet.pdf
10 Staff Report 2404-2968 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/2/agendas -minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes- 2024/06-jun-2024/06-03-2024-packet-v2.pdf
11 Staff Report 2407-3234 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=5b035426- 3a84- 4050-84eb-a2d44ebdb28f
12 Staff Report 2505-4697 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/viewer/preview?id=0&type=8&uid=dd0a3d30- 3782-42d4-b2df-20a7389a196f
Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
12 Packet Pg. 586 of 607

Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA), through its CEO/General Manager, Nicole Sandkulla, also presented additional information on water supply, water conservation and reliability regionally, pertaining to the 26 wholesale customers (including Palo Alto) of the SFPUC comprising BAWSCA’s membership. This provides additional regional context for the Palo Alto OWP , which focuses on the local area within the Palo Alto city limits.

At the January 7, 2025 UAC meeting, staff recommended that the UAC advise the City Council to accept the One Water Plan. The UAC did not take any action. The UAC expressed a desire to provide additional information to the City Council regarding water supply and conservation planning. As a result, as discussed by the Commission, three commissioners (Gupta, Mauter and Phillips) were appointed to draft the letter for the full Commission’s consideration. The letter contents fall into three main categories. First, it outlines concerns about the portfolio scoring methodology. Second, it questions the worst-case water supply shortage scenario which was provided by the SFPUC, the City’s water supplier and the owner and operator of the Regional Water System. Third, the letter promotes regional collaboration, a practice that staff routinely engages in as part of their ongoing responsibilities. At the March 5, 2025, UAC meeting, the commission voted unanimously to send the letter (Attachment A) to Council.

Climate Action & Sustainability Ad Hoc Committee: On September 19, 2025, staff recommended the CASC receive both the report and the UAC letter for staff’s use as a framework for evaluating future projects if so directed by Council, considering, where appropriate, the opinions expressed in the UAC’s letter. After discussing the Plan and the UAC’s concerns, the CASC voted unanimously to receive the One Water Plan. Potential future direction to staff related to the OWP will require separate Council action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The informational report including the OWP and UAC letter on water supply and conservation planning is not a project requiring California Environmental Quality Act review, because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment. Any future proposals to implement the OWP would be subject to CEQA analysis at that time.

ATTACHMENTS/LINKS
Attachment A: UAC letter to Council
Link: One Water Plan
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/viewer?id=0&type=7&uid=c42ee7f3-8caf- 4c48-99e3-57bb8e437775
APPROVED BY:

Alan Kurotori, Director of Utilities
Staff: Karla Dailey, Assistant Director of Utilities, Resource Management

Item A
Item A Staff Report

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
13 Packet Pg. 587 of 607

Memorandum: One Water Plan Review and Recommendations March 5, 2025 City of Palo Alto – Utilities Advisory Commission

8 0
9 0

MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council, City of Palo Alto
FROM: Utilities Advisory Commission
DATE: March 5, 2025
SUBJECT:One Water Plan Review and Recommendations
The Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) has completed its review of the One Water Plan (OWP) and recommends against acceptance of the plan at this time. The following sections outline our key concerns and recommendations for moving forward.

The UAC’s decision not to approve the study, despite acknowledging the considerable staff time and resources invested, stems from fundamental concerns about its analytical framework. Specifically, the methodology and assumptions used in the plan could lead to potentially misleading conclusions about Palo Alto’s water security options. The UAC is happy to meet with Council to discuss its concerns in more detail, which are various. However, to help guide future water planning efforts, this memo focuses on our most critical concerns, which we believe must be addressed to develop a robust and actionable water security framework for Palo Alto: (1) the premise of the report and its recommendations relies on a 50% cut back scenario that seems highly unlikely and must be validated, particularly by engagement with BAWSCA and SFPUC; and (2) the conclusions are based on a weighted scoring scheme that is potentially misleading—instead, the underlying metrics, such as dollar cost per acre-foot, should be directly presented to decision-makers. In addition, the UAC provides several strategic recommendations for the city’s future planning efforts.

Staff has reviewed this letter and agrees that investments in local water supply alternatives are not prudent nor recommended at this time. Staff agrees that evolving demand projects and SFPUC supply reliability assessments will be critical for continued water planning efforts and that regional partnership may, indeed, prove to be most cost-effective if water supply reliability becomes an issue. The tool developed as part of the OWP effort may be modified in subsequent analysis to address the UAC’s concerns regarding the scoring methodology.

REPORT ISSUES
In this memo, the UAC focuses on two critical issues with the OWP report: (1) the 50% cutback scenario underlies the premise and recommendations of the report, but this scenario seems unlikely and should be validated before using it for water supply planning; and (2) the weighted scoring scheme for the alternatives is potentially misleading.

