CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet.pdf — Cupertino City Council, September 1, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

designated and disclosure categories are set forth, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Cupertino; and

3. That all Statements of Economic Interest shall be filed electronically with the City Clerk.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 1st day of September 2026, by the following vote.

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:

Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
Date
ATTEST:

Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk Date
169
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
173 of 266

EXHIBIT A

CITY OF CUPERTINO CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

FOR OFFICIALS AND DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES
The Political Reform Act, Government Code section 81000 et seq. requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes. The Fair Political Practices Commission has adopted a regulation, 2 Cal. Code Regs. section 18730, which contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code. It can be incorporated by reference and may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission after public notice and hearings to conform to amendments to the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 Cal. Code Regs. section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference and, along with the attached Appendices A and B in which members, consultants, and employees are designated and disclosure categories are set forth shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Cupertino.

Officials and designated employees under Government Code section 87200 shall file electronic statements of economic interests (Form 700) with the City Clerk who will make the statements available for public inspection and reproduction. (Gov.

Code, § 81008,)
Upon receipt of the statements (Form 700) of the City of Cupertino City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and Planning Commissioners, the agency shall electronically forwardthe original ofthese statements to the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City Clerk will electronically retain original statements for all other designated employees.

It has been determined that the positions listed below manage public investments and will file a statement of economic interests (Form 700) pursuant to Government Code section 87200:

City Treasurer (Director of Finance)
170
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
174 of 266

APPENDIX A

DESIGNATED POSITIONS AND

APPLICABLE REPORTABLE INTEREST CATEGORIES
Title Assigned Disclosure Category

APPOINTED OR ELECTED OFFICIALS & COMMISSIONS
Audit Committee 2
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission 1
Arts and Culture Commission 1
Economic Development Committee 1
Housing Commission 1
Library Commission 1
Parks and Recreation Commission 1
Planning Commission 1 (Gov. Code § 87200 filers)
Public Safety Commission 1
Sustainability Commission 1
Technology, Information, & 3
Communications Commission

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
City Attorney 1 (Gov. Code § 87200 filer)
Senior Assistant City Attorney 1
Assistant City Attorney 1
Senior Management Analyst 1
Legal Services Manager 1
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE
City Manager 1 (Gov. Code § 87200 filer)
Deputy City Manager 1
Assistant to the City Manager 1
Management Analyst 1
Senior Management Analyst 1
Executive Assistant to the City Manager 1

City Clerk’s Office 171
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
175 of 266
City Clerk 1
Deputy City Clerk 1

Communications & Public Information
Public Information Officer 3
Communications and Marketing 1
Coordinator

Emergency Management
Emergency Services Coordinator 1
Management Analyst 1
Community Relations Coordinator 1

Economic Development
Economic Development Manager 1
Human Resources
Human Resources Manager 2
Human Resources Analyst I/II 3
Management Analyst 1

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Director of Community Development 1
Assistant Director of Community 1
Development

Planning
Associate Planner 1
Assistant Planner 1
Management Analyst 1
Permit Technician 1

Building
Building Official 1
Deputy Building Official 1
Senior Building Inspector 1 172
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
176 of 266
Building Inspector 1
Permit Technician 1
Plan Check Engineer 1

Housing
Housing Manager 1
Senior Housing Coordinator 1

Code Enforcement
Code Enforcement Supervisor 1
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 1
Code Enforcement Officer 1

Consultants
Consultants (see Appendix B As determined by City Manager definitions)

FINANCE
Director of Finance (Treasurer) 1 (Gov. Code § 87200 filer) Finance Manager (Deputy City Treasurer) 2
Budget Manager 2
Purchasing Manager 2
Management Analyst 1
Senior Management Analyst 3
Accountant I/II 3
Senior Accountant 3
Account Clerk I/II 3
Accounting Technician 3

INNOVATION & TECHNOLOGY
Chief Technology Officer 1
Innovation and Technology Manager 3
Senior Business Systems Analyst 3
Business Systems Analyst 3
Multimedia Communication Specialist 3
Management Analyst 1 173
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
177 of 266

PUBLIC WORKS
Director of Public Works 1
Assistant Director of Public Works 1
Capital Improvement Programs 1
Manager
Senior Public Works Project Manager 1
Public Works Projects Manager 1
Service Center Superintendent 3
Public Works Supervisor 1
City Engineer 1
Public Works Inspector 1
Senior Management Analyst 1
Management Analyst 1
Environmental Services & Environmental Affairs
Environmental Programs Manager 1
Environmental Programs Specialist 3
Environmental Programs Assistant 3
Environmental Compliance Technician 1

Traffic & Engineering
Senior Planner
1 (Transit and Transportation)
Assistant Engineer 1
Transportation Manager 1
Senior Civil Engineer 1
Associate Civil Engineer 1
Senior Engineering Technician 1
Engineering Technician 1
Environmental Programs Assistant (Safe 3
Routes to School)

PARKS AND RECREATION
Director of Parks and Recreation 1
174
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
178 of 266
Assistant Director of Parks and
Recreation 1
Recreation Manager 3
Senior Management Analyst 1
Management Analyst 1
Communications and Marketing
Coordinator 1
175
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
179 of 266
Appendix B

DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES AND DEFINITIONS

1. Category 1
What to report? All investments, positions in business entities, sources of income (including gifts, loans, and travel payments), and interests in real property.

What Form 700 schedules? All Schedules (A through E)

2. Category 2
What to report? All investments, positions in business entities, and sources of income (including gifts, loans, and travel payments).

What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E

3. Category 3
What to report? All investments, positions in business entities, and sources of income (including gifts, loans, and travel payments) from sources of the type that provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment to the City.

What Form 700 schedules? A, C, D, E
Definitions
For the purposes of these disclosure categories, the definitions and regulations contained in the Political Reform Act, Government Code sections 81000 et seq., and the Fair Political Practices Commission regulations, 2 Cal. Code Regs. section 18730, shall apply.
176
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
180 of 266
www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC Advice: [email protected] (866.275.3772)

Page 1 of 1 ends

2026 Local Agency Biennial Notice
Name of Agency:

Mailing Address:

Contact Person: Phone No.

Email: Alternate Email:

Accurate disclosure is essential to monitor whether officials have conflicts of interest and to help ensure public trust in government. The biennial review examines current programs to ensure that the agency’s code includes disclosure by those agency officials who make or participate in making governmental decisions.

This agency has reviewed its conflict of interest code and has determined that (check one BOX):

An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary:
(Check all that apply.)
Include new positions
Revise disclosure categories
Revise the titles of existing positions
Delete titles of positions that have been abolished and/or positions that no longer make or participate in making governmental decisions
Other (describe)
The code is currently under review by the code reviewing body.

