POTHOLE DAMAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage................................................................................ 3 Why So Many Claims Are Rejected........................................................................................ 3 The California Government Claims Act................................................................................. 4 Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation.................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims..................................................................................... 6 Two Common Reasons for Rejection...................................................................................... 7 Rejection Notices are Often Vague.......................................................................................... 8 Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible .......................................... 9 Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form.................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 18 Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 147 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 148 of 195
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 isresponsible 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; Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 149 of 195
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;
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 150 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 151 of 195
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 acknowledgesthat the significance of this data islimited; 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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 152 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 153 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 154 of 195
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.
When a local road crosses or overlaps a state route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.
County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airports Department.
Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 155 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 156 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 157 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 158 of 195
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 deadlinesto ensure that the claims process isfairer, more consistent, and easier for the public to navigate.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 159 of 195
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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 160 of 195
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 lettersto 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.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 161 of 195
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
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 162 of 195
POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.
Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:
Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-aParks-Public-Works-Concern-87 Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/publicworks/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-andcouncil/contact-city-council Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern6/Fix-It-Form-45 Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhoodcomplaints/ Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 163 of 195
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-HillPTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.
Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.
Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.
California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.
California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/yourcity/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-aClaim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 164 of 195
POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdatacsj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.
City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequentlyasked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/yourgovernment/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.
County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-conditionbay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).
Accessed April 15, 2026.
Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 165 of 195
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
Item 9.2
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 166 of 195
City Council Report
DATE: September 1, 2026
TITLE: AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE LOW CARBON TRANSPORTATION
AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) FUND AGREEMENT
(Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adoption of a Resolution for Authorization to Execute Low Carbon Transportation and Operations Program (LCTOP) Fund Agreement for Transit Reliability Improvement and Performance System (TRIPS) Project.
BACKGROUND
On June 1, 2023, the VTA Board of Directors adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 22-23 Low Carbon Transportation and Operations Program (LCTOP), a population-based resolution to receive $2,390,310 LCTOP funds from the California Department of Transportation for the Transit Reliability Improvement and Performance System (TRIPS) Project. The TRIPS Project aims to implement a Centralized Transit Signal Priority (CTSP) system at intersections along VTA’s Frequent Network (i.e., transit routes with 15-minute headways).
In 2025, VTA staff approached City staff with the opportunity to upgrade traffic signal controllers and cabinets at the intersections serving VTA Bus Routes 26, 60, and 61 to grant transit signal priority (”TSP”) to VTA’s transit vehicles serving these routes. In Campbell, these bus routes generally serve Campbell Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, and Bascom Avenue. The LCTOP grant would be made available for the City’s portion of the TRIPS Project (which is anticipated to cost $1.06 million).
On June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The City’s portion of the TRIPS Project is identified in the CIP as the Expansion of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) in Campbell Project (CIP No. 26-LL) with a budget of $1,059,119 in anticipation of LCTOP grant.
DISCUSSION
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) uses Transit Signal Priority (TSP) to reduce delays at signalized intersections. By extending green lights or shortening red lights, TSP allows buses to move faster and maintain schedule reliability without disrupting overall traffic flow on surface streets.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 167 of 195
VTA is currently deploying a next-generation system called the Transit Reliability Improvement and Performance System (TRIPS). TRIPS is a cloud-based, centralized software system that 1) utilizes real-time vehicle tracking to predict when a transit vehicle is approaching a signalized intersection and 2) adjusts the traffic signal timing. TSP is beneficial in making public transit services faster and more predictable. TSP will help VTA attract more transit riders, operate more cost-effectively, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Transit Reliability Improvement and Performance System (TRIPS) Project The TRIPS Project would upgrade traffic signal controllers and/or cabinets at 19 signalized intersections identified by the City and VTA in the City along Campbell Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, and Bascom Avenue, serving VTA Routes 26, 60, and 61.
Specifically, the project would upgrade traffic signal controller cabinets and controllers at up to seven (7) signalized intersections and upgrade controllers at an additional 12 signalized intersections. The project would also upgrade the City's centralized traffic management system (the Advanced Traffic Management System or ATMS) to support transit signal priority.
The Low Carbon Transportation and Operations Program (LCTOP) grant would fund city labor to support procurement of the controller cabinets, controllers, and ATMS software.
The grant would also fund construction labor to install and program the new traffic signal controllers. Construction costs include contractor labor to replace the controller cabinets and city staff time to program and install new controllers and administer the construction contract.
Fund Agreement
A fund agreement between VTA and the City must be executed before the City can commence work on this project. Some highlights of the fund agreement are as follows:
1. Project Description. The City will install upgraded traffic signal controllers at 19 intersections, as well as replace traffic signal cabinets at seven (7) of these signalized intersections identified by the City and VTA, serving VTA Bus Routes 26, 60, and 61.
2. Grant Award. The grant amount is $1,059,119 in LCTOP funds.
3. Financial Contribution to the Statement of Work (SOW). VTA will contribute 2022-23 LCTOP population-based funds in an amount not to exceed $1,059,119 for City to use for completion of the SOW, as described in Exhibit B, Table 2, of the Fund Agreement.
The City is solely responsible for all funds expended toward the SOW prior to the Effective Date of the Fund Agreement and all costs that are not eligible for reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement, if any.