First, the OWP report plans for a case in which there is a 50% reduction in regional water supply, and it uses this scenario as a key metric in its portfolio evaluation.1 This assumption warrants further scrutiny 1 E.g., OWP Report at ES-8 (“Reliability is scored based on results of the dry year supply analysis for each portfolio using the supply gap expressed in afy during a 50 percent reduction in water deliveries to Item A
Attachment A - UAC letter
to Council

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
14 Packet Pg. 588 of 607

Memorandum: One Water Plan Review and Recommendations March 5, 2025 City of Palo Alto – Utilities Advisory Commission

8 0
9 0
and validation, particularly concerning demand across the broader system, implementation of Bay Delta Plan regulations, and policy and management decisions about storage. Members of the public have noted that historical analysis of Tuolumne River flows over the past 1100 years using tree ring data suggests that the level of drought and demand growth that would require this level of cutback is extremely improbable.

During the recent 2001-2022 California mega-drought, SFPUC was able to add to its reservoirs in 15 of the 22 years due to its robust water rights. Second, the Long Term Vulnerability Assessment (LTVA) cosponsored by the SFPUC found no drought in 25,000 years of stochastic modeling that approached the severity of the design drought scenario, and the assessment found no clear adverse impacts from climate change through 2070. Third, the longest historical drought (1471-1483) would have left 40% of system storage remaining at current demand levels. Fourth, probability analysis suggests the design drought scenario has an exceptionally rare return period—potentially one in several hundred thousand years. The UAC also has concerns with the demand forecasts, noting that BAWSCA’s forecasts have consistently over- estimated future regional water demand, often by substantial amounts. Given that this 50% cut back assumption during drought drives many of the report’s conclusions about needed infrastructure investments and policy changes, a validated and nuanced analysis of potential supply scenarios informed by better planning targets from BAWSCA and SFPUC would significantly strengthen the plan’s utility for decision-making.2
While we understand Staff’s desire to ensure planning processes align with SFPUC’s policies and forecasts, the 50% cutback scenario should not be used in the City’s planning framework without further validation.

We recommend that the City engage with SFPUC and BAWSCA to refine supply and demand projections so that Palo Alto’s water planning incorporates realistic cutback assumptions. Better cutback assumptions will provide actional guidance for both near-term and long-term decision-making.

Second, the OWP’s evaluation methodology also raises significant technical concerns about how different water supply options are compared and ranked. The plan uses a weighting scheme that normalizes various criteria (like unit cost, reliability, and environmental benefits) to a 1-5 scale and then applies weighted scoring to compare portfolios. This approach, however, violates the Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives principle—meaning that the relative ranking between two options can change based solely on the characteristics of an unrelated third option, even when nothing about the two options being compared has changed. For example, changes in the cost of one portfolio could artificially alter the scoring and perceived relative merits of other portfolios, even though their underlying costs and benefits remain exactly the same. Instead of using this potentially misleading scoring system, we recommend that future evaluations present the actual underlying metrics (such as dollar cost per acre-foot) directly to decision- makers, allowing for transparent analysis of tradeoffs between different options. * * *
Palo Alto from the RWS.”), at 2-8 (“Based upon the City’s forecasted water demand presented in the City’s 2020 UWMP and projections of water supply availability provided by SFPUC at the time, the City anticipates the need to implement water use reductions of approximately 50 percent from pre-drought usage levels in dry years post Bay-Delta Plan implementation.”).

Item A
Attachment A - UAC letter
to Council

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
15 Packet Pg. 589 of 607

Memorandum: One Water Plan Review and Recommendations March 5, 2025 City of Palo Alto – Utilities Advisory Commission

8 0
9 0
Overall, while the OWP found that some alternatives were infeasible, helping save the city analysis time in the future, adopting the OWP appears premature given current regional developments. SFPUC is just beginning its own alternative water supply planning process, with a focus on purified water projects.

SFPUC’s recently approved 10-year capital improvement plan includes $260 million for alternative water supply programs within its $3.16 billion total budget, and much of this planning remains in early stages.

Furthermore, public comment indicates that even under a worst-case scenario combining the Bay-Delta Plan flows with the worst recorded drought, SFPUC could manage without requiring rationing or new water supplies, which requires further study. More fundamentally, as highlighted in recent Commission discussions, while no investments are being recommended at this time, Palo Alto should avoid rushing into major alternative water supply planning and investments without first having robust data, transparent and robust modeling, and clear understanding of assumptions. This is particularly important given historical patterns of overestimating water demand and the need to carefully evaluate the policy, affordability, and regional growth implications of various supply options. The city should instead focus on supporting and engaging with regional efforts through SFPUC and BAWSCA to comprehensively assess future water supply needs and approaches.

Thus, the UAC believes addressing the strategic issues outlined below would significantly strengthen the city’s water planning approach. We recommend working closely with BAWSCA and SFPUC to develop and validate more accurate cutback assumptions based on updated demand projections, refined drought scenario planning, and adaptive infrastructure approaches that reflect actual system performance and current climate science.

STRATEGIC CONSIDERATIONS
Several strategic considerations emerge from this review.