No amendment is required. (If your code is over five years old, amendments may be necessary.)
Verification (to be completed if no amendment is required) This agency’s code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions. The disclosure assigned to those positions accurately requires that all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income that may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those holding designated positions are reported. The code includes all other provisions required by Government Code Section 87302.
__________________________________________ _________________________ Signature of Chief Executive Officer Date
All agencies must complete and return this notice regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this notice no later than October 1, 2026, or by the date specified by your agency, if earlier, to:
(PLACE RETURN ADDRESS OF CODE REVIEWING BODY HERE)
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN THIS FORM TO THE FPPC.
177
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
181 of 266

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-15360 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Agenda #: 11.

Subject: Acceptance of Legislative Review Committee (LRC) recommendation supporting Senate Bill 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways; Authorization for Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature.

Adopt support position on Senate Bill 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways and authorize the Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/26/2026
powered by Legistar™178
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
182 of 266
CITY MANAGER’S OFFICE

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: September 1, 2026
Subject:

Acceptance of Legislative Review Committee (LRC) recommendation supporting Senate Bill 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways; Authorization for Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature.

Recommended Action
Adopt support position on Senate Bill 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways and authorize the Mayor to send letters to the State Legislature Reasons for Recommendation and Available Options
On August 17, the Legislative Review Committee (LRC) adopted three positions on bills that were outlined in the 2026 Legislative Platform, which can be viewed on the City’s webpage at cupertino.gov/legislation.

The LRC also discussed SB 922 by Senator Laird, however, they were unable to adopt a position as this bill falls under a “monitor” position within the platform. Adopting a position of support or opposition would require consideration by the full Council. The LRC voted to move this bill forward and recommends that the full Council adopt a support position on this bill. A draft letter of support is included as Attachment A.

SB 922, as amended on July 2, 2026, clarifies the authority of local governments to recover the costs of street maintenance and repair through utility rates, franchise fees, and other public service charges.

The bill amends Vehicle Code Section 9400.8 to specify that the existing prohibition on local charges for the use of streets and highways applies only to charges based on vehicle weight. It further clarifies that fees, charges, or surcharges imposed by or for a local agency to recover the costs of street maintenance, street repair, and other roadway impacts associated with providing public services are not a tax or permit fee that is prohibited for the privilege of using public streets. The bill expressly authorizes local agencies to impose and collect these charges and includes legislative findings rejecting the interpretation adopted in Rogers v. City of Redlands. 179
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
183 of 266
For cities, counties, and special districts, SB 922 confirms that roadway maintenance costs attributable to public service providers may continue to be recovered through utility rates, franchise agreements, and similar cost-recovery mechanisms without violating state law.

Opponents, such as the California Taxpayers Association, argue that this bill reduces transparency and weakens taxpayer protections by allowing road repair costs to be charged through service fees without voter approval. Supporters, including the League of California Cities and the Rural County Representatives of California (RCRC), sponsors of this bill, argue that SB 922 restores legal clarity and preserves long-standing local practices that allow service fees to recover roadway maintenance costs associated with providing essential public services.

Support
Cities: Belmont, Beverly Hills, Camarillo, Campbell, Capitola, Chino Hills, Concord, El Cerrito, Fairfield, Foster City, Fullerton, Garden Grove, Glendale, Goleta, Gonzales, Grover Beach, Hollister, Hueneme, Lafayette, Lakewood, Marina, Moorpark, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norwalk, Oceanside, Orinda, Oxnard, Pacific Grove, Paramount, Paso Robles, Pico Rivera, Rancho Cucamonga, Redondo Beach, Redwood City, Rocklin, Salinas, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Paula, Scotts Valley, Soledad, Stanton, Thousand Oaks, Torrance, Tulare, Union City, Upland, Vacaville, Ventura, Vernon, Walnut Creek, and Westminster.

Additional support: League of California Cities [SPONSOR], Rural County Representatives of California [SPONSOR], California State Association of Counties [SPONSOR], American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, AFL-CIO, American Society of Civil Engineers, Region 9, California Chapters of the American Public Works Association, California Contract Cities Association, California Police Chiefs Association, California Special Districts Association, Californians Against Waste, City and County of San Francisco, CR&R, Inc., Contra Costa County, Lamorinda Legislative Coalition, Madera County, Marin County, Monterey County, Recology, RecycleSmart, Republic Services, Santa Cruz County, Service Employees Union International, California, Shasta County, Sonoma County Mayor’s and Councilmembers’ Association, StopWaste, Town of Apple Valley, Town of Truckee, West Valley Solid Wate Management Authority
Opposition
California Taxpayers Association, Coalition of Sensible Taxpayers, Contra Costa Taxpayers Association,
Status
SB 922 passed out of the Assembly Floor 30-1 on August 10, 2026. On August 18, this bill was enrolled and presented to the Governor at 3 p.m.

Next steps
If approved, the City will finalize the letter with the Mayor and submit it to the Governor. If not approved, the City will remain neutral on this bill.
180
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
184 of 266
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No sustainability impact.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None
Council Goal
Public Engagement and Transparency
California Environmental Quality Act
No California Environmental Quality Act impact.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Astrid Robles, Assistant to the City Manager Reviewed by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Letter of Support
181
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
185 of 266

MAYOR KITTY MOORE
[email protected]

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-1389 • FAX: (408) 777-3366
CUPERTINO.GOV
September 1, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Request for Signature - SB 922 (Laird) Vehicles: Local Agency Charges: Use of Streets or Highways
Dear Governor Newsom:

On behalf of the City of Cupertino, I am writing to respectfully request your signature on Senate Bill (SB) 922 (Laird), which would clarify the authority of local agencies to recover the costs of maintaining and repairing streets, roads, and highways associated with the delivery of public services.

Cities throughout California are responsible for maintaining extensive local street networks that are essential to residents, businesses, emergency services, utilities, and other public services. The operation of heavy service vehicles, including those used for waste collection and other essential services, contributes to pavement deterioration and creates real maintenance and repair costs for local governments.

SB 922 provides important clarity by confirming that fees, charges, or surcharges imposed by or for a local agency to recover street maintenance and repair costs associated with providing public services are permissible and are not prohibited charges for the privilege of using local streets or highways. The bill also preserves the existing prohibition on local charges based on vehicle weight.

For Cupertino and other local governments, SB 922 will:
• Protect Local Infrastructure: Allow cities to appropriately recover costs associated with wear and deterioration of local streets resulting from the delivery of public services. 182
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
186 of 266
• Promote Fiscal Responsibility: Help ensure that costs attributable to particular services are incorporated into those services rather than shifted to a city's General Fund and taxpayers at large.
• Provide Legal and Regulatory Certainty: Clarify state law so local agencies can continue established practices for funding street maintenance without uncertainty regarding the application of Vehicle Code Section 9400.8. • Preserve Local Control: Give communities the flexibility to structure lawful fees and service charges based on their individual infrastructure needs while maintaining protections against weight-based road charges.