4. Schedule. The project will be delivered based on the schedule included in the agreement. The schedule, including engineering and planning, procurement, Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 168 of 195
construction, implementation of the Centralized Transit Signal Priority (CTSP) System, and closeout, amounts to 24 months.
5. Project Estimated Costs. Table 2, City of Campbell Reimbursement Amounts, of the agreement identifies estimated project costs attributable to LCTOP grant funds.
Tentative Project Schedule
The tentative project schedule is as follows.
Engineering and Planning 3 months
Procurement 6 months
Construction 9 months
Implementation of CTSP 3 months
Closeout 3 months
Total 24 months
FISCAL IMPACT
The LCTOP grant for the City’s portion of the TRIPS Project (Expansion of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) in Campbell Project, CIP No. 26-LL) is $1,059,119. No local match is required.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Do not execute funding agreement for the project. This alternative is not recommended since the LCTOP Grant requires no local match to upgrade aging controller cabinets and traffic signal controllers that may be reaching the end of their useful lives while supporting the improvement of public transit services.
PREPARED BY: Matthew Jue, Traffic Engineer
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 169 of 195
Report Approval Details
Document
Title:
report-authorization to execute LCTOP fund agreement for TRIPS project 9-1-26 new business.docx
Attachments: Resolution-Authorization to execute LCTOP fund agreement for TRIPS project 9-1-26 new business.docx
VTA_Campbell_Agreement_TRIPS_Clean.docx
Final Approval
Date:
August 27, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 170 of 195
RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE LOW
CARBON TRANSPORTATION AND OPERATIONS PROGRAM (LCTOP) PROJECT
FUND AGREEMENT FOR THE TRANSIT RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT AND
PERFORMANCE SYSTEM (TRIPS) PROJECT
WHEREAS, in 2025, VTA staff approached City staff with the opportunity to upgrade traffic signal controllers and cabinets at the intersections serving VTA Bus Routes 26, 60, and 61 to grant transit signal priority (”TSP”) to VTA’s transit vehicles serving these routes; and
WHEREAS, these bus routes generally serve Campbell Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, and Bascom Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the LCTOP grant for the City’s portion of the TRIPS Project was anticipated to be $1,059,119; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2026, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2027-2031 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects; and
WHEREAS, the City’s portion of the TRIPS Project is identified in the CIP as the Expansion of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) in Campbell Project (CIP No. 26-LL); and WHEREAS, the Expansion of Transit Signal Priority (TSP) in Campbell Project was budgeted for the anticipated $1,059,119 in LCTOP grant funds in anticipation of the LCTOP Grant; and
WHEREAS, the TRIPS Project would install upgraded traffic signal controllers and cabinets at 19 signalized intersections identified by the City and VTA along Campbell Avenue, Winchester Boulevard, and Bascom Avenue, serving VTA Routes 26, 60, and 61; and
WHEREAS, the TRIPS project would also upgrade the City's centralized traffic management system (the Advanced Traffic Management System or ATMS) to support transit signal priority reporting features and future software versions; and WHEREAS, the LCTOP grant for the City’s portion of the TRIPS Project is $1,059,119; and
WHEREAS, the LCTOP grant requires no local match is required.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Campbell to approve the agreement and authorize the City Manager is hereby to execute the LCTOP fund agreement for the TRIPS Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ________2026, by the following roll call vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 171 of 195
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
APPROVED:
________________________________
Daniel E. Furtado, Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 172 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 1 of 19
FUNDING AGREEMENT
BETWEEN
CITY OF CAMPBELL
AND
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
FOR
TRANSIT RELIABILITY IMPROVEMENT AND PERFORMANCE SYSTEM (TRIPS) PROJECT This Agreement (“Agreement”) is between the City of Campbell (“City”) and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) and is entered into and is effective as of the last date of signature below. (“Effective Date”). City and VTA may be individually referred to as a “Party” or collectively referred to as the “Parties.”
I. RECITALS
A. Whereas, on June 1, 2023, the VTA Board of Directors adopted the FY22-23 Low Carbon Transportation and Operations Program (“LCTOP”), a population-based resolution to receive $2,390,310.00 LCTOP funds from the California Department of Transportation for the Transit Reliability Improvement and Performance System (TRIPS) Project (“Project”); and B. Whereas, the Project aims to implement a Centralized Transit Signal Priority (”CTSP”) system at intersections along transit routes with 15 minute frequencies, also known as VTA’s Frequent Network; and
C. Whereas, VTA is supportive of the City’s provisioning of traffic signal system and network communications to support the CTSP system, and from the $2,390,310.00 LCTOP funds, VTA wishes to suballocate to the City an amount not to exceed ONE MILLON FIFTY-NINE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRERD NINETEEN DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS ($1,059,119.00) (“Maximum Grant Award”, or “Budgeted Scope of Work Cost”) to upgrade traffic signal controllers and cabinets at the intersections serving VTA Routes 26, 60, and 61 to grant transit signal priority (”TSP”) to VTA’s transit vehicles serving these routes; and
D. Whereas, VTA and City desire to specify the terms and conditions under which the City will administer LCTOP population-based funds to deliver the Project per the Public Resource Code Section 75231 and 2022-23 LCTOP Guidelines.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 173 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 2 of 19
NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the Parties agree as follows:
II. AGREEMENT
A. Project Description.
The City will install upgraded traffic signal controllers and cabinets at 19 signalized intersections identified by the City and VTA as the highest need intersections in the City, serving VTA Routes 26, 60, and 61. The City will perform the work described in the attached Exhibit B, Scope of Work (SOW).