First, Palo Alto’s water security planning should reflect its position within the broader regional water system, recognizing our role as a small consumer in a complex network. A comprehensive approach would examine regional supply and demand patterns while incorporating trigger-based adaptive planning strategies—particularly important given increasing uncertainty in water supply conditions. The OWP, while it should not be adopted, at least provided a start at assessing local and regional alternatives. While local resilience measures like groundwater wells serve an important role, larger-scale solutions such as water reuse and brackish water desalination may be most effectively pursued through regional collaboration due to economies of scale in treatment cost and the pre-existence of a regional water conveyance network. Local initiatives such as on-site non-potable reuse for commercial, multifamily, and even single-family residential properties could complement these regional efforts. The city could consider developing staged policies and incentives to advance these objectives.

Second, the financial aspects of water management deserve careful attention. Recent rate increases reflect both SFPUC wholesale costs and investment in Palo Alto’s distribution infrastructure. The latter represents essential maintenance to ensure system reliability and safety. As conservation efforts progress, the proportion of fixed costs in water bills may increase—a trend that warrants thoughtful policy consideration. Higher water bills have incentivized more conservation which will likely drive demand Item A
Attachment A - UAC letter
to Council

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
16 Packet Pg. 590 of 607

Memorandum: One Water Plan Review and Recommendations March 5, 2025 City of Palo Alto – Utilities Advisory Commission

8 0
9 0
lower. This creates a challenging communication issue, as customers find it counterintuitive that rates continue to rise faster than inflation despite increased conservation efforts.

Third, the OWP’s assessed water sources face various implementation challenges that affect their viability.

Some options, such as a quarter-billion-dollar desalination plant on the bay, are simply not realistic and need not be pursued further. The regional trend toward indirect and direct potable reuse (IPR/DPR) represents one pathway forward, though successful implementation typically requires sustained public engagement and education spanning decades. Palo Alto could play a constructive role in encouraging BAWSCA and SFPUC to begin foundational public outreach efforts now if these sources are anticipated to enter our water supply in the next twenty years.

Finally, continued engagement with regional partners, particularly BAWSCA, remains important. Early coordination with BAWSCA’s new leadership could help advance shared objectives, including refined demand projections, stronger probabilistic assessment of appropriate design droughts under different climate scenarios, and development of adaptive infrastructure planning. The Council has a BAWSCA Director who can ensure Palo Alto’s interests remain central to regional planning discussions, thereby reinforcing the need for rigorous, data-driven approaches that align with the City’s strategic priorities.

Furthermore, the UAC recommends that Council meet with the new BAWSCA CEO Thomas “Tom” Smegal as soon as possible to emphasize these priorities.

CONCLUSION
The UAC encourages the City Council to consider these observations as it works with local and regional partners to strengthen water security planning. The UAC stands ready to provide additional detail, clarification, or support regarding any aspects of these recommendations. We would also like to thank Staff for their thoughtful and supportive engagement on these issues.

Respectfully submitted,
Utilities Advisory Commission, City of Palo Alto
Greg Scharff, Chair
Meagan Mauter, Vice Chair
Rachel Croft
Utsav Gupta
Phil Metz
Robert Phillips
Chris Tucher
Item A
Attachment A - UAC letter
to Council

Item A: Staff Report
Pg.
17 Packet Pg. 591 of 607

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2509-5162
TITLE
Semiannual Update on 2000 Geng Road Recreational Vehicle Safe Parking Expansion

RECOMMENDATION
This report is provided for informational purposes only and does not require Council action.

BACKGROUND
Safe parking programs provide places where persons sheltering in their vehicles can safely and legally park and connect with services and support. The goal of the program is to connect participants with resources enabling them to find safe, stable, and affordable housing. The design and guidelines of the program can vary between operators and municipalities.

In many communities, including Palo Alto, different parking lots host different types of programs. In Palo Alto, two types of parking lots may host safe parking programs (1) publicly owned parking lots and (2) religious institutions. Both congregation-based and public parking lot programs provide interim assistance to households sheltering in their vehicles a safe place to park, access to restroom facilities, connection to social services, and resources to support transition households into permanent, stable housing. There is a 24-hour safe parking lot on City-owned land at 2000 Geng Road, which allows vehicles to remain parked in the same space without needing to relocate. It accepts both passenger vehicles and recreational vehicles (RVs).

Under the original Lease Agreement, 2000 Geng Road was leased to the County of Santa Clara for three years beginning in September 20201. The County contracted with Move Mountain View to operate the safe parking program at the site. The lease was amended on September 1 City Council, September 14, 2020, Item #9, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/id-11513.pdf?t=58031.91 Lease was included as a supplemental memo, found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas- minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2020-2/09142020-item-9-at-places-memo.pdf Item B
Item B Staff Report

Item B: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 592 of 607

18, 2023,3 to extend the term, prioritize Palo Alto-affiliated4 residents, and clarify the City’s landscaping responsibilities. In response to Council’s June 18, 20245 directive to mitigate vehicle dweller displacement relating to a Caltrans project along El Camino Real, a further amendment to the lease agreement was approved in August 20246 to add to the leased space to accommodate an expansion from up to 12 vehicles to 22 vehicles. Over the following months, Move Mountain View and community partners fundraised initial seed money to bridge the gap from the first few months of expansion until the City could step in with funding. On March 10, 2025, Council approved a revenue agreement with Santa Clara County through September 2026 for expanded operations at Geng Road.7 While the County continues to fund the original 12 spaces, the additional spaces require City funding of approximately $266,162 annually.

ANALYSIS
The 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking program provides a critical resource for individuals sheltering in their vehicles in Palo Alto. This program continues to offer a structured and secure environment while connecting participants to supportive services. Every household is assigned a case manager. Together, participants and their case manager develop an individualized plan that outlines the household’s goals. Case plans serve as a roadmap, linking households and participants to essential resources, including job placement, medical services, and the Santa Clara coordinated entry system8. At Geng Road Safe Parking, participants have access to showers, a kitchen, laundry facilities, a children’s lending library, and a play area.

Through coordinated entry, case managers connect participants to VI-SPDAT9 assessments, which help ensure clients are correctly placed in the community queue for housing opportunities. Securing affordable housing in Santa Clara County is an ongoing challenge, especially for participants with disabilities or living on a fixed income. The VI-SPDAT assessments process ensures that participants are accurately positioned within the community 3 September 18, 2023 Council Staff Report,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/meetings/ItemWithTemplateType?id=3115&meetingTemplateType=2 4 The Office of Supportive Housing considers a participant affiliated to the City if they answer ‘Palo Alto” to any of the questions:
If employed, what city do you work in?
If you go to school, in which city is your school?
In which city do you spend most of your time?
Which city did you live in prior to becoming homeless? 5 Council Action Minutes, June 18, 2024, Item AA4,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Public/CompiledDocument?meetingTemplateId=14318&compileOutputType =1
6 Council Staff Report, August 19, 2024, Item #10,
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14361 7 Council Report, March 10, 2025 https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=14361 8 Coordinated entry is the process for guiding individuals from initial contact with service providers to receiving services and housing. Santa Clara County’s Coordinated Entry webpage provides more information here:
https://scc.bitfocus.com/coordinated-entry
9 Vulnerability Index – Service Prioritization Decision Assistance Tool (VI-SPDAT) is a pre-screening tool used to assess the health and social needs of unhoused individuals.

Item B
Item B Staff Report

Item B: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 593 of 607

queue, allowing participants to be connected with the housing interventions they are eligible for (e.g., rapid rehousing, permanent supportive housing).

Move Mountain View has the following eligibility requirements for participants:
1) Be currently unhoused, specifically sleeping or living in a vehicle. The vehicle must be operational and used for the primary purpose of residence. 2) Have valid documentation, including:
oVehicle insurance
oVehicle registration
oA valid driver’s license or state ID
3) Agree to program rules and be committed to working toward securing permanent housing. This includes participating in case management. 4) Prioritization criteria when space is limited:
oApplicants who live or work in Mountain View or Palo Alto oSeniors or people with disabilities
Move Mountain View is responsible for following these eligibility requirements under city ordinances and the Memoranda of Understanding they have with congregations (i.e., to use congregational parking lots). For ease of administration and operation throughout the sites Move Mountain View operates, these serve as baseline requirements, with city or site-specific requirements superseding as appropriate. One requirement that has raised some questions is the need for vehicle registration, insurance, and license or ID. This is required under the California Vehicle Code.17 Move Mountain View will help otherwise qualified people to get their vehicle registered (e.g., helping with funding, paperwork, etc). Move Mountain View partners with individuals who are interested in enrolling and participating in the program. As mentioned above, program enrollees may receive limited financial assistance to support with the cost of registration and or insurance.

During the reporting period, February 1, 2025, to June 30, 2025, a total of 30 households were enrolled in the Geng Road Safe Parking program. Out of 30 households, 23 households, or 76.7 percent, were affiliated with the City of Palo Alto. These 23 households consisted of 34 individuals.

To provide a richer picture of this program, for this initial report, staff asked the county to also share aggregate data on Palo Alto affiliated clients for the prior two years. During the time period from June 1, 2023 through June 30, 2025, there were 33 Palo Alto affiliated households enrolled in the Geng Road program, and on average, clients stayed in the program for approximately 435 days with a median stay of 328 days. Over this period, there were 14 households who exited the program, with 71 percent positive placements (e.g., permanent housing, transitional housing). When there is a wait list (i.e., households/applications pending, gathering documents), it has averaged 5 households.
17 See Cal. Vehicle Code section 4000(a)(1). Registration is required to park in a public parking facility, as well as to drive, move, or park on a street.

Item B
Item B Staff Report

Item B: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 594 of 607

Limited resources, rising rents, and longer waitlists mean the search for permanent stable housing often takes much longer and can be a driver for longer stays. Even when units are available, strict housing eligibility requirements (e.g., immigration status and documentation) add more delays, making the path to stable housing slow and challenging. While the length of stay may appear long, participants make meaningful progress and are ready to transition into housing as soon as opportunities become available.

The county also looks at “utilization” for its programs on a monthly basis. Utilization shows the percentage of a program’s slots that are being used during a given time. For Geng Road, prior to expansion, utilization was at or above 100 percent. In 2025, as the program expanded gradually (e.g., hiring/onboarding staff), utilization steadily grew from 16 enrollments in January (73 percent utilization of the expanded program) to 22 enrollments in June (100 percent utilization of the expanded program).