Maintaining safe and reliable streets is one of the most fundamental responsibilities of local government. At a time when cities face significant infrastructure needs and rising maintenance costs, local agencies should have clear authority to ensure that the costs generated by publicservice operations can be appropriately reflected in the cost of providing those services.

SB 922 is a reasonable and important clarification of state law that will help local governments protect public infrastructure and responsibly manage limited public resources.

For these reasons, the City of Cupertino respectfully requests that you sign SB 922 into law.

Sincerely,
Kitty Moore
Mayor, City of Cupertino
Cc: The Honorable Josh Becker
The Honorable Patrick Ahrens
183
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
187 of 266

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14162 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Agenda #: 12.

Subject: Introduction of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 2.88 Audit Committee Duties, Powers, and Responsibilities and Related Municipal Code Updates Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 26-2285 "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.88 TO

RENAME THE AUDIT COMMITTEE AS THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, UPDATE ITS

DUTIES, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND UPDATE THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TITLE" to:

1. Rename the Audit Committee as the "Audit and Finance Committee";

2. Modify Section 2.88.100(g) to read: “To review the City’s internal controls and internal audit reports.”

3. Add Section 2.88.100(i): “To review the use of artificial intelligence in the City’s financial reporting, internal controls over financial reporting, risk management, and compliance.”

4. Update Section 2.88.110 referencing Director of Administrative Services to Director of Finance
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/26/2026
powered by Legistar™184
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
188 of 266

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220
CUPERTINO.GOV

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: September 1, 2026
Subject
Introduction of an ordinance amending Municipal Code Chapter 2.88 Audit Committee Duties, Powers, and Responsibilities and Related Municipal Code Updates Recommended Action
Introduce and conduct the first reading of Ordinance No. 26-XXXX "AN ORDINANCE

OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING
MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.88 TO RENAME THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

AS THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, UPDATE ITS DUTIES,

POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND UPDATE THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE TITLE" to:

1. Rename the Audit Committee as the "Audit and Finance Committee";

2. Modify Section 2.88.100(g) to read: “To review the City’s internal controls and internal audit reports.”

3. Add Section 2.88.100(i): “To review the use of artificial intelligence in the City’s financial reporting, internal controls over financial reporting, risk management, and compliance.”

4. Update Section 2.88.110 referencing Director of Administrative Services to Director of Finance
Background
On May 20, 2025, the City Council directed the Audit Committee to consider amendments to its scope of duties and recommend changes for Council’s consideration. Following this directive, the Audit Committee engaged in a series of discussions, informed by Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) best practices and input from the City’s internal auditors, Baker Tilly.

During the July 28, 2025, meeting, the Audit Committee unanimously voted to recommend three specific changes to its duties, powers, and responsibilities: (1) renaming the committee as the “Audit and Finance Committee” to reflect its broader oversight role, (2) clarifying Section 2.88.100(g) to ensure clear oversight of the City’s internal controls and audit reports, and (3) adding a new provision related to the review of artificial intelligence as it relates to financial management, internal controls, risk, and compliance. 185
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
189 of 266
On October 7, 2025, the City Council conducted a study session on the proposed amendments and referred additional items back to the Audit Committee for further consideration, including potential expanded financial oversight responsibilities and meeting frequency. Specifically, Council requested the Audit Committee to consider:
- Increasing the regular meeting frequency from four to up to six meetings per year, with flexibility to cancel meetings if there is no business; - Expanding the Committee’s financial oversight role to include review of the City’s operating and capital budgets, long-term financial forecasts, reserve policies, and major financial transactions;
- Considering the establishment of a budget subcommittee; and - Providing direction that Treasurer’s Reports and Investment Reports will be placed on the City Council agenda Consent Calendar for receipt, rather than as informational memoranda. This change has been implemented.

On April 27, 2026, the Audit Committee considered the additional items referred by the City Council. Following discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended retaining the three previously proposed Municipal Code amendments and maintaining the existing quarterly meeting schedule rather than increasing the number of regular meetings. The Committee also recommended utilizing the City's Internal Audit Work Program as an alternative means of providing additional financial and operational oversight.

Separately, as part of the City's recent departmental reorganization, the Department of Administrative Services was renamed the Department of Finance and the Director of Administrative Services was retitled Director of Finance. Section 2.88.110 of the Municipal Code currently references the Director of Administrative Services and is therefore proposed to be updated to reflect the current position title. This is an administrative update and does not change the duties or responsibilities established by Chapter 2.88.

Consistent with that direction, additional internal audit projects were subsequently considered by the Audit Committee at its July 27, 2026 meeting. The proposed Internal Audit Work Program, including the associated request for additional funding, will be presented separately to the City Council on September 15, 2026.

Analysis
The originally proposed amendments are intended to modernize the Committee’s scope and align it with evolving best practices in public sector financial oversight. Specifically:
- Name change: Renaming the Committee as the “Audit and Finance Committee” signals its role in both financial and audit-related oversight. - Section 2.88.100(g): Clarifying this section strengthens accountability around the City’s system of internal controls while maintaining existing oversight of internal audit reports.
- Section 2.88.100(i): Adding this new duty recognizes the increasing use of artificial intelligence tools in financial reporting, internal controls, risk management, and compliance, and ensures the committee remains equipped to evaluate emerging risks and opportunities.
186
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
190 of 266
In response to the City Council's October 7, 2025 direction, the Audit Committee reconsidered its meeting frequency and potential expansion of its financial oversight responsibilities. After discussion, the Committee unanimously recommended maintaining its existing quarterly meeting schedule and did not recommend establishing a budget subcommittee or expanding the Committee's direct involvement in the City's annual budget process.

Instead, the Committee recommended utilizing the City's Internal Audit Work Program to provide additional independent review of financial and operational areas. This approach maintains the Committee's oversight role while leveraging the expertise of Baker Tilly, the City's contracted internal auditor, to conduct targeted reviews identified through the annual work program.

At its July 27, 2026 meeting, the Audit Committee considered additional projects for inclusion in the Internal Audit Work Program. The proposed work program and related funding request will be presented separately to the City Council on September 15, 2026.

Next Steps
If the proposed Municipal Code amendments are introduced, staff will return to the City Council for second reading and adoption of the ordinance. Separately, the Audit Committee's recommended Internal Audit Work Program and associated funding request will be presented to the City Council on September 15, 2026.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impacts.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

City Work Program Item/Description
None
City Council Goal
Fiscal Strategy
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
- Section 2.88.110: Currently references the Director of Administrative Services in connection with staff support for the Committee. The proposed amendment updates the title to Director of Finance to reflect the City's current organizational structure. The amendment is administrative and does not modify the authority, duties, or responsibilities of the position.