B. Project Need.
In 2019, Frequent Network buses spent 32% of their time in signal-related delay and average speeds were less than 15mph. When transit speeds decline, transit becomes increasingly unreliable and more expensive to operate because VTA must add more buses to maintain the same frequency of service.
These buses consume operating dollars that could otherwise be reinvested into the network to provide greater frequency or expanded service, which would support higher ridership and a better customer experience. Between 2014 and 2019, VTA added 14 buses to the Frequent Network to maintain scheduled frequency. This Project is centered on reducing traffic delays and improving the speed and reliability of VTA’s Frequent Network buses, starting with the highest need routes, particularly among disadvantaged communities, in coordination with local jurisdictions.
C. Modifications to Scope of Work.
1. City must inform VTA, in writing, of any minor modifications to the SOW including, but not limited to, changes of any proposed construction component needed for the delivery of the Project. No change in the SOW shall be effective unless approved by VTA in writing.
2. Any “material change” in the SOW will require an amendment to this Agreement. City shall not be entitled to reimbursement for any costs or expenses associated with unapproved material change modifications. For purposes of this Agreement, a “material change” is any modification, addition, or deletion to the SOW that meets any of the following criteria: (i) any change that increases or decreases the total Budgeted Scope of Work Cost by more than 5%; (ii) any substantial change to the nature, quality, or character of the SOW, or the addition of tasks not reasonably inferable from the SOW; or (iii) any change required due to a change in law, ordinance, or regulation fundamentally changing how the SOW must be performed.
D. Term of Agreement.
The term of this Agreement will commence on the Effective Date and continue through the earlier of:
(i) the second anniversary of the Effective Date, (ii) completion of the SOW, or (iii) cancellation of the SOW.
E. Cost of Statement of Work.
1. Scope of Work Cost. The total cumulative dollar amount actually incurred and expended toward the SOW by all Parties involved, as measured at the completion or termination of the Project (“Scope of Work Cost”) is expected to be $1,059,119.00 (“Budgeted Scope of Work Cost”).
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 174 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 3 of 19
F. Financial Contribution to Cost of SOW.
1. VTA’s Financial Contribution to the SOW. VTA will contribute 2022-23 LCTOP populationbased funds in an amount not to exceed $1,059,119.00 for City to use for completion of the SOW, as described in the attached Exhibit B, Table 2, City of Campbell Reimbursement Amounts. All funds will be available on a reimbursement basis for Eligible Costs (as defined in Paragraph H below), pursuant to this Agreement. VTA shall have no obligations for reimbursement in the event that the CTSP system or Scope of Work Cost exceeds $1,059,119.00.
2. City’s Financial Contribution to the SOW. City is solely responsible for all funds it has expended toward the SOW prior to the Effective Date and all costs that are not eligible for reimbursement pursuant to this Agreement, if any.
G. Reimbursement.
1. VTA will reimburse City pursuant to Exhibit B, Table 2, in the amount of: (i) Eligible Costs, as defined in Paragraph H.1., submitted to VTA; or (ii) VTA’s Financial Contribution to the SOW, whichever is less. VTA will reimburse City based on receipt of invoices showing Eligible Costs incurred and paid for by City. VTA will not reimburse City for any costs that are not Eligible Costs.
2. If this Agreement is terminated, as set forth in Paragraph T, City will immediately act to not incur any additional obligations, costs or expenses, except as may be reasonably necessary to terminate its activities under this Agreement. The VTA’s only obligation to the City will then be just and equitable payment for Eligible Costs incurred by City up to and including the effective date of termination, less any amounts withheld.
H. Eligible Use of Funds.
1. Eligible Costs. VTA will only reimburse City for actual costs directly related to performance of the SOW. For purposes of this Agreement, “Eligible Costs” are as described below. No other expenses will be subject to reimbursement as Eligible Costs without the prior written approval of VTA.
a. Direct Construction-Related Costs.
b. Other Direct Costs. City or contracted staff support must not exceed 10% of the reimbursed cost. VTA will reimburse any expenses directly associated with the SOW at actual cost without markup. City must provide appropriate supporting documentation, including detailed receipts, to VTA’s reasonable satisfaction. If any of the other direct costs described in this paragraph will exceed $500.00, City must receive VTA’s written approval prior to incurring such expense. VTA may deny reimbursement of any such other direct cost expense incurred by City, prior to VTA’s written approval.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 175 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 4 of 19
2. Ineligible Costs. Specific “Ineligible Costs” include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Expenses for organizational functions, businesses services, and information technology including, but not limited to telephone charges, computer costs, CAD machine charges, in-house copying charges, and facsimile charges will not be reimbursed as other direct costs;
b. Rent and utilities;
c. Food or beverages (e.g. as part of meetings, workshops, training, or events); and d. Alcohol, travel upgrades, fines, memberships, loss of personal property or cash, “no shows,” or personal itinerary changes.