The demographics of the Palo Alto affiliated households enrolled in the program during this two year period included:
67 percent men, 33 percent women
67 percent Hispanic/Latina/e/o
69 percent aged 45 or older, including 27 percent 65 or above 67 percent single adult households
21 percent households with children
As the program evolves, staff will expand these reports to incorporate longitudinal data points, including returns to homelessness for individuals and families served within 12 months, and returns to homelessness for individuals and families served within 24 months of exiting the program. At this stage, enough time has not yet passed to collect or analyze this information.

These data points will be incorporated into future reports as they become available.

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
Funding for the work described within this report has been appropriated as part of the FY 2026Adopted Budget. Funding in subsequent years is subject to Council approval as part of the annual budget process. The next report and all subsequent will include a summary budget and actual report of operation and maintenance costs spent using City funds. Per contract, the summary budget and actual report shall have categories and format agreed upon by the City and County. At the time of this staff report, the parties are still finalizing those categories and format.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Stakeholder engagement includes regular and as-needed meetings between partners (i.e., Office of Supportive Housing, Move Mountain View). Additionally, City staff continues to engage with external stakeholders (e.g., the RV Dwellers group of service providers, City staff, a representative of Stanford University, members of the faith-based community, and people from the philanthropic community who meet monthly and as-needed to discuss and share Item B
Item B Staff Report

Item B: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 595 of 607

information relation to Palo Altans living in their vehicles) and other cities to review progress and discuss updates related to homelessness in general, as well as safe parking.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This report is for informational purposes only with no action required by the Council and is therefore not a project subject to CEQA review.

APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
Item B
Item B Staff Report

Item B: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 596 of 607

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: INFORMATION REPORTS
Lead Department: Administrative Services
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2412-3913
TITLE
Monthly Investment Report - September 2025 (Unaudited)

RECOMMENDATION
This is an Information Report. No Council action is required.

ANALYSIS
The City’s Investment Policy1 (Policy) and California Government Code Section 53607 requires that a report of transactions (investments, reinvestment, sold, and exchanged securities) be made available to the Council on a monthly basis.

This reporting requirement is separate and distinct from the quarterly investment report submitted under California Government Code Section 53646 that includes portfolio composition, a detailed list of all securities, performance compared to the Policy, overall compliance with the Policy, and the City’s ability to meet expenditure requirements over the next six months.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Investment Portfolio Transaction Ledger – September 2025 APPROVED BY:

Lauren Lai
1 https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/2/administrative-services/investment-policies/investment-policy- fy-2025-2026.pdf
Item C
Item C Staff Report

