September 15, 2026 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 1
JOINT MEETING OF THE MILPITAS
CITY COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
AGENDA
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15, 2026
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 455 E. CALAVERAS BLVD, MILPITAS, CA 6:00 PM (CLOSED SESSION)
7:00 PM (PUBLIC BUSINESS)
For assistance in the following languages, you may call:
Đối với Việt Nam, gọi 408-586-2400
Para sa Tagalog, tumawag sa 408-586-3051
Para español, llame 408-586-3072
* To access written translation during the meeting, scan the QR Code.
The City Council meeting is held in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.
You may watch the Council meeting without providing public comment by accessing it via links here.
Meeting shall be livestreamed - Go to:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CityofMilpitas/
YouTube: https://www.milpitas.gov/youtube
Web Streaming: https://www.milpitas.gov/webstreaming
PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Members of the public may provide oral public comment in person during the City Council meeting or remotely via Zoom.
Individual speakers are generally limited to three (3) minutes or less, as determined by the Mayor. Members of the public may provide one comment per agenda item and one comment during General Public Comment. Written comments may be submitted by email to [email protected]. To participate via Zoom, please register at:
https://ci-milpitas-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_dr6wuBfFSjmYMiOiC60vEw NOTE: If a member of the public wishes to share any presentation materials for Council consideration, they must be submitted to the Clerk’s Office by email to [email protected] by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. No presentations will be accepted in person in the Council Chambers.
For complete information about attending meetings, providing public comment, remote participation, language access services, accessibility accommodations, and viewing options, visit: https://www.milpitas.gov/1443/Participating-in-City-Council- Meetings
MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
• Be respectful and courteous (words, tone, and body language). • Model civility.
• Avoid surprises.
• Praise publicly and criticize privately.
• Focus on the issue, not the person.
• Use electronic devices appropriately while on the Council dais. • Disclose conflicts of interest and affiliations related to agenda items. • Separate governing from campaigning.
• The Council speaks with one voice after making policy on issues. • Respect the line between policy and administration.
• Council will hold one another accountable to comply with this Code of Conduct.
September 15, 2026 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 2
CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk (6:00 PM)
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
(a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1) In the Matter of ShaRon Lewis v City of Milpitas, et al., Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, Case No. 22CV398994
City as Defendant
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT:
Report on action taken in Closed Session, if required per Government Code Section 54957.1, including the vote or abstention of each member present.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION (Councilmember Chua)
PRESENTATIONS
● IT Professionals Day (Proclamation)
● Mexican Independence Day (Proclamation)
● Childhood Cancer Awareness Month (Proclamation)
● Milpitas Cancer Kids First (Commendation)
PUBLIC FORUM
Members of the public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on today’s agenda within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Milpitas City Council. Comments will be limited to three minutes or less at the Mayor’s discretion. When called to speak, you are encouraged to state your name for the record. As an item not listed on the agenda, no action can be taken, however the City Council may instruct the City Manager to place the item on a future meeting agenda.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
READING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent calendar items are considered to be routine and will be considered for adoption by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a City Councilmember, member of the audience or staff requests the Council to remove an item from (or be added to) the consent calendar. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar.
C1. Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408- 586-3001)
Recommendation: Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings for September and October 2026.
C2. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586- 3001)
Recommendation: Approve City Council Meeting minutes of September 1, 2026.
September 15, 2026 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 3
C3. Receive the Preview List of Anticipated Items for the Next Regular City Council Meeting (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Receive the list of anticipated agenda items for the next regular City Council meeting.
C4. Receive and Review the List of Agenda Items Requested by City Councilmembers (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Receive the list of items that have been requested by City Councilmembers and received consensus in previous meetings to date.
C5. Authorize the City Manager to Send a Response Letter to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report on Pothole Damage Claims (Staff Contact: Scott Transou, Assistant City Manager 408-586-3012)
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to send a response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County."
C6. Authorize the City Manager to Send a Response Letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report on VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (Staff Contact: Scott Transou, Assistant City Manager 408-586-3012) Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to send a response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” C7. Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2026 Biennial Update to the City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001; and Christian M.
Curtis, City Attorney, 408-586-3041)
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the 2026 biennial update to the City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code, including the revised list of designated positions and disclosure categories and the requirement for electronic filing of Statements of Economic Interests beginning January 1, 2027.
C8. Consider Recommendations from Mayor Montano for Appointments to City Commissions (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3005)
Recommendation: Receive Mayor Montano's recommendations and approve and confirm recommendations for appointments to City Commissions.
C9. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Amendment to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602)
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute an amendment to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. to add scope of work, schedules, and pricing for park restrooms and currently inactive locations and services and to add $511,927 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $2,998,790, subject to appropriation by the City Council through the annual budget adoption process.