I. Should the eligibility of a cost be questioned, VTA will determine, in writing, the eligibility of a cost before the cost is incurred. In its performance under this Agreement, all Parties will strictly comply with all prescribed LCTOP Program requirements set forth in the Public Resource Code Section 75231 and 2022-23 LCTOP Program Guidelines, and VTA shall have no obligation to provide reimbursement for costs that do not comply.
J. Invoicing to VTA.
1. City must submit invoices quarterly to [email protected] for reimbursement of work completed on the SOW. Each invoice must include all records, including staff hours, contractors’ invoices, miscellaneous invoices, force account charges, and any other documentation requested by VTA as substantiation for invoices submitted for reimbursement. Invoices may not be submitted more frequently than monthly and must be submitted within one year of City incurring the cost(s).
2. All invoices must detail:
a. Eligible Costs actually incurred and paid by City;
b. Total reimbursement amount (in dollars) requested;
c. Total amount reimbursed by VTA to date; and
d. SOW tasks or milestones completed for which City incurred Eligible Costs during the relevant billing cycle.
3. VTA will remit the amount due to City within 30 calendar days of receipt of a complete, fully documented invoice.
K. Return of Funds.
If VTA learns that previously reimbursed costs were not Eligible Costs, City must return such funds no later than 30 business days from receipt of written notice from VTA. In the event a good faith dispute regarding reimbursed costs occurs, the Parties will meet and confer to attempt an informal resolution.
L. City’s Responsibilities.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 176 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 5 of 19
1. Implementing Agency Tasks. City will be the sponsor and implementing agency for the Project, in accordance with the requirements of the FY 2022-2023 Low Carbon Transit Operations Program Guidelines attached as Exhibit A, and Exhibit B, Scope of Work. In its role as sponsor and implementing agency under this Agreement, City must perform the following tasks:
a. Procuring professional services for the Project including, but not limited to, the following activities: advertising the work via a public solicitation, opening bids in response to the public solicitation, awarding a contract, approving contract documents, and administering the awarded contract in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and codes including, but not limited to, the 2 CFR Part 200, 48 CFR Part 31, California Public Contract Code, and the California Labor Code;
b. Obtaining all necessary permits for performance of the Project, as applicable; c. Performing community engagement activities for the Project as applicable; d. Make staff available to present on the Project at VTA committees as needed; and e. Conducting standard close-out activities for the Project including, but not limited to, performing final accounting review and reviewing all contractual requirements.
2. Other Project Management Duties. City must also perform the following duties:
a. Actively monitor actual Project expenditures to ensure that the LCTOP funds are used to reimburse Eligible Costs only;
b. Provide VTA copies of Project deliverables including, but not limited to, reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, and other materials; c. Provide VTA with written semi-annual progress updates due on June 15 and December 15 of each year on the Project including, but not limited to, updates on Project expenditures, any changes in scope and schedule, community engagement outcome, and Project status in a format previously provided to City;
d. Provide VTA with a Project Activity Report (template to be provided by VTA) by September 15 of each year, with documentation of Project implementation, including documentation of work performed and expenditures, description of benefits to disadvantage communities (if any), and contract summaries related to executed third-party contracts; and e. Submit the Project’s final report to VTA, which must be in writing and must include information regarding final Project costs and study results, along with any other information VTA may require within 2 months of Project completion.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 177 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 6 of 19
M. VTA’s Responsibilities.VTA will perform and/or be responsible for the following tasks to perform oversight for Project:
a. Provide a copy of the 2022-23 LCTOP Guidelines, attached as Exhibit A; and b. Provide official LCTOP reporting and expenditure forms to inform status of the delivery of Project and to ensure Project complies with the LCTOP Guidelines.
N. Indemnification.
Neither VTA nor any its officers or employees will be responsible for any damage or liability arising out of or relating to City’s acts or omissions under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction associated with this Agreement. The Parties agree that pursuant to California Government Code § 895.4, City must fully defend, indemnify, and hold harmless VTA from all suits or actions of every name, kind, and description arising from an injury (as defined by California Government Code § 810.8) relating to City’s acts or omissions under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction delegated to City under this Agreement. This provision shall survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement.
O. Insurance.
At all times during this Agreement, City must maintain, or cause its contractors, consultants, subcontractors, and subconsultants to procure and maintain, insurance coverage sufficient to cover the delivery of the Project in accordance with the requirements set forth in Exhibit C. City may satisfy its insurance obligations under this Section and Exhibit C, in whole or in part, through insurance policies carried directly by the City, through a program of self-insurance, or by contractually requiring its primary contractors and consultants engaged in connection with the Project to maintain the requisite coverages in accordance with Exhibit C.
P. Additional Insured and Indemnity Provision.
In any agreement executed between the City and a third party for purposes related in any way to the subject matter of this Agreement (“Third Party Contract”), City must require that VTA be named as (i) an additional insured on a primary and non-contributory basis with separation of insureds and waiver of subrogation on all policies of insurance, except when not applicable and (ii) an indemnified party in any indemnity provision contained in the Third Party Contract. Third Party Contracts must contain insurance requirements with coverages at least as broad as, and limits at least as great as, the requirements of Exhibit C.