Item C: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 597 of 607

Report: Palo Alto Filtered Transactions
Date: 09/01/2025 - 09/30/2025
Buy
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction Type Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 66815L2W8 NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL GLOBAL FUNDING 4.6 06/03/2030 CORP Buy 09/19/2025 2,500,000.00 101.934 4.142 (2,548,350.00) 33,861.11 (2,582,211.11) 31846V443 FIRST AMER:GVT OBLG V MMFUND Buy 09/24/2025 21,846,611.77 1.000 3.948 (21,846,611.77) 0.00 (21,846,611.77) 91282CLX7 UNITED STATES TREASURY 4.125 11/15/2027 US GOV Buy 09/26/2025 5,000,000.00 100.938 3.663 (5,046,875.00) 75,101.90 (5,121,976.90) 91282CND9 UNITED STATES TREASURY 3.75 05/15/2028 US GOV Buy 09/30/2025 5,000,000.00 100.316 3.621 (5,015,820.31) 70,312.50 (5,086,132.81) --- --- --- Buy 09/25/2025 34,346,611.77 --- 3.873 (34,457,657.08) 179,275.51 (34,636,932.59) Call Redemption
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction Type Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 3133ER4B4 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP 5.33 08/19/2032 AGCY BOND Call Redemption 09/15/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 5.329 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3130B5SR0 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 5.44 04/11/2035 AGCY BOND Call Redemption 09/25/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 5.440 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3130B3FV0 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 5.48 11/06/2034 AGCY BOND Call Redemption 09/25/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 5.480 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3133ETBS5 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP 5.45 04/03/2034 AGCY BOND Call Redemption 09/26/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 5.450 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 710649AD6 Peoples Bank Pratt Kansas 4.55 09/20/2029 CD Call Redemption 09/20/2025 (249,000.00) 100.000 4.572 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 15568PAV8 Community West Bank 4.9 01/29/2027 CD Call Redemption 08/30/2025 0.00 100.000 4.900 0.00 0.00 249,000.00 74048CAT9 Premier Community Bank 4.95 06/14/2027 CD Call Redemption 09/12/2025 (249,000.00) 100.000 4.950 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 94789PCJ1 Webster Five Cents Savings Bank 4.55 08/30/2029 CD Call Redemption 09/30/2025 (250,000.00) 100.000 4.595 250,000.00 0.00 250,000.00 --- --- --- Call Redemption 09/23/2025 (6,748,000.00) 100.000 5.345 6,748,000.00 0.00 6,997,000.00 Maturity
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction Type Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount 3134GWD52 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0.68 09/02/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/02/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.680 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3134GWA55 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0.65 09/09/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/09/2025 (1,447,000.00) 100.000 0.650 1,447,000.00 0.00 1,447,000.00 3134GWC53 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0.65 09/15/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/15/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.650 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3133EL7K4 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP 0.55 09/16/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/16/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.550 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3134GWP75 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0.625 09/23/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/23/2025 (2,500,000.00) 100.000 0.625 2,500,000.00 0.00 2,500,000.00 3136G44G5 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 0.515 09/22/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/22/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.515 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3136G44L4 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 0.6 09/25/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/25/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.600 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3133EMBH4 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP 0.53 09/29/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/29/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.530 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3133EMBJ0 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS FUNDING CORP 0.53 09/29/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/29/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.545 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3130AKAZ9 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.52 09/29/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/29/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.520 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3130AK3Z7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANKS 0.57 09/29/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/29/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.590 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3136G43L5 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION 0.55 09/30/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/30/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.550 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 3134GWW93 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0.55 09/30/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/30/2025 (3,500,000.00) 100.000 0.550 3,500,000.00 0.00 3,500,000.00 3134GWXK7 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORP 0.55 09/30/2025 AGCY BOND Maturity 09/30/2025 (1,500,000.00) 100.000 0.550 1,500,000.00 0.00 1,500,000.00 856285UJ8 State Bank of India New York Branch 0.5 09/04/2025 CD Maturity 09/04/2025 (249,000.00) 100.000 0.500 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 201313CB7 Commercial Bank of California 5.0 09/08/2025 CD Maturity 09/08/2025 (249,000.00) 100.000 5.000 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 69506YSA8 Banc of California 0.45 09/30/2025 CD Maturity 09/30/2025 (249,000.00) 100.000 0.450 249,000.00 0.00 249,000.00 478160CN2 JOHNSON & JOHNSON 0.55 09/01/2025 CORP Maturity 09/01/2025 (2,000,000.00) 100.000 0.485 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 544351MR7 LOS ANGELES CALIF 3.45 09/01/2025 MUNI Maturity 09/01/2025 (300,000.00) 100.000 4.792 300,000.00 0.00 300,000.00 799017UW6 SAN MATEO CALIF UN HIGH SCH DIST 2.699 09/01/2025 MUNI Maturity 09/01/2025 (2,000,000.00) 100.000 2.913 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 --- --- --- Maturity 09/20/2025 (28,994,000.00) 100.000 0.813 28,994,000.00 0.00 28,994,000.00 Summary
CUSIP Security Description Security Type Transaction Type Settlement Date Quantity Price Acq/Disp Yield Amount Purchased/Sold Interest Total Amount --- --- --- --- 09/23/2025 (1,395,388.23) --- 2.849 1,284,342.92 179,275.51 1,354,067.41 * Grouped by: Transaction Type
* Groups Sorted by: Transaction Type
* Filtered By: Transaction Type = Buy or Transaction Type = Sell or Transaction Type = Maturity or Transaction Type = Call Redemption * Weighted by: Absolute Value of Principal Amount
* MMF transactions are collapsed
* Trade transactions are collapsed
* Cash Entry transactions are collapsed
Item C
Attachment A - Investment Portfolio
Transaction Ledger - September 2025

Item C: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 598 of 607

City Council
Staff Report
From: City Clerk
Report Type: SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY – BOARDS,

COMMISSIONS, AND COMMITTEES INTERVIEWS
Lead Department: City Clerk
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2510-5325
TITLE
Interview Candidate for Vacancies on the Parks and Recreation Commission; CEQA Status - Not a Project

BACKGROUND
The City Council selected candidates to interview at the October 6, 2025 City Council meeting 1 for the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) as well as for the Human Relations Commission and Public Art Commission.

Council conducted interviews for the Parks and Recreation Commission at the October 15, 2025 City Council meeting2 and one scheduled candidate, Marc Schoenen, was unable to attend the interview on that date. Per Council direction, we have rescheduled an interview for Marc Shoenen for October 20, 2025 and the candidate has confirmed their attendance with the City Clerk.

Membership requirements for PRC are as follows: Palo Alto residency and demonstrated interest in parks, open space and recreation matters3. Additionally, no commissioners can be Councilmembers, officers, or employees of the City.

Candidate Marc Schoenen has been informed that:

1. Interview is scheduled for 10 minutes (5:35 – 5:45 P.M.). The candidate may begin with 1-2 minutes of their experience and/or desire to serve. The remaining time will be Q+A with the City Council;
1 October 6, 2025 City Council Meeting YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk9PspXwPtE&t=1734s
2 October 15, 2025 City Council Meeting YouTube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N6pbxa7tyc 3 Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2.25.020 https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0- 0-0-61402
Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report

Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 599 of 607

2. Interview is located in Council Chambers on the ground floor of City Hall (250 Hamilton Ave) or via Zoom;

3. Please arrive or join zoom 15 minutes before the scheduled time and check in with the clerk;

4. If joining via Zoom, make sure to use your name so the clerk can identify the candidate.

Please use this link to join https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238. The clerk will allow you to unmute/turn on your video when it’s your turn.

ATTACHMENTS
None.

APPROVED BY:

Mahealani Ah Yun, City Clerk
Item AA1
Item AA1 Staff Report

Item AA1: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 600 of 607

8 3
5 2
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Manager
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Manager
Meeting Date: October 20, 2025
Report #:2510-5287
TITLE
Approval of Appointment and Employment Agreement with Stephen Lindsey as Fire Chief; CEQA Status – Not a Project

RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager recommends that Council confirm the appointment of Stephen Lindsey as Fire Chief and approve his employment agreement (Attachment A).

BACKGROUND
The Palo Alto Charter and Municipal Code establish the City Manager as the appointing authority for all officers, department directors, and employees under the City Manager’s control. The Charter and Municipal Code additionally specify that the City Manager’s appointments of department heads are subject to approval of the Council.1 Employment terms or benefits not included in the Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel require Council approval.

Discussion
The City Manager presents for confirmation the appointment of Stephen Lindsey to the position of Fire Chief. Lindsey started with the Palo Alto Fire Department in 2005 and has held positions of Firefighter, Apparatus Operator, Fire Captain, and Fire Investigator before being promoted into the role of Battalion Chief in 2019. In 2021, Lindsey took on an acting assignment as a Deputy Chief and Fire Marshall before being formally promoted to Deputy Chief in 2022. Lindsey holds a B.A. in Political Science from San Jose State University with a minor in Sociology. Lindsey has also completed the International Association of Fire Chiefs Fire Service Executive Development Institute, the National Fire Academy – Strategic Organizational Leadership (Published work), Stanford Local Governance institute, and Leadership Palo Alto 1 Municipal Code Section 2.08.020
Item AA2
Item AA2 Staff Report

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
1 Packet Pg. 601 of 607

8 3
5 2
among other fire-specific trainings, certifications, and education. Lindsey was closely involved with the most recent round of successful labor negotiations with the International Association of Fire Fighters as part of the City’s appointed negotiating team and last year oversaw the successful recruitment of 12 new Firefighter personnel joining the department. As Deputy Chief of the operations division, Lindsey is overseeing the implementation of temporary cross staffing of Station 4, worked on the development of single role job classification and developing pilot staffing models.

Lindsey was selected as a result of an extensive national search of highly skilled and qualified Fire Executives conducted by Teri Black & Associates, the City’s Human Resources Department, and the City Manager’s Office. The City began planning the recruitment for Fire Chief in early 2025 when current Chief Geo Blackshire announced his plans to retire near the end of 2025.

The City’s outreach strategy was to reach highly qualified and dedicated Fire leaders and executives who align with Palo Alto’s need for someone skilled and experienced with wildland- urban interface, EMS transportation including 201 rights, addressing and anticipating climate impacts, and engaging with a highly educated, informed, and engaged community. The City invested in advertising with relevant government and affinity group-focused job boards, the City of Palo Alto’s website with a dedicated page, and direct mailing outreach to top Fire leaders and executives nationwide. This outreach resulted in 39 submissions with 13 candidates being preliminarily selected for supplemental interviews.

The selection and screening process included:
1) Experience, education, and training review of submitted candidate materials and phone screen of best-qualified applicants.
2) Multiple panel interviews included current Fire Chiefs from local regional agencies, subject matter experts from partner agencies, Department stakeholders, and members of the City Executive Leadership Team.
3) The City Manager and Assistant City Manager conducted final interviews with the top candidates.

Lindsey will be an “At-Will” employee, which means Lindsey will serve at the discretion of the City Manager and can be terminated or asked to resign at any time. Lindsey’s annual salary will be $366,912 which is within the Council-approved salary range for the Fire Chief position. The employment agreement includes eligibility for up to 24 weeks of severance, which is commensurate with other highly responsible executive positions.

All other benefits offered are consistent with the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel.

Lindsey’s appointment will be effective on November 1, 2025.

Item AA2
Item AA2 Staff Report

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
2 Packet Pg. 602 of 607

8 3
5 2

FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
The Fire Chief position is included in the FY 2026 Adopted Budget. No budget modifications or additional funding are necessary.

STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
Human Resources Staff along with Teri Black and Company strategized with the City Manager’s office in early May to kickoff this recruitment process. Shortly thereafter, meetings followed with the current Fire Chief and Fire Department leadership teams. On May 27, 2025, ahead of attending the City’s Finance committee, staff launched a dedicated web page and community engagement survey to gather additional input on community priorities. On June 3, 20253, staff attended the Finance committee meeting to gain feedback, and on June 26, 2025, staff met with labor groups representing the Fire Department. Input from these various stakeholders were all summarized and included in the candidate brochure.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Council action on this item is not a project as defined by CEQA because approving an appointment and employment agreement is an organizational activity that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5).

