HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 2606-6490CITY OF PALO ALTO
CITY COUNCIL
Special Meeting
Monday, August 24, 2026
Council Chambers & Hybrid
5:30 PM
Agenda Item
4.Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims
Processes within Santa Clara County”
City Council
Staff Report
From: City Attorney
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Attorney
Meeting Date: August 24, 2026
Report #: 2606-6490
TITLE
Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes
within Santa Clara County”
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the following response to the 2025-2026 Santa Clara
County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within
Santa Clara County.”
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2026, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report entitled “Pothole
Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County.” The Grand Jury Report
examined how the County of Santa Clara and the 15 cities and towns within the County,
including Palo Alto, receive, investigate, and resolve claims filed by residents seeking
reimbursement for vehicle damage caused by potholes.
The Grand Jury found that 92% of pothole claims filed countywide from 2020 to 2025 were
rejected, most commonly because a claim was filed with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency had
no prior notice of the pothole, or the claim was untimely or incomplete. The Grand Jury also
believes that claims websites across the County generally lack clear information about which
jurisdiction is responsible for a given road, and that most jurisdictions do not offer claim forms
in languages other than English or explain the specific reason for a claim’s rejection.
The report made four findings and four recommendations applicable to the City of Palo Alto. A
copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment A.
The following tables summarize the City of Palo Alto’s responses to street condition-related
claims and, more specifically, pothole claims during the approximately five-year period covered
by the Grand Jury Report.
All Claims Related to Street Condition (January 20, 2020 Through October 31, 2025)
Insufficient 31 29 due to jurisdiction; 2 due
to incomplete information
Rejected 26
Late 2
Settled 2
TOTAL 61
Insufficient 19 18 due to jurisdiction; 1 due
to missing supporting
documentation
Rejected 6
Late 1
Settled 0
TOTAL 26
During the five-year period, the City settled two of 61 street condition-related claims received.
With respect to pothole claims, the City found 19 of the 26 claims insufficient and denied the
seven remaining claims.
The City Attorney’s Office is primarily responsible reviewing and responding to government
claims received by the City. The Office has reviewed the Grand Jury’s findings and
recommendations and has provided a draft response to the Grand Jury in Attachment B. The
recommended response to the Grand Jury is summarized below.
25.
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.
The City of Palo Alto agrees with this finding to the extent reflects
the disposition of pothole claims submitted to the City of Palo Alto. Claimants are required to
follow the Government Claims Act (Gov. Code § 900 et seq.), which requires anyone seeking
money damages from a California public entity to first file a written claim with that entity
within six months of the incident for claims involving death, personal injury, or damage to
personal property—which includes vehicle damage from potholes.
The Act’s purpose is to give the agency a chance to investigate and pay or settle without
litigation and to budget for possible future liabilities. The entity then has 45 days to accept,
reject, or fail to act on the claim. If the claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a
lawsuit. Suing without first complying with this claim-presentation process generally bars the
case.
Civil Grand Jury Finding 2: Jurisdictional Confusion
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.
City of Palo Alto Response: The City of Palo Alto agrees with the finding in part. It is the
claimant’s responsibility to determine the jurisdiction in which an incident took place. However,
it is common for claims to be submitted to multiple jurisdictions because claimants and/or their
attorneys fail to conduct a diligent investigation before filing their claims, and find it is easier to
submit claims to multiple jurisdictions without evaluating where the incident actually occurred.
During the reporting period January 20, 2020 through October 31, 2025, 26 pothole damage
claims were submitted to the City of Palo Alto, and 18 were sent back as insufficient due to
jurisdiction (69%).
Civil Grand Jury 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.
The City of Palo Alto will implement this recommendation in
modified form. The City will update its website to direct claimants to a publicly available online
mapping or search tool, such as Google, to help them confirm whether a given road is
maintained by the City by December 15, 2026.
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.
The City of Palo Alto will implement this recommendation. By
December 15, 2026, the City will add guidance to its claims webpage identifying roads
commonly mistaken for City jurisdiction, including portions of US-101, I-280, and El Camino Real
(SR-82) (which are maintained by Caltrans), and Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, and
Foothill Expressway (which are maintained by the County).
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.