Q. Public Works.
If City awards a contract to a third party for the performance of a public work, as defined in California Labor Code Sections 1720 through 1720.6 (“Public Works Contract”), in connection with this Agreement, City must comply, and must require such third party to comply, with the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq.
R. Compliance with Applicable Law.
In the execution of the Project and performance of its responsibilities under this Agreement, City must comply with all applicable requirements of local, state, and federal laws.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 178 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 7 of 19
S. Compliance with LCTOP Grant Requirements.
In its performance under this Agreement, City must comply with, and must ensure Project compliance with all LCTOP requirements attached in Exhibit A.
T. Termination
1. Either Party may at any time terminate this Agreement by giving 10 business days’ written notice of such termination to the other Party. Notice must identify the effective date of such termination and must be provided in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
2. In the event of termination under this section, City must submit its final invoice to VTA within 30 calendar days of the effective date of termination, and such invoice will be solely for Eligible Costs City incurred prior to termination.
U. Audit and Records.
1. For the duration of the Agreement, and for a period of five years after final payment, City must maintain, and must require their contractors and subcontractors to maintain, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles and practices, complete books, accounts, records, and data pertaining to services performed under this Agreement, including the costs of contract administration. Such documentation must be supported by properly executed payrolls, invoices, contracts, and vouchers evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of any charges and must be sufficient to allow a proper audit of services. All checks, payrolls, invoices, contracts, and other accounting documents pertaining in whole or in part to the services must be clearly identified and readily accessible.
2. For the duration of the Agreement, and for a period of five years after final payment, VTA and its representatives must have access during normal business hours to any books, documents, papers, accounting records, records, data, and other relevant documents (“Records”) of the City that are pertinent to this Agreement for audits, examinations, excerpts, and transactions.
The City must furnish copies of the Records upon request.
3. For the duration of the Agreement, and for a period of five years after final payment, the City and its contractors and subcontractors must also permit access to all records of employment, employment advertisements, employment application forms, and other pertinent data and records by the Civil Rights Department, or any other agency of the State of California designated by the State, for the purpose of any investigation to ascertain compliance with the LCTOP. City must also assist VTA in the event Caltrans performs any audits and/or requests detailed project information of the Project at any time prior to the completion of the Project.
V. Notices / Authorized Representatives / Points of Contact.
1. Notices must be in writing and addressed to the other Party’s Authorized Representative (“Recipient”) and will be deemed delivered or received on the date personally delivered to Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 179 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 8 of 19
the Recipient or when deposited by registered or certified mail with postage and charges prepaid. Notices must also be sent by electronic mail.
2. Authorized Representatives. The Authorized Representatives identified below, or assigned designees, have authority to authorize changes to the scope, terms, and conditions of this Contract, as set forth herein. The Parties’ Authorized Representatives are as follows:
VTA:
Marcella Rensi
Deputy Director, Grants & Allocations
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
3331 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95134
Email: [email protected]
CITY:
Amy Olay
Public Works Director
City of Campbell Public Works
70 N 1st Street
Campbell, CA, 95008
Email: [email protected]
3. Points of Contact: The Points of Contact listed below are authorized to communicate regarding Contract matters, except in the case where correspondence regarding legal notices must be addressed to the Authorized Representatives.
VTA:
David Kobayashi
3331 N. First Street, Bldg. B
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
[email protected]
City:
Matthew Jue
70 N 1st Street
Campbell, CA, 95008
[email protected]
Written notification to the other Party must be provided, in advance, for changes in the name or address of an Authorized Representative or Points of Contact stated above.
W. General Terms and Conditions.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 180 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 9 of 19
1. Headings. The subject headings of the articles and paragraphs in this Agreement are included for convenience only and will not affect the construction or interpretation of any of its provisions.
2. Incorporation of Exhibits and Attachments. All exhibits and attachments referenced in this Contract are incorporated into it by this reference.
3. Construction and Interpretation of Agreement. This Agreement, and each of its provisions, terms, and conditions, has been reached as a result of negotiations between the Parties.
Accordingly, each Party expressly acknowledges and agrees that (i) this Agreement will not be deemed to have been authored, prepared, or drafted by any particular Party and (ii) the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party will not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement or in the resolution of disputes.
4. Amendment. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, its provisions cannot be altered, modified, or amended except through the execution of a written amendment executed by the Parties.
5. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties relating to the subject matter and supersedes all prior negotiations, contracts, agreements, or understandings, whether oral or written, of the Parties regarding the subject matter.
6. No Waiver. The failure of either Party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the terms, covenants, or conditions of this Agreement will not be deemed a waiver of (i) any right or remedy that either Party may have or (ii) either Party’s right to require strict performance of all of the terms, covenants, and conditions of this Agreement.