Prepared by: Jonathan Orozco, Director of Finance
187
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
191 of 266
Reviewed by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:

A – Draft Ordinance (Redline)
B – Draft Ordinance (Clean)
188
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
192 of 266
1 ORDINANCE NO. 26-____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.88 TO RENAME THE AUDIT

COMMITTEE AS THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, UPDATE ITS

DUTIES, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND UPDATE THE DIRECTOR OF

FINANCE TITLE
The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. On May 20, 2025, the City Council directed the Audit Committee to consider amendments to its duties, powers, and responsibilities and recommend changes for City Council consideration.

2. On July 28, 2025, the Audit Committee unanimously recommended amendments to Chapter 2.88 of the Cupertino Municipal Code to: (1) rename the “Audit Committee” as the “Audit and Finance Committee”; (2) clarify Section 2.88.100(g) regarding oversight of the City’s internal controls and internal audit reports; and (3) add a new provision regarding the review of artificial intelligence as it relates to financial management, internal controls, risk, and compliance.

3. On October 7, 2025, the City Council considered the proposed amendments and referred additional matters to the Audit Committee for further consideration, including meeting frequency and potential expanded financial oversight responsibilities.

4. On April 27, 2026, the Audit Committee considered the additional matters referred by the City Council and unanimously recommended retaining the three previously proposed Municipal Code amendments and maintaining the Committee’s existing meeting frequency.

5. The City Council subsequently renamed the Department of Administrative Services as the Department of Finance and retitled the Director of Administrative Services as the Director of Finance. Section 2.88.110 is amended to reflect the current position title.
189
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
193
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
193 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 2 ends

6. The proposed amendments modernize and clarify the Audit Committee’s duties, powers, and responsibilities and reflect its broader role in financial and auditrelated oversight.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A.

SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, or its application to any person or circumstance, be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unlawful, unenforceable or otherwise void, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of such portion, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. To the extent the provisions of this Ordinance are substantially the same as previous provisions of the Cupertino Municipal Code, these provisions shall be construed as continuations of those provisions and not as an amendment to or readoption of the earlier provisions.

SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act.

This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action would have 190
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
194
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
194 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 3 ends

no or only a de minimis effect on the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

Pursuant to Government Code Section 36933, a summary of this Ordinance may be prepared by the City Clerk and published in lieu of publication of the entire text. The City Clerk shall post in the office of the City Clerk a certified copy of the full text of the Ordinance listing the names of the City Council members voting for and against the ordinance.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 1, 2026 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on ______, 2026 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
______________________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_______________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
191
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
195
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
195 of 266
Attachment A –
Amendments To Municipal Code Section 2.88 Title and Sections 2.88.010, 2.88.020,

2.88.030, 2.880.60, 288.070, 2.88.100, 2.88.110, and 2.88.120 CHAPTER 2.88: AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

2.88.010 Established–Composition.

A. The Audit and Finance Committee of the City is established. The Audit and Finance Committee shall consist of five members as follows:

1. Two City Council members;

2. A minimum of Two and a maximum of three at large members who are not officials or employees of the City nor cohabit with, as defined by law, nor be related by blood or marriage to, any member of the committee, the City Manager or the staff person or persons assigned to the committee.

2.88.020 At Large Member–Qualifications.

An Audit and Finance Committee at large member is not required to be a Cupertino resident. In selecting an at large member, the City Council shall give priority to individuals who have substantial accounting, audit, or investment experience, preferably in connection with a governmental agency.

2.88.030 Terms of Office.

A. Audit and Finance Committee members serve at the pleasure of the City Council.

The term of office of the members of the Audit and Finance Committee shall be for four years commencing on the date of their respective appointments to the Audit and Finance Committee and shall end on January 30th of the year the terms are due to expire. No Audit and Finance Committee member shall serve more than two consecutive terms unless he or she has been appointed to the committee to fill an unexpired term of less than two years.

B. The appointment, reappointment and rules governing incumbent members of the Audit and Finance Committee are governed by the Resolution of the City Council which governs advisory bodies.

2.88.040 Members–Vacancy Prior to Expiration of a Term.

If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by the City Council’s appointment for the unexpired portion of the term.

2.88.050 Chairperson.

The committee shall elect its chairperson and vice chairperson from among its members and shall appoint a secretary. Terms of the chairperson and vice chairperson shall be for 192
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
196
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
196 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 2 ends

one year. Upon approval of the City Council, the City Manager may appoint a secretary who need not be a member of the committee.

2.88.060 Meetings.

A. The Audit and Finance Committee shall establish a regular time and place of meeting and rules of conduct thereof and shall hold at least one regular meeting quarterly.

B. A majority of the Audit and Finance Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the committee.

2.88.070 Compensation–Expenses.

Members shall serve on the Audit and Finance Committee without compensation, but all necessary expenses reasonably incurred by them while acting in their official capacity shall be paid by appropriate action of the City Council.

2.88.080 Majority Vote Required.

A majority vote of the quorum is required to approve a recommendation on any matter that is presented to the committee which requires a vote.

2.88.090 Records.

The committee shall keep an accurate record of its proceedings and transactions and shall render such reports to the City Council and Planning Commission as may be required. These records shall be filed with the City Clerk.

2.88.100 Duties–Powers–Responsibilities.

The powers and functions of the Audit and Finance Committee shall be as follows:

A. To review the annual audit report and management letter; B. To recommend appointment of auditors;
C. To review the Quarterly Treasurer’s investment report; D. To recommend a budget format;
E. To review City investment policies and internal controls of such policies; F. To recommend appointment of internal auditors;
G. To review the City’s internal controls and internal audit reports; H.To review quarterly Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program reports; I. To review the use of artificial intelligence in the City’s financial reporting, internal controls over financial reporting, risk management, and compliance.

2.88.110 City Staff Assistance.

The Audit and Finance Committee shall have available to it such assistance of City staff as may be required to perform its functions, the staff assignments and administrative 193
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
197
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
197 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 3 ends

procedures to be under the general direction and supervision of the Director of Finance Administrative Services.

2.88.120 Procedural Rules.

The Audit and Finance Committee may adopt from time to time such rules of procedure as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and duties. Such rules shall be subject to approval by the Council before becoming effective. All such rules shall be kept on file with the chairperson of the Audit and Finance Committee, the Mayor, and the City Clerk and a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon request.