C10. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute Purchase Orders with Multiple Vendors for Maintenance Supplies, Materials, and Related Services (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602)
September 15, 2026 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 4
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute purchase orders with 34 vendors for as-required citywide purchases of maintenance supplies, materials, and related services for a five-year term beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2031, in the individual not-to-exceed amounts set forth in Attachment A and a combined five-year total not to exceed $11,850,000, subject to appropriation by the City Council through the annual budget adoption process; and find, pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section I-2-3.03, that the award of multiple purchase orders within each supply category and the sole source and limited source awards identified in Attachment A are in the best interest of the City.
C11. Approve the Improvement Agreement with CDP Development, Inc., for an Amazon Distribution Warehouse Building Located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303) Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute an Improvement Agreement between the City of Milpitas and CDP Development, Inc., secured by performance and labor and material bonds, each in the amount of $2,915,746 for an Amazon distribution warehouse located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive.
C12. Approve City Council Requests to Attend the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce’s 67th Annual Awards Ceremony (Staff Contact: Julie Minot, Senior City Manager Analyst, 408-586-3054) Recommendation: Approve requests by Mayor Montano, Vice Mayor Barbadillo, Councilmembers Chua, Lam, and Lien, and City Manager Hopkins to attend the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce’s 67th Annual Awards Ceremony on September 18, 2026 for an estimated total amount of $600.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Members of the public may be allotted up to three (3) minutes or less at the Mayor’s discretion, to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of ten (10) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Council’s consent at the meeting.
13. Approve the Draft Program Year 2025 Community Development Block Grant Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (Staff Contact: John Hall, Housing Official, 408-586- 3017)
Recommendation: (1) Approve the draft Program Year (PY) 2025 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER); and (2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to make necessary changes and submit the approved draft PY 2025 CAPER to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to comply with CDBG requirements.
14. Receive a Presentation on the Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program and Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute a Three-Year Agreement with Verra Mobility for Red Light Camera Equipment and Services (Staff Contact: Jared Hernandez, Chief of Police, 408-586-2406)
Recommendation: (1) Receive a presentation on the Red Light Camera Traffic Safety Program; and (2) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute an agreement for red light camera equipment and services with Verra Mobility for a three-year term in an amount not-to-exceed $500,000 annually and a total of $1,500,000 for the term of the agreement.
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE
September 15, 2026 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 5
15. Receive a Presentation on the Condition of the Milpitas Community Center and Provide Direction (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303)
Recommendation: Receive a presentation on the condition of the Milpitas Community Center and provide direction to proceed with the improvement or replacement option.
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the City Council or City Manager may make brief announcements at this time. Members of the City Council may also suggest future agenda items. For future agenda items, the City Council shall not debate the topic or engage in discussion but shall simply state a “yes” or “no” as whether to move the item forward. If a majority of the City Council agrees to move the item forward, the City Manager shall place the item on a future agenda.
ADJOURNMENT
KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions and other City agencies exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and City operations are open to the people’s review. For more information on your rights under the Open Government Ordinance or to report a violation, contact the City Attorney’s office at Milpitas City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035 e-mail: [email protected] / Phone: 408-586-3040
The Open Government Ordinance is codified in the Milpitas Municipal Code as Title I Chapter 310 and is available online at the City’s website www.milpitas.gov by selecting the Milpitas Municipal Code link.
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after initial distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s office at Milpitas City Hall, 3rd floor 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas and on City website. City Council agendas and related materials can be viewed online: www.milpitas.gov/government/council/agenda_minutes.asp (select meeting date)
APPLY TO SERVE ON A CITY COMMISSION
Commission application forms are available online at www.milpitas.gov or at Milpitas City Hall.
Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 408-586-3001 for more information.
If you need assistance, per the Americans with Disabilities Act, for any City of Milpitas public meeting, please call the City Clerk at 408-586-3005 or send an e-mail to [email protected] prior to the meeting. Larger font agendas are available upon request.
MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
September 2026
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 6:00 PM-Closed Session
7:00 PM-City Council
2 2:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Monthly
Briefing - Northeast Group (CM)
(Santa Clara)
3 5:30 PM-Santa Clara VTA Board of
Directors (CM)
5:30 PM-Milpitas Chamber of
Commerce Board (GB)
4 5
6 7
CITY HOLIDAY
City Hall Closed
8 9
7:00 PM-Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Board of Directors (GB) (Sunnyvale)
10 4:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Policy
Advisory Committee (EC)
4:00 PM-Treatment Plant Advisory
Committee (CM) (San Jose)
6:00 PM-Youth Advisory Commission
(HL)
7:00 PM-Cities Assoc of SCC (CM)
11 12
13 14
4:30 PM-Economic Development and
Trade Commission (WL)
7:00 PM- Parks, Recreation &
Cultural Resources Commission (EC)
15 5:00 PM-Closed Session
7:00 PM-City Council
16 4:00 PM-City Council Finance
Subcommittee (CM/EC)
6:00 PM-Energy and Environmental
Sustainability Commission (EC)
17 6:30 PM-Bay Area Water Supply
Conserv Agency (CM) (Oak Room -
San Mateo Main Library)
7:00 PM-Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness Commission
(WL)
18 19
20 21
7:00 PM-Technology Commission
(WL)
7:00 PM-Library and Education
Commission (HL) (Milpitