REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on the City Council's Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II"
Report
BACKGROUND
On or about June 17, 2026, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" (Civil Grand Jury report) (Attachment 1). The Civil Grand Jury report contains findings and recommendations directed to several agencies, including the City of Santa Clara.
California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires the governing body of a public agency or department that is the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days to the findings and recommendations that pertain to matters under the control of the governing body.
The Penal Code outlines the following legal requirements for responses:
Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following for each Civil Grand Jury finding:
1. The respondent agrees with the finding.
2. The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action.
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
Consistent with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), this report contains draft responses for the City Council’s consideration and approval. A response letter will be prepared consistent with the City Council’s direction on the draft responses below and will be transmitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
The City Council’s final responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 15, 2026.
DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made ten findings and ten recommendations, not all of which require a response from the City. The City of Santa Clara has been directed to respond to two (2) findings (Findings 6 and 7) and two (2) recommendations (Recommendations 6 and 7).
The complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” report can be found on pages 27-30 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website: https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/vtas-management-and-oversight-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii.pdf
Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations
For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations to which the City was directed to respond:
Finding 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.”
Draft Response
The City partially disagrees with this finding.
The City disagrees with the finding to the extent it applies to the City of Santa Clara. Santa Clara is a member of Appointing Authority Group 5, along with the cities of Milpitas and Sunnyvale. The City's appointments to the VTA Board of Directors comply with State law, specifically Section 100060(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code, which governs the composition of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors and the representation of cities other than the City of San Jose:
"Five city council members or mayors selected from among the city councils and mayors of all of the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose, as provided by agreements among those cities. The agreements may provide for the appointment of alternates, who shall be city council members or mayors, for those city representatives."
The City follows this requirement, and all of its appointees and alternates to the VTA Board are Santa Clara Councilmembers or the Mayor.
Section 2-14 of the VTA Administrative Code provides that Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 are "strongly encouraged, where possible" to appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation and to reappoint representatives to consecutive terms. By its own terms, this provision encourages but does not require either practice. As a practical matter, the City has no way of guaranteeing that one or more of the individuals elected to the position of Councilmember or Mayor had experience or qualifications specifically in the field of transportation. The requirements to run for such an elected position are set forth in the City Charter, Section 600, et seq. and do not include any requirements for subject matter expertise.
By practice, the City compiles a list each January of Councilmember appointments to City Committees and to regional and outside agency committees for City Council review and consideration. The Mayor recommends which Councilmembers serve as members or alternates, and those recommendations are brought forward at a City Council meeting for the Council to review and approve. Because appointments reflect individual Councilmember interest and the changing needs of the City, and because one City Council cannot bind a future City Council, reappointment to consecutive terms, including on the VTA Board, is not automatic. As a matter of practice, however, the City has generally sought to reappoint the same individual from one year to the next.
The City takes no position on the portion of the finding that concerns the appointment practices of the other agencies in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5, as the City has no information regarding how those agencies make their appointments.
Recommendation 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should certify to the VTA Board that they will adhere to VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions, regarding Board member expertise and appointment to consecutive terms.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Draft Response
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.
The City appreciates the intent of this recommendation, but it does not plan to bind the City Council to administrative rules adopted by a partner agency. The City will continue to follow the California Public Utilities Code and its current practice, which preserves the City Council's discretion to determine appointments to City boards and committees and to regional and outside agency committees.
The City can and will consider the encouraged actions in Section 2-14 of the VTA Administrative Code when making appointments, where possible; this is what the Administrative Code requires. However, as stated above, the City cannot guarantee that a future appointee will have experience and qualifications in transportation, nor can it commit a future City Council to reappointing a representative to consecutive terms. Further, this should not disenfranchise Santa Clara voters from having a representative on the VTA Board.
Finding 7
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
Draft Response
The City partially disagrees this this finding.
The City disagrees with the finding to the extent it suggests that the absence of a uniform process results in appointments that do not comply with State law. While Santa Clara does not have an adopted policy or ordinance governing City Council appointments to committees, by practice, the City compiles a list each January of Councilmember appointments to City Committees and to regional and outside agency committees for City Council review and consideration. The Mayor recommends which Councilmembers serve as members or alternates, and those recommendations are brought forward at a City Council meeting for the Council to review and approve. As a matter of practice, however, the City has generally sought to reappoint the same individual from one year to the next. In every instance, the appointment satisfies Section 100060(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code.
The City takes no position on the portion of the finding that concerns the processes used by the other agencies in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5, as the City is unable to confirm those processes.
Recommendation 7
The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Draft Response
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.
The City appreciates the intent of this recommendation, but it does not plan to commit the City Council to an appointment process that differs from its current practice for making appointments to City boards and committees and to regional and outside agency committees. Each city's approach may reflect its own charter, city policies, and local needs, and State law already establishes who is eligible to serve.
The City remains willing to share its current practice with the other cities in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should those cities wish to compare approaches.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense.
COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" and direct the City Attorney to prepare the formal response consistent with City Council direction; and
2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject only to finalization of response language, as directed, and any technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications approved by the City Attorney, to the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than September 15, 2026.
Staff
Reviewed by: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Civil Grand Jury Report: "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”