2.88.130 Effect.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting or curtailing any powers of the City Council or City officers.
194
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
198
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
198 of 266
1 ORDINANCE NO. 26-____

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 2.88 TO RENAME THE AUDIT

COMMITTEE AS THE AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE, UPDATE ITS

DUTIES, POWERS, AND RESPONSIBILITIES, AND UPDATE THE DIRECTOR OF

FINANCE TITLE
The City Council of the City of Cupertino finds that:

1. On May 20, 2025, the City Council directed the Audit Committee to consider amendments to its duties, powers, and responsibilities and recommend changes for City Council consideration.

5. The City Council subsequently renamed the Department of Administrative Services as the Department of Finance and retitled the Director of Administrative Services as the Director of Finance. Section 2.88.110 is amended to reflect the current position title.
195
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
199 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 2 ends

6. The proposed amendments modernize and clarify the Audit Committee’s duties, powers, and responsibilities and reflect its broader role in financial and auditrelated oversight.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE OF CITY OF CUPERTINO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Adoption.

The Cupertino Municipal Code is hereby amended as set forth in Attachment A.

SECTION 2: Severability and Continuity.

SECTION 3: California Environmental Quality Act.

This Ordinance is not a project under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, together with related State CEQA Guidelines (collectively, “CEQA”) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment. In the event that this Ordinance is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility that the action approved may have a significant effect on the environment. CEQA applies only to actions which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance, the proposed action would have 196
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
200 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 3 ends

no or only a de minimis effect on the environment. The foregoing determination is made by the City Council in its independent judgment.

SECTION 4: Effective Date.

This Ordinance shall take effect thirty days after adoption as provided by Government Code Section 36937.

SECTION 5: Publication.

The City Clerk shall give notice of adoption of this Ordinance as required by law.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on September 1, 2026 and ENACTED at a regular meeting of the Cupertino City Council on ______, 2026 by the following vote:

Members of the City Council
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

SIGNED:
______________________
Kitty Moore, Mayor
City of Cupertino
________________________
Date
ATTEST:
_______________________
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
________________________
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
197
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
201 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 4 ends

_______________________
Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
________________________
Date
198
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
202 of 266
Attachment A –
Amendments To Municipal Code Section 2.88 Title and Sections 2.88.010, 2.88.020,

2.88.030, 2.880.60, 288.070, 2.88.100, 2.88.110, and 2.88.120 CHAPTER 2.88: AUDIT AND FINANCE COMMITTEE

2.88.010 Established–Composition.

A. The Audit and Finance Committee of the City is established. The Audit and Finance Committee shall consist of five members as follows:

1. Two City Council members;

2.88.020 At Large Member–Qualifications.

2.88.030 Terms of Office.

A. Audit and Finance Committee members serve at the pleasure of the City Council.

B. The appointment, reappointment and rules governing incumbent members of the Audit and Finance Committee are governed by the Resolution of the City Council which governs advisory bodies.

2.88.040 Members–Vacancy Prior to Expiration of a Term.

If a vacancy occurs other than by expiration of a term, it shall be filled by the City Council’s appointment for the unexpired portion of the term.

2.88.050 Chairperson.

The committee shall elect its chairperson and vice chairperson from among its members and shall appoint a secretary. Terms of the chairperson and vice chairperson shall be for 199
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
203 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 2 ends

one year. Upon approval of the City Council, the City Manager may appoint a secretary who need not be a member of the committee.

2.88.060 Meetings.

A. The Audit and Finance Committee shall establish a regular time and place of meeting and rules of conduct thereof and shall hold at least one regular meeting quarterly.

B. A majority of the Audit and Finance Committee shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of transacting the business of the committee.

2.88.070 Compensation–Expenses.

2.88.080 Majority Vote Required.

A majority vote of the quorum is required to approve a recommendation on any matter that is presented to the committee which requires a vote.

2.88.090 Records.

2.88.100 Duties–Powers–Responsibilities.

The powers and functions of the Audit and Finance Committee shall be as follows:

A. To review the annual audit report and management letter; B. To recommend appointment of auditors;
C. To review the Quarterly Treasurer’s investment report; D. To recommend a budget format;
E. To review City investment policies and internal controls of such policies; F. To recommend appointment of internal auditors;
G. To review the City’s internal controls and internal audit reports; H. To review quarterly Fraud, Waste, and Abuse Program reports; I. To review the use of artificial intelligence in the City’s financial reporting, internal controls over financial reporting, risk management, and compliance.

2.88.110 City Staff Assistance.

The Audit and Finance Committee shall have available to it such assistance of City staff as may be required to perform its functions, the staff assignments and administrative procedures to be under the general direction and supervision of the Director of Finance. 200
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
204 of 266
Ordinance No. 26-____

Page 3 ends

2.88.120 Procedural Rules.

2.88.130 Effect.

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as restricting or curtailing any powers of the City Council or City officers.
201
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
205 of 266

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
26-15233 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Agenda #: 13.

Subject: Consider approval of response to the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (“Civil Grand Jury Report”)
Review, discuss and approve the City of Cupertino’s response to that Civil Grand Jury Report.

CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/26/2026
powered by Legistar™202
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
206 of 266
01276.0002 2185207.2

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: September 1, 2026
Subject
Consider approval of response to the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County Report entitled VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (“Civil Grand Jury Report”)
Recommended Action
Review, discuss and approve the City of Cupertino’s response to that Civil Grand Jury Report.

Background
On June 17, 2026, the 2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released the Civil Grand jury Report (Attachment A). Concerns discussed in the Report include: financial risks, oversight concerns, coordination with BART, board experience and continuity, and public communication.

The City of Cupertino, along with the other cities in Santa Clara County that appoint member to the VTA Board of Directors, has been asked to respond only to the findings and recommendations pertaining to board experience and continuity, which includes Findings 6 and 7, and Recommendations 6 and 7, listed below, with our suggested response.

Suggested Response
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(c), the City must respond to these findings and recommendations by September 15, 2026. Below is a draft suggested response for the City Council’s consideration.

Finding 6
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.”
Response: Agree.
203
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
207 of 266
01276.0002 2185207.2
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.

Response: Agree. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

Response: Agree.

Recommendation 7
The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Response: Agree. VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should consider developing a uniform process of making VTA Board appointments that includes a standard weighting system of various metrics relevant to the VTA’s purpose. Such metrics might include: board candidates’ prior appointment to or experience with the VTA Board to enhance continuity and institutional memory; board candidates’ prior expertise with or education in urban transit systems generally; board candidates’ willingness and ability to attend transit board trainings offered by industry experts; and board candidates’ other relevant experience with large regional boards. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Once a response is approved by the City Council, the Interim City Attorney will forward the respond to the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.

Fiscal Impact
No fiscal impact.

City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
None.