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Employment Agreement with Stephen Lindsey APPROVED BY:

Ed Shikada, City Manager
3 Finance Committee Meeting June 3, 2025 Agenda Item Number 1:
https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=16128 Item AA2
Item AA2 Staff Report

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
3 Packet Pg. 603 of 607

X
1 Packet Pg.

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO AND

STEPHEN LINDSEY

THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city (“City”) and Stephen Lindsey (“Lindsey”). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page.

This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts:

A. City, acting by and through its City Manager, wishes to employ Lindsey as its Fire Chief, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter").

B. Under chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Fire Chief is appointed by the City Manager with the approval of the City Council. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the Fire Chief serves on an at-will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre-or post-separation due process or appeal.

C. Lindsey desires to be employed by the City as its Fire Chief, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Charter, the Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, and all other applicable laws, resolutions, and policies.

D. The City and Lindsey wish to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits and related matters.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY AND LINDSEY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Employment. The City appoints Lindsey as its Fire Chief for an indefinite term to begin on November 1, 2025 (“Employment Start Date”). Except as otherwise provided herein, Lindsey’s employment with the City shall be governed by the City Council-adopted Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time.

2. Duties of the Fire Chief. Lindsey will perform the duties established for the Fire Chief by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, by direction given by the City Manager, and as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. Lindsey agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties.

2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Lindsey will devote his full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of his duties.

Docusign Envelope ID: 02004470-DBAF-4676-87D8-75FC6B72DC9C Item AA2
Attachment A - Employment
Agreement with Stephen
Lindsey

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
4 Packet Pg. 604 of 607

2 Packet Pg.

2.2. No Conflict. Lindsey will not engage in any outside employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with or which interferes with the performance of his duties. Lindsey acknowledges that he is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations.

2.3 Permission Required For Outside Activities. Lindsey will not engage in any outside employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or not, without written permission of the City Manager, provided in advance of such outside employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise.

3. Salary. While performing the duties of Fire Chief, Lindsey will receive a base salary within the range provided in the City Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time.

Lindsey will receive an initial gross base annual salary of Three Hundred Sixty Six Thousand and Nine- Hundred and Twelve Dollars ($366,912), beginning on the Employment Start Date, and subject to increases or changes approved by Council in the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Lindsey is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and his base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Lindsey’s base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

4. Benefits, Allowances and Obligations. Lindsey will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contributions to the extent paid by the City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave, as are generally provided to management employees under the City Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. In addition, Lindsey will assume all obligations and make all regular contributions (i.e., employee assumption of a portion of the employer PERS contribution) as are generally required of management employees under the City Council- approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time.

5. Additional Benefits and Allowances. In addition to the benefits specified in section 4, Lindsey will receive the following additional benefits and allowances:

5.1 5.1 Severance. If Lindsey is terminated or asked to resign, he shall, upon execution of a release of all claims against the City, be eligible for a severance payment equivalent to twelve (12) weeks of salary and benefits. The amount of the severance payment shall increase by twelve (12) weeks, to a total of twenty-four (24) weeks, on November 1, 2026. No severance shall be paid if Lindsey is terminated for serious misconduct involving abuse of his office or position, including, but not limited to, waste, fraud, violation of the law under color of authority, misappropriation of public resources, violence, harassment, or discrimination. If Lindsey is later convicted of a crime involving such abuse of his position, he shall fully reimburse the City as set forth in Government Code section 53243.3.

Docusign Envelope ID: 02004470-DBAF-4676-87D8-75FC6B72DC9C Item AA2
Attachment A - Employment
Agreement with Stephen
Lindsey

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
5 Packet Pg. 605 of 607

3 Packet Pg.

Duration of Employment. Lindsey understands and agrees that he has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in his employment as Fire Chief. Lindsey waives any and all rights, if any, under the Merit System Rules and Regulations, including without limitation, the right to pre-or post- disciplinary due process. Lindsey understands and agrees that he works at the will and pleasure of the City Manager and that he may be terminated or asked to resign at any time, with or without cause. Lindsey may terminate this agreement (terminating all employment) upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager.

6. Miscellaneous.

6.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either: a) served personally; or b) sent by Email (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection.

CITY: Attn: City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329-22280
Fax: (650) 328-3631

LINDSEY: Stephen Lindsey
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

6.2. Entire Agreement/ Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto.

Docusign Envelope ID: 02004470-DBAF-4676-87D8-75FC6B72DC9C Item AA2
Attachment A - Employment
Agreement with Stephen
Lindsey

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
6 Packet Pg. 606 of 607

4 Packet Pg.

6.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County.

6.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated.

6.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties.

6.6. Representation by Counsel. Lindsey and the City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it.

6.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection.

LINDSEY CITY OF PALO ALTO

Stephen Lindsey City Manager

Date: Date:

Approved as to Form:

Chief Assistant City Attorney

Docusign Envelope ID: 02004470-DBAF-4676-87D8-75FC6B72DC9C 10/12/2025
Item AA2
Attachment A - Employment
Agreement with Stephen
Lindsey

Item AA2: Staff Report
Pg.
7 Packet Pg. 607 of 607