7. Dispute Resolution.
a. If a question or allegation arises regarding (i) interpretation of this Agreement or its performance, or (ii) the alleged failure of a Party to perform, the Party raising the question or making the allegation must give written notice thereof to the other Party. The Parties must promptly meet in an effort to resolve the issues raised. If the Parties fail to resolve the issues raised, alternative forms of dispute resolution, including mediation, may be pursued by mutual agreement. It is the intent of the Parties to the greatest extent possible to avoid litigation as a method of dispute resolution.
b. Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing in this Paragraph 7 will be deemed to prevent a Party from filing suit or an administrative action. To the extent practicable, the Parties may negotiate in good faith to create a tolling agreement to toll such statute(s) of limitations to allow for the Parties to engage in dispute resolution provisions of this Agreement prior to filing of such actions.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 181 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 10 of 19
8. Severability. If any provisions of this Agreement (or portions or applications of it) are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, (a) the Parties will negotiate in good faith to make an equitable adjustment to the Agreement provisions with a view toward effecting the Agreement’s purpose, and (b) the remaining provisions (or portions or applications of them) will remain valid and enforceable.
9. Governing Law. The laws of the State of California will govern this Agreement and any claim that might arise between City and VTA without regard to conflict of law provisions.
10. Venue. Any lawsuit or legal action arising from this Agreement must be commenced and prosecuted in the courts of Santa Clara County, California. City agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of the courts located in Santa Clara County, California for the purpose of litigating all such claims.
11. Ownership of Work. All reports, designs, drawings, plans, specifications, schedules, studies, memoranda, and other documents assembled or prepared, in the process of being assembled or prepared, or furnished to either Party under this Agreement are the joint property of all Parties. Each Party is entitled to copies and access to these materials during the progress of the Project and upon completion of the SOW or termination of this Agreement. All Parties may retain a copy of all material produced under this Agreement for use in their general activities.
12. Non-discrimination. The Parties and any contractors performing services on behalf of the Parties (“Contractors”) will not unlawfully discriminate or permit discrimination, harass, or allow harassment against any person or group of persons because of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry, age (over 40), sex, gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, childbirth or related conditions, medical condition (including cancer), mental disability, physical disability (including HIV and AIDS), genetic information, or military and veteran’s status, or in any manner prohibited by federal, state, or local laws. In addition, the Parties and Contractors must not unlawfully deny any of their employees family care leave or discriminate against such employees on the basis of having to use family care leave. The Parties and Contractors must ensure that the evaluation and treatment of their employees and applicants for employment is free of such discrimination and harassment.
13. Relationship of the Parties. It is understood that this is an Agreement by and between independent parties and does not create the relationship of agent, servant, employee, partnership, joint venture or association, or any other relationship other than that of independent contractor.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 182 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 11 of 19
14. Counterparts; Electronic Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original but all of which will constitute one and the same instrument. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, VTA policy, or City ordinance or policy, the Parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a writing as set forth in Evidence Code Section 1550. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by each of the Parties.
15. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each Party to this Agreement represents and warrants that each person whose signature appears below is authorized and has the full authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the entity that is a Party to this Agreement.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 183 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 12 of 19
The Parties have caused their undersigned, duly authorized signatories to execute this Agreement on the dates set forth below.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority CITY OF CAMPBELL Carolyn M. Gonot
General Manager/CEO
Brian Loventhal
City Manager, City Manager’s Office
Date Date
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form:
Lindsey Schmidt
VTA Assistant Counsel
Bill Seligmann
City Attorney
Date Date
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 184 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 13 of 19
EXHIBIT A
[see LCTOP GUIDELINES]
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 185 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 14 of 19
EXHIBIT B
SCOPE OF WORK
Detailed Scope
To expand the CTSP system into the City’s roadways serving Routes 26, 60, and 61, the work tasks for the City includes: 1. City’s project administration to support the implementation of this expansion of CTSP system; 2. upgrades to the City's centralized traffic management system to support centralized transit signal priority reporting features; 3. upgrading traffic signal controllers to adhere to the latest National Transportation Communication for ITS Protocols (NTCIP) 1202 and 1211 standards to allow communications with the CTSP system; and 4. replacement of aging traffic signal controller assemblies to minimally comply with National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA) TS-2 or better such as the Advanced Traffic Controller (ATC) standards.
Table 1 - Project Implementation Locations
Line # Intersections Route
1 Bascom Ave and Apricot Ave 26 & 61
2 Bascom Ave and Campbell Ave 26 & 61
3 Bascom Ave and Pruneyard 61
4 Bascom Ave and Campisi Way 61
5 Bascom Ave and Hamilton Ave 61
6 Campbell Ave and Union Ave 26
7 Campbell Ave and Gilman Ave 26
8 Campbell Ave and 3rd St 26
9 Campbell Ave and Winchester Blvd 26 & 60
10 Campbell Ave and Jeffers Way 26
11 Campbell Ave and Victor Ave 26
12 Campbell Ave and San Tomas Aquino Road 26
13 Campbell Ave and Fulton Ave 26
14 Winchester Blvd and Winchester Light Rail Station 60 15 Winchester Blvd and Budd Ave 60
16 Winchester Blvd and Kennedy Ave 60
17 Winchester Blvd and Rincon Ave 60
18 Winchester Blvd and Latimer Ave 60
19 Winchester Blvd and Hamilton Ave 60
The milestones for this CTSP system expansion are as follows:
• Engineering and Planning: 3 Months
• Procurement: 6 Months
• Construction 9 Months
• Implementation of CTSP: 3 Months
• Closeout: 3 Months
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 186 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 15 of 19
Reimbursement Amounts
VTA’s total reimbursement amount to the City pursuant to this Agreement will not exceed $1,059,119.00, including contingency. Table 2 below summarizes the reimbursement amounts to support this Project. Regardless of actual Scope of Work Cost, in no event will VTA contribute any amount beyond $1,059,119.00 without an amendment to this Agreement.