Council Goal:

Public Engagement and Transparency
204
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
208 of 266
01276.0002 2185207.2
California Environmental Quality Act
Not applicable.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Floy Andrews, Interim City Attorney
Reviewed by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Lauren Sapudar, City Clerk
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:

A. 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II
205
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
209 of 266
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026
206
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
210 of 266

Page 1 of 40 ends

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 8 Financial Risks.......................................................................................................................... 8 Oversight Concerns ................................................................................................................ 13 Coordination with BART....................................................................................................... 21 Board Experience and Continuity......................................................................................... 22 Public Communication........................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter ............................................................................. 32 CONFLICTS ............................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34 207
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
211 of 266

Page 2 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures. 208
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
212 of 266

Page 3 of 40 ends

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

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

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

By contract with BART, VTA is solely responsible for paying the capital and net operating costs of extending commuter rail service into Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). Although the County was not included in the legislation establishing BART, voters of Santa Clara County supported three sales tax measures which provided funds to plan, build, and operate the extension of BART to Santa Clara County. Today, 1.625% of sales tax collected in Santa Clara County supports VTA and other local jurisdictions (see Table 1). If a currently proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, in November 2026, voters will decide whether to approve an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund local transit, which would increase the County’s base sales tax rate from the current 9.75% to 10.25%.
209
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
213 of 266

Page 4 of 40 ends

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

Page 3 ends

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

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

The second phase consists of a six-mile, four-station extension from Berryessa through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. For this phase, VTA is targeting completion by 2037. As a condition of federal funding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has appointed a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC). The PMOC uses a more conservative schedule and forecasts completion in 2039 (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). 210
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
214 of 266

Page 5 of 40 ends

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

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

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

VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summer 2025). To reduce project costs, VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;
211
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
215 of 266

Page 6 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee, which depending on the availability of its members, is scheduled to meet quarterly. BART staff members have been assigned to co-locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSVII designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual. According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.).
212
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
216 of 266

Page 7 of 40 ends

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

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

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
213
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
217 of 266

Page 8 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Risk of Increased Costs of Labor and Materials
The FTA fiscal year 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment report for BSVII stated the VTA inflation estimate was optimistic. If labor and material costs were to rise above those estimated in VTA’s budget, it could lead to funding shortfalls (FTA, 2024). 214
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
218 of 266

Page 9 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid from Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voterapproved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on 215
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
219 of 266

Page 10 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12-year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART, and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026).
216
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
220 of 266

Page 11 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the forecasts for the first phase of the project, which included the new Milpitas and Berryessa stations. For January 2026, ridership was 86% below estimates (see Table 2).
217
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
221 of 266

Page 12 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons: 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overall schedule; and 2) to identify segments for which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. For each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.
218
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
222 of 266

Page 13 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

At its meeting on January 15, 2026, the Oversight Committee adopted what it called a revised charter intended to clarify the lines of communication and relationships among the auditor general, SME, VTA staff, and Oversight Committee (VTA, January 15, 2026). Members of the Oversight Committee had expressed concern about a perceived lack of coordination between VTA staff and the SME. Nonetheless, the question remains: Is the role of an SME to provide the Board with an independent review of VTA staff recommendations as originally intended, or is it to help VTA staff improve their recommendations? Notably, in the following excerpt, the Charter requires the 219
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
223 of 266

Page 14 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction.
220
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
224 of 266

Page 15 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner.
221
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
225 of 266

Page 16 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin-bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of 222
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
226 of 266

Page 17 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the Oversight Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. On 223
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
227 of 266

Page 18 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More importantly, neither the auditor general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:
224
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
228 of 266

Page 19 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Since the Oversight Committee meeting on October 9, 2025, committee members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA 225
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
229 of 266

Page 20 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general. 226
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
230 of 266

Page 21 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing 227
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
231 of 266

Page 22 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code, which states “Appointing Authorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13).
228
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
232 of 266

Page 23 of 40 ends

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

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

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

More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses:
229
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
233 of 266

Page 24 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

Lengthening terms would require a change to VTA’s enabling legislation. The findings of the State and VTA’s own auditors’ governance reform recommendations remain unchanged. 230
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
234 of 266

Page 25 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine.
231
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
235 of 266

Page 26 of 40 ends

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

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

Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes:
• There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs, reliance on expiring voterapproved sales tax measures, uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership.
• When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VTA project staff, but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues.
• The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee.
• There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence.
• VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project. 232
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
236 of 266

Page 27 of 40 ends

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 4
Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board. 233
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
237 of 266

Page 28 of 40 ends

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 7
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
234
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
238 of 266

Page 29 of 40 ends

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

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

Recommendation 9
VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues:
• Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy; 235
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
239 of 266

Page 30 of 40 ends

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.
236
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
240 of 266

Page 31 of 40 ends

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

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

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6
The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
237
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
241 of 266

Page 32 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter
238
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
242 of 266

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

239
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
243 of 266

Page 34 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026.
240
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
244 of 266

Page 35 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 22, 2026.

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

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-areatransitagencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026
Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026. 241
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
245 of 266

Page 36 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.
242
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
246 of 266

Page 37 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 23, 2026.

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

6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

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

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.
243
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
247 of 266

Page 38 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Accessed May 13, 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancelsfunding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026. 244
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
248 of 266

Page 39 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transitproject-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026. 245
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
249 of 266

Page 40 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
246
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
250 of 266

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14662 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Agenda #: 14.

Subject: City Manager Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/26/2026
powered by Legistar™247
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
251 of 266
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
A Message from the City Manager
Dear Neighbors,
I hope you had a restful summer and have had opportunities to enjoy time with family, friends, and neighbors. It has been a busy summer in Cupertino bringing residents of all ages together for community events and activities.

As we look toward fall, the City continues to move forward on important priorities, including work to maintain existing law enforcement levels and negotiations on the Sheriff’s Office contract. The City is also preparing for the Cupertino Community Service Awards, which will recognize outstanding members of the community and their service.

In this edition, you’ll find information on the CREST Awards winners, as well as highlights from community events including National Night Out, the India Independence Day Flag Raising, and the Bell Ringing for Peace ceremony. You’ll also find information about upcoming fall recreation activities, and other opportunities to get involved and stay active.

I hope you enjoy the final days of summer and the start of the fall season. Thank you, as always, for staying engaged and connected with your community as we continue working together for Cupertino.

Read the full City Manager’s Newsletter August 26, 2026 and all previous editions at cupertino.gov/cmnewsletter.

Warm Regards,
Tina Kapoor, City Manager
248
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
252 of 266

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14636 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Agenda #: 15.

Subject: Councilmember Reports
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/26/2026
powered by Legistar™249
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
253 of 266
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 1, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember J.R. Fruen
Report Dates: 7/14/26 to 8/24/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:

Event 1. July 16, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.

Event 2. July 16, 2026 – Briefing on Ballot Measures – Together with Councilmember Mohan, I attended a staff briefing on the two proposed ballot measures for council consideration and referral to voters.