The City of Palo Alto disagrees with the finding as it applies to Palo
Alto. Palo Alto’s claims webpage already provides clear instructions on how to file a claim, a
direct link to the claim form, and a translation tool that lets users translate the claims-process
webpage and instructions into multiple languages. The City agrees, however, that the claim
form itself cannot currently be translated through this tool. As discussed in the City’s response
to Recommendation 3b below. the need to submit a claim in English is not a ”deficiency”.
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.
City of Palo Alto Response: The City of Palo Alto will not implement this recommendation. As
noted in the City’s response to Finding 3, the City’s website already provides a translation tool
that allows claimants to translate the claims-process webpage and instructions, including the
instructions on how to file a claim, into multiple languages. However, the City will not translate
the claim form itself. All claims have the potential to result in litigation, and the claim form is
evidence that the plaintiff complied with claim submission requirements, a mandatory
prerequisite to filing a lawsuit. The claim form is the best evidence of that compliance with that
requirement and would need to be translated into English to be considered in court.
Translation of non-English language forms into English creates unnecessary costs and risk of
evidentiary disputes. The costs, risks, and burdens imposed by this process outweigh the
limited benefit of providing non-English language claim forms, particularly where translated
instructions for completing the English-language form are already available.
Civil Grand Jury Finding 4: Vague Rejection Notices
City of Palo Alto Response: The City of Palo Alto agrees with this finding in part. Palo Alto’s
current rejection notice includes the statutory language required by Government Code section
913 but does not specify the reason for the denial or provide dedicated contact information for
follow-up questions, which is addressed in the City’s response to Recommendation 4 below.
Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 4
City of Palo Alto Response: The City of Palo Alto will partially implement this recommendation.
The City is not legally required to state the reason a claim is rejected, but in practice the City
conveys some information to claimants regarding the reasons for rejection. Claims rejected as
untimely receive a late claim notification, and claims rejected as insufficient because the road
falls outside City jurisdiction are noted as such. Claimants may also call the City Attorney’s
Office for more information about the disposition of a claim.
Policy Implications
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
ATTACHMENTS
APPROVED BY:
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026
Page 1 of 20
POTHOLE DAMAGE
T ABLE 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 2 of 20
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 3 of 20
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 4 of 20
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 5 of 20
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 6 of 20
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 7 of 20
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 8 of 20
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 9 of 20
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 SR-
130, 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 10 of 20
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 11 of 20
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 12 of 20
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 13 of 20
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 14 of 20
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 15 of 20
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 16 of 20
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 17 of 20
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-a-
Parks-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/public-
works/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-and-
council/contact-city-council
Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern-
6/Fix-It-Form-45
Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhood-
complaints/
Page 18 of 20
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-Hill-
PTAP-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-system-
information/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/your-
city/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-a-
Claim). 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 19 of 20
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/your-
government/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed
April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdata-
csj.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/frequently-
asked-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/your-
government/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-condition-
bay-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 20 of 20
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
Attachment B
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
250 Hamilton Avenue, 8th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2171
September __, 2026
Honorable Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: City of Palo Alto Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report,
“Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes within Santa Clara County”
Dear Judge Emede:
The City of Palo Alto responds as follows to the above-received Grand Jury Report pursuant to
California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05(a) & (b).
Civil Grand Jury Finding 1: Countywide Claim Rejections
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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto agrees with this finding to the extent it reflects the disposition of pothole
claims submitted to the City of Palo Alto. Claimants are required to follow the Government
Claims Act (Gov. Code § 900 et seq.), which requires anyone seeking money damages from a
California public entity to first file a written claim with that entity within six months of the
incident for claims involving death, personal injury, or damage to personal property—which
includes vehicle damage from potholes.
The Act’s purpose is to give the agency a chance to investigate and pay or settle without
litigation and to budget for possible future liabilities. The entity then has 45 days to accept,
reject, or fail to act on the claim. If the claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a
lawsuit. Suing without first complying with this claim-presentation process generally
bars the case.