Table 2 – City of Campbell Reimbursement Amounts
Task Description
Budget Amount
($USD)
Operations of CTSP System:
City labor to support the setup of Centralized Transit Signal Priority (CTSP) system. $37,350.00
Procurement of Traffic Signal Equipment to Support CTSP System:
City procures the following equipment to support CTSP system:
• Upgrades to the City's centralized traffic management system to support transit signal priority reporting features and future software versions. • Replacement up to seven (7) aging traffic signal controller assemblies to minimally comply with National Electrical Manufacturer Association (NEMA) TS-2 or better such as the Advanced Traffic Controller (ATC) standards. Traffic signal controller housed in the assembly must adhere to the latest National Transportation Communication for ITS Protocols (NTCIP) 1202 and 1211 standards to allow communications with the CTSP system.
• Upgrade up to twelve (12) traffic signal controllers to adhere to the latest National Transportation Communication for ITS Protocols (NTCIP) 1202 and 1211 standards to allow communications with the CTSP system. $464,750.00
City labor to support procurement of above list components. $90,561.00 The contingency is a budget amount reserved if any the budgeted items exceed the available listed amounts, or additional work tasks are needed. The use of this amount requires approval by VTA staff by written correspondence. $112,125.00
Construction Labor to Install and Setup Traffic Signal Equipment:
Contractor labor to install procured traffic signal equipment. $250,250.00 City labor to administer construction contract. $43,708.00 The contingency is a budget amount reserved if any the budgeted items exceed the available listed amounts, or additional work tasks are needed. The use of this amount requires approval by VTA staff by written correspondence. $60,375.00
Total: $1,059,119.00
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 187 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 16 of 19
Exhibit C
Insurance Requirements
(No Special Hazards – All Contracts)
INSURANCE
Without limiting City’s indemnification and defense of claims obligations to VTA, City must procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement, and require any contractor or consultant it hires to perform work under the scope of this Agreement to procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance or self-insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction associated with the Agreement. The cost of such insurance must be borne by the insured or self-insured party. As applicable, the insured party must furnish complete copies of all insurance policies within three (3) business days of any request for such by VTA. City remains fully responsible for ensuring that all contractors or consultants performing Services under this Agreement comply with the requirements set forth in this Exhibit C.
A. MINIMUM SCOPE OF INSURANCE
Coverage must be at least as broad as:
1. Insurance Services Office General Liability coverage (“occurrence” form CG 0001). General Liability insurance written on a “claims made” basis is not acceptable.
2. Business Auto Coverage, Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001, covering Automobile Liability, code 1 “any auto.” Auto Liability written on a “claims-made” basis is not acceptable.
3. Workers’ Compensation insurance as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employer’s Liability insurance.
4. Contractor’s Pollution Liability: City’s contractor shall provide Contractor’s Pollution Liability covering liability arising out of the treatment, handling, storage, transportation, or accidental release of any hazardous material.
B. MINIMUM LIMITS OF INSURANCE
a. City must maintain limits no less than:
1. General Liability: $1,000,000 limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit must apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit must be twice the required occurrence limit.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 188 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 17 of 19
2. Automobile Liability (including umbrella/excess liability): $1,000,000 limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
3. Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability: Workers’ compensation limits as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and Employer’s Liability limits of $1,000,000 per accident.
4. Contractor’s Pollution Liability: $1,000,000 per occurrence. b. Notwithstanding any language in this Lease to the contrary, if City or its contractors or consultants carry insurance limits exceeding the minima stated in Section B(a)(1)-(3) immediately above, such greater limits will apply to this Agreement.
C. CERTIFICATE OF SELF-INSURANCE
If City is a governmental authority such as a state, municipality or special district, self-insurance is permitted.
E. OTHER INSURANCE PROVISIONS
The policies must contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
1. General Liability and Automobile Liability
a. VTA, its directors, officers, officials, employees, and volunteers must be named as additional insureds or additional covered party as respects: liability arising out of City’s or City’s contractors or consultants’ performance under this Agreement. The coverage must contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to VTA, its directors, officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. Additional Insured endorsements from City’s contractors or consultants must provide coverage at least as broad as afforded by the combination of ISO CG 20 10 10 01 and CG 20 37 10 01.
b. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies may not affect coverage provided to VTA, its directors, officers, officials, employees, or volunteers. c. Coverage must state that City’s coverage applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. d. The City’s contractors or consultants General Liability General Aggregate limit must apply per project, not per policy.
e. The City’s contractors or consultants General Liability policy must be endorsed to remove the exclusion for railroad liabilities, with coverage at least as broad as afforded by ISO CG 24 17.
2. All Coverages
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 189 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 18 of 19
a. City’s contractors or consultants must agree to waive all rights of subrogation against VTA, its directors, officers, officials, employees, and volunteers for losses arising under or in connection with any work, authority, or jurisdiction associated with the Agreement. b. City’s, and its contractors and consultants, insurance coverage must be primary insurance as respects VTA, its directors, officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Self-insurance or insurance that may be maintained by VTA, its directors, officers, officials, employees, or volunteers may apply only as excess to City, its contractors, and consultant’s insurance.