Event 3. July 23, 2026 – Cities Association of Santa Clara County JPA Executive Committee Meeting – I attended the meeting of the CASCC Executive Committee in my capacity as 1st Vice President of the JPA. Agenda materials are available here.

Event 4. August 4, 2026 – National Night Out – I attended multiple National Night Out gatherings that requested councilmember presence. It was heartening to see so many residents engaged and active in community.

Event 5. August 6, 2026 – Bell-Ringing For Peace – Together with Mayor Moore and ViceMayor Chao, I attended the annual Bell-Ringing for Peace ceremony commemorating the bombing of Japan during the Second World War.

Event 6. August 8, 2026 – Library Aquarium Unveiling – I attended the unveiling of the Library’s refurbished and restored aquarium in my capacity as the Council appointee to the Santa Clara County Library District.
250
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
254 of 266
City Council Councilmember Report
2 Event 7. August 11, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.

Event 8. August 12, 2026 – Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board Meeting – I attended this meeting in my capacity as the Alternate Director for Cupertino.

Event 9. August 13, 2026 – India Flag Raising Ceremony – Together with Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao, and Councilmember Mohan, I attended this annual flag raising ceremony hosted by the Cupertino-Bhubaneswar Sister City Initiative in honor of India’s independence.

Event 10. August 17, 2026 – Book Presentation and Signing for “Hope Is the Strategy” – At the invitation of the Santa Clara County Library District, I introduced Jen Fisher, the author of Hope Is the Strategy, for a public reading, discussion and book signing hosted at the Cupertino Library.

Event 11. August 19, 2026 – Meeting with the City Manager – I met with City Manager Tina Kapoor to go over upcoming council agenda items, items of interest, and issues raised by residents.

Event 12. August 22, 2026 – Qmunity Rainbow Crosswalk Painting – At the invitation of Assemblymember Alex Lee and together with other public officials, I attended the inauguration and public installation of a new Rainbow Crosswalk in the Qmunity District on Post Street in San Jose in advance of Silicon Valley Pride. 251
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
255 of 266
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 1, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Councilmember Sheila Mohan
Report Dates: 7/14/26 to 8/24/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:
7/16/26 Participated in a TEAMS meeting conducted by Staff – to review agenda items for the July 21 Council meeting. These included a discussion of the survey results on the tax measures being considered at that time by Council, the continuation of the tax-sharing agreement with Insight Software Solutions, and approval of the final map of The Rise development.

7/19/26 Attended A Taste of Cupertino, an art and wine festival held at Main Street. This was the first time that the Chamber of Commerce hosted this event. Despite the conflicting date with the World Cup Soccer finals, there was a good crowd of families and children enjoying the festive atmosphere. Kudos to the Chamber for organizing this. 7/26/26 Attended the Shakespeare in the Park performance of Antony and Cleopatra.

This was exceptionally well done, and the setting of Memorial Park with the late evening sun was quite spectacular. The crowd appeared to enjoy the play with its themes of conflict between duty and personal relationships and their impact on political events. 8/13/26 Along with Mayor Moore, Vice Mayor Chao and Councilmember Fruen, I attended the India Independence Day Flag Raising ceremony at the Civic Center Plaza. A well-attended event, with beautiful dance performances and even a flash mob and graced by many bay area officials, including the Deputy Consul General of India. This was his last assignment in America – he returns to India next month. The entire event, other than the flag raising, was held indoors much to everyone’s relief. The outside temperature exceeded 85 degrees.
252
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
256 of 266
1 CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Meeting: September 1, 2026
Reporting Councilmember: Mayor Kitty Moore
Report Dates: 7/13/26 to 8/24/26
Item Date, Title, and Description:

July 14, 2026. Attended 2026 Bird-Friendly City Innovation Contest Awards Ceremony with Silicon Vallet Bird Alliance and artists from Eagle City at Visionary Arts. Provided remarks and presented certificates to visiting students interested in ecology and protection of the eagle migration routes.

July 15, 2026. Silicon Valley Hopper Ribbon Cutting Ceremony in Santa Clara. Attended and provided remarks at the expansion event in Santa Clara. We are excited to see SV Hopper expanding into north Santa Clara and thank you to our staff who have continued to seek grant funding opportunities for this popular transit option!
July 15, 2026. Provided remarks for the opening of the GenAI Pitch Competition by AWS in Community Hall.
253
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
257
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
257 of 266
City Council Mayor Moore Report
2 July 21, 2026. Meeting with Sheriff Deputy Association representatives, the City Manager, and Councilmember Wang regarding the sheriff contract.

July 21, 2026. Regular City Council Meeting.

Start of Council Summer Break

July 22, 2026. FIFA event planning meeting with staff.

July 22, 2026. Cal Cities Capitol Countdown: Top Remaining Bills webinar.

July 22, 2026. Meeting with Kevin Duggan and the City Manager RE Evaluation process.

July 22, 2026. Cupertino Kicks – FIFA Ball Giveaway, Mayor’s Initiative. Through the US Conference of Mayors, Cupertino secured 200 FREE FIFA Soccer balls and distributed them in a very fun event, sharing our thanks for FIFA and celebrating the World Cup.

July 23, 2026. ILG Lunch and Learn: How to Plan Effective Public Workshops.

July 23, 2026. Sheriff contract meeting.

July 23, 2026. Meeting with City Manager and Veterans’ Day Celebration sponsors regarding succession planning.
254
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
258
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
258 of 266
City Council Mayor Moore Report
3 July 24, 2026. Attended TECO screening of “A Chip Odyssey”, a documentary about the Taiwan chip manufacturing industry.

July 27, 2026. Meeting with Saratoga Planning Commissioner Li Ping.

July 27, 2026. Cupertino Audit Committee meeting. Due to noticing issue the meeting was held as a Special Meeting July 28, 2026. Discussed upcoming internal audit program projects and ranking.

July 28, 2026. Meeting with Homestead FBLA representative to discuss potential student projects for their upcoming year.

August 4, 2026. National Night Kick Off. Started with a meet and greet with Santa Clara County Sheriffs followed by neighborhood block parties at Seven Springs and Hoover Park. Great to see everyone out and about having fun. The Hoover Park visit by the K9 Sheriff Unit and the Santa Clara County Fire fighters and fire truck was a hit with the large crowd that came out.

August 6, 2026. Attended and made remarks at the Toyokawa Sister City Bell Ringing for Peace at Memorial Park which marks the tragic Nagasaki and Hiroshima bombings at the end of WW2.

August 11, 2026. Special City Council Closed Session meeting.

August 12, 2026. Interview with Mayor Moore re: Citizenship in Community Merit Badge[Inperson]. Participated in an interview by two Scouts for their Merit Badge.