For a California public entity to be liable for property-related injuries like pothole damage, a
claimant must prove: (1) the entity owns or controls the property at issue; the property was in a
dangerous condition at the time of injury; (2) the condition proximately caused the injury; (3) the
condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury that occurred; and either (a)
a public employee's negligent or wrongful act created the dangerous condition, or (b) the entity
had actual or constructive notice of the condition long enough before the injury to have taken
protective measures and failed to do so. (Gov. Code § 835.) A “dangerous condition” is a
condition of public property that creates a substantial risk of injury—as opposed to a minor,
trivial, or insignificant risk—when the property (or adjacent property) is used with due care in a
way that's reasonably foreseeable. (Gov. Code § 830.)
If a pothole claim received by the City of Palo Alto does not meet the requirements for liability
under Government Code section 835, the City rejects the claim. Conversely, where a claimant
meets the burden of establishing a dangerous condition of property existed, the City will
reimburse the claimant for substantiated damages caused by the dangerous condition. Claims are
investigated and evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Civil Grand Jury Finding 2: Jurisdictional Confusion
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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto agrees with the finding in part. It is the claimant’s responsibility
to determine the jurisdiction in which an incident took place. However, it is common for claims
to be submitted to multiple jurisdictions because claimants and/or their attorneys fail to conduct a
diligent investigation before filing their claims, and find it is easier to submit claims to multiple
jurisdictions without evaluating where the incident actually occurred. During the reporting
period January 20, 2020 through October 31, 2025, 26 pothole damage claims were submitted to
the City of Palo Alto, and 18 were sent back as insufficient due to jurisdiction (69%).
Civil Grand Jury 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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto will implement this recommendation in modified form. The City will
update its website to direct claimants to a publicly available online mapping or search tool, such
as Google, to help them confirm whether a given road is maintained by the City by December
15, 2026.
Civil Grand Jury 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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto will implement this recommendation. By December 15, 2026, the City will
add guidance to its claims webpage identifying roads commonly mistaken for City jurisdiction,
including portions of US-101, I-280, and El Camino Real (SR-82) (which are maintained by
Caltrans), and Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, and Foothill Expressway (which are
maintained by the County).
Civil Grand Jury Finding 3: Website Deficiencies
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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto disagrees with the finding as it applies to Palo Alto. Palo Alto’s claims
webpage already provides clear instructions on how to file a claim, a direct link to the claim
form, and a translation tool that lets users translate the claims-process webpage and instructions
into multiple languages. The City agrees, however, that the claim form itself cannot currently be
translated through this tool. As discussed in the City’s response to Recommendation 3b below.
the need to submit a claim in English is not a ”deficiency”.
Civil Grand Jury 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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto will not implement this recommendation. As noted in the City’s response
to Finding 3, the City’s website already provides a translation tool that allows claimants to
translate the claims-process webpage and instructions, including the instructions on how to file a
claim, into multiple languages. However, the City will not translate the claim form itself. All
claims have the potential to result in litigation, and the claim form is evidence that the
plaintiff complied with claim submission requirements, a mandatory prerequisite to filing a
lawsuit. The claim form is the best evidence of that compliance with that requirement and would
need to be translated into English to be considered in court. Translation of non-English language
forms into English creates unnecessary costs and risk of evidentiary disputes. The costs, risks,
and burdens imposed by this process outweigh the limited benefit of providing non-English
language claim forms, particularly where translated instructions for completing the English-
language form are already available.
Civil Grand Jury Finding 4: Vague Rejection Notices
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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto agrees with this finding in part. Palo Alto’s current rejection notice
includes the statutory language required by Government Code section 913 but does not specify
the reason for the denial or provide dedicated contact information for follow-up questions, which
is addressed in the City’s response to Recommendation 4 below.
Civil Grand Jury 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.
City of Palo Alto Response:
The City of Palo Alto will partially implement this recommendation. The City is not legally
required to state the reason a claim is rejected, but in practice the City conveys some
information to claimants regarding the reasons for rejection. Claims rejected as untimely receive
a late claim notification, and claims rejected as insufficient because the road falls outside
City jurisdiction are noted as such. Claimants may also call the City Attorney’s Office for more
information about the disposition of a claim.
Going forward, the City will update its notices to specify when a claim is rejected because the
road at issue is outside Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. The City will not otherwise expand its notices
to state the basis for rejections made on other grounds, such as lack of prior notice, because it is
not legally required to do so. This City will update its notices as described by December 15,
2026.
Sincerely,
_____________________________
Vicki Veenker
Mayor, City of Palo Alto