City, its contractors, and consultant’s insurance must not seek contribution from VTA’s insurance program.
3. Other Insurance Provisions
a. The City’s contractor’s or consultant’s Certificate must disclose the actual amount of the Deductible or Self-Insured Retention.
b. If any coverage forms or endorsements required by this Agreement are updated by their publishers, whether they be the insurance carrier(s), the Insurance Services office, or the American Association of Insurance Services, during the duration of this Agreement, VTA reserves the rights to require City to procure said coverage forms or endorsements using the updated versions upon the next renewal cycle.
F. ACCEPTABILITY OF INSURERS
Insurance must be placed with insurers with an A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A VII (financial strength rating of no less than A and financial size category of no less than VII), unless specific prior written approval has been granted by VTA.
G. CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE OR CERTIFICATES OF COVERAGE City must furnish VTA with a Certificate of Coverage of self-insurance. City’s contractors and consultants must furnish VTA with a Certificate of Insurance. The certificates for each insurance policy must be signed by an authorized representative of that insurer. The certificates for City’s contractors and consultants must be issued on a standard ACORD Form. City must instruct their insurance broker/agent to submit all certificates and required notices electronically in PDF format to [email protected]. All endorsements must be attached to the ACORD certificate in a single PDF document.
The City’s certificate(s) shall provide all applicable self- insurance coverage information. City’s contractors’ and consultant’s certificates must (1) identify the insurers, the types of insurance, the insurance limits, the deductibles, and the policy term, (2) include copies of all the actual policy endorsements required herein, and (3) in the “Certificate Holder” box include:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”)
3331 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95134-1906
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 190 of 195
Rev. Date 06/04/2026 Page 19 of 19
In the Description of Operations/Locations/Vehicles/Special Items Box, the VTA property leased must appear, the list of policies scheduled as underlying on the Umbrella/Excess policy must be listed, Certificate Holder must be named as additional insured, and Waiver of Subrogation must be indicated as endorsed to all policies as stated in the Agreement documents.
It is a condition precedent to granting of this Agreement that all insurance certificates and endorsements be received and approved by VTA before Agreement execution. No occupancy may be taken until insurance is in full compliance. VTA reserves the rights to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
If City receives notice that any of the insurance policies required by this Exhibit may be cancelled or coverage reduced for any reason whatsoever, City must immediately provide written notice to VTA that such insurance policy required by this Exhibit is canceled or coverage is reduced.
H. MAINTENANCE OF INSURANCE
If City fails to maintain self-insurance as required herein, VTA, at its option, may suspend the Agreement until a new policy of insurance is in effect.
Item 9.3
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 191 of 195
City Council Report
DATE: September 1, 2026
TITLE: Council Committee Reports
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.
MAYOR FURTADO
City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Economic Development Subcommittee
Finance Subcommittee
Legislative Subcommittee
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Cities Association of Santa Clara County - City Selection Committee Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority**
West Valley Mayors and Managers
West Valley Sanitation District
US Mayor’s Water Council**
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation (Alt.) Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board Representative (Alt.) Santa Clara County Emergency Operational Council (EOAC)** (Alt.) Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA) (Alt.)
VICE MAYOR BYBEE
Education Subcommittee
Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison
Legislative Subcommittee
City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation Liaison Cities Association of Santa Clara County: Board Representative Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA)
Cities Association of Santa Clara Legislative Action Committee Item 11.1
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 192 of 195
Cities Association of Santa Clara County City Selection Committee (Alt.) Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors (Alt.) West Valley Mayors and Managers (Alt.)
COUNCILMEMBER SCOZZOLA
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee
COUNCILMEMBER HINES
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee DCBA Liaison
Economic Development Subcommittee
League of California Cities Peninsula Division Housing, Community & Economic Development Committee**
San Jose Bristol Hotel Transitional Housing Community Advisory Committee** Santa Clara Valley Water District County Water Commission West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority JPA
West Valley Stormwater Authority
Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Finance and Administration Committee** Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (Alt.) West Valley Sanitation District (Alt.)
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (Alt.)
COUNCILMEMBER LOPEZ
Campbell Ministerial Interfaith Group
Finance Subcommittee
Education Subcommittee
League of California Peninsula Division Executive Committee** Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors**
Association of Bay Area Governments (Alt.)
DCBA Liaison (Alt.)
Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison (Alt.)
Santa Clara County Library District JPA Board of Directors (Alt.) Santa Clara Valley Water District County Water Commission (Alt) West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority JPA (Alt.) West Valley Stormwater Authority (Alt.)
**appointed by other agencies
PREPARED BY: Kristen Epolite, Deputy City Clerk
Item 11.1
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 193 of 195
Item 11.1
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 194 of 195
Report Approval Details
Document Title: Report - Council Committee Reports 9.1.26.docx Attachments:
Final Approval Date: August 12, 2026
This document and all of its attachments were approved and signed as outlined below:
Kristen Epolite
Item 11.1
Tuesday, September 01, 2026 195 of 195