August 12, 2026. Sheriff Contract ad hoc Committee meeting. 255
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
259
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
259 of 266
City Council Mayor Moore Report
4 August 13, 2026. Staff planning meeting.

August 13, 2026. Staff informational meeting.

August 13, 2026. India Independence Day Flag Raising: made remarks and enjoyed the celebrations for the 80th celebration.

August 16, 2026. FOG India Day Parade. Participated in the huge parade in Fremont for India Independence Day. Here is the float from Odisha, where our Bhubaneswar Sister City is located:

August 16, 2026. Attended and made remarks at Cupertino’s First Annual Inclusive Talent Show at Community Hall. This was an especially proud moment for Cupertino to share gifts of musical instrument talents, singing, poetry reading, comedy, and even a Rubic’s cube master.

Thank you to opp4comm.org organizers for this wonderful community event! August 17, 2026. Cupertino and Los Altos Hills meeting.

August 18, 2026. Sheriff’s Contract meeting.

August 18, 2026. Mayor’s Initiative Planning Meeting.
256
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
260
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
260 of 266
City Council Mayor Moore Report
5 August 19, 2026. Cupertino and Los Altos Hills Planning meeting.

August 20, 2026. Agenda review through October.

August 22, 2026. Presented certificate and made remarks at the Taiwan Kids funfest which had over 20 nations represented.

August 23, 2026. Provided remarks and Certificates for Pastor Diana Brady and Pastor Mark Brady who have been providing support for the Veterans Day and Wreaths Across America events. Their thoughtful words have enriched these events for many years, providing comfort to our Veterans and their families. They will be missed by our community, and we wish them all the best as they embark on a new chapter in their lives.

August 24, 2023. Interview with San Jose Spotlight.

Upcoming Events:

Tree Planting
Join Mayor Kitty Moore for a community tree planting event at Blackberry Farm. Help plant trees, connect with neighbors, and beautify Cupertino.

Breakfast will be provided. Please wear comfortable clothing and sturdy shoes, and bring your own work gloves. Event is limited to 30 volunteers.

Date: Saturday, September 5
Time: 8 to 10 a.m.

Location: Blackberry Farm, 21979 San Fernando Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014 RSVP: cupertino.gov/treeplanting
257
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
261
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
261 of 266
City Council Mayor Moore Report
6 Move Moore Challenge
Get moving with the Move Moore Challenge! From September 7 through October 7, track your minutes of physical activity and encourage family, friends, and neighbors to join you. Every minute counts toward our community-wide goal to get moving together.

Date: Monday, September 7 through Wednesday, October 7
How to Participate: Learn how to sign up and track your activity at cupertino.gov/movemoore.

258
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
262
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
262 of 266

CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
25-14706 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Agenda #: 16.

Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
CITY OF CUPERTINO Page 1 of 1 Printed on 8/26/2026
powered by Legistar™259
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
263 of 266
Upcoming Draft Agenda Items

CITY OF CUPERTINO
City Council
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
Ceremonial Items
26-15363 Subject: Recognition of Cupertino High School students on their achievements in the 2026 Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA) National Leadership Conference.

Consent Calendar
26-15350 Subject: Receive Grants Management Internal Control Review Final Report
26-15305 Subject: Adoption of Resolution No. 26-083 authorizing the City Manager to accept $850,000 in federal grant funds from the Community Project Funding Program, awarding a Design Professional Services Agreement to Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. for a total not to exceed amount of $1,278,700, for the McClellan Road Bridge Project, and authorizing City Manager to execute the agreement. (Postponed on July 21, 2026) 25-14330 Subject: Second Reading and enactment of Amendments to Municipal Code Section 2.88.100 Duties-Powers-Responsibilities of the Audit Committee
25-14441 Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending 25-14456 Subject: Receive the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter Ending 25-14684 Subject: Approval of September 1, 2026 City Council meeting minutes Public Hearings
26-15201 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) to revise definitions of “attic” and “garages” and establish a new definition of “square footage” to align with state law, and associated Environmental Review. (Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide)
Future Agenda Items
25-14707 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
25-14521 Subject: Approval to execute a contract with Santa Clara County Office of the Sheriff for a five-year period 2025/26 to 2030/31

Page 1 ends

DRAFT
260
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
264 of 266
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
26-15227 Subject: Consider Approval of the City Council Response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, "Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County."
26-15034 Subject: Receipt and Review of Baker Tilly City Council Policy Review Report; Direction to Staff
26-15351 Subject: FY 2026-27 Internal Audit Work Program Councilmember Reports
25-14637 Subject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14663 Subject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, October 6, 2026
Ceremonial Items
26-14867 Subject: Recognition of the Community Development Department (Planning, Building, Housing, and Code Enforcement Divisions) Consent Calendar
25-14450 Subject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Report for 25-14685 Subject: Approval of September 15, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14432 Subject: Receive the Monthly Treasurer's Investment Report for 26-15214 Subject: Second Reading and enactment of an Ordinance Amending Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 19.08 (Definitions) to revise definitions of “attic” and “garages” and establish a new definition of “square footage” to align with state law, and associated Environmental Review. (Applicant: City of Cupertino; Location: City-wide) Public Hearings
26-15282 Subject: Introduction of an Ordinance Amending the Cupertino Municipal Code regarding Parkland Re-Zoning and General Plan Amendment
26-15362 Subject: Conduct the public hearing under the requirements of the Tax and Equity Fiscal Responsibility Act (TEFRA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”).

Future Agenda Items
25-14708 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Action Calendar
26-15365 Subject: Adoption of the Health and Safety Element 26-15349 Subject: FY 2025-2027 City Work Program Year 1 Wrap up Councilmember Reports
25-14644 Subject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report

Page 2 ends

DRAFT
261
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
265 of 266
Wednesday, August 26, 2026
25-14664 Subject: City Manager Report
Tuesday, October 20, 2026
Consent Calendar
25-14686 Subject: Approval of October 6, 2026 City Council meeting minutes 25-14442 Subject: Ratifying Accounts Payable for the periods ending 26-15336 Subject: Award of contract to XXX for Gymnastics Class Programs and Camps for a total not-to-exceed amount of $XXX; Authority to Extend for Two Additional Years for Five-Year Total Not to Exceed $XXX 26-15283 Subject: Second Reading and enactment of Cupertino Municipal Code regarding Parkland Re-zoning and General Plan Amendment 26-15370 Subject: Blue Pheasant Lease
Future Agenda Items
25-14709 Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items Report
Councilmember Reports
25-14645 Subject: Councilmember Reports
City Manager Report
25-14665 Subject: City Manager Report

Page 3 ends

DRAFT
262
CC 09-01-2026 Searchable Packet
266 of 266

Cupertino City CouncilSeptember 1, 2026

Cupertino City Council
September 1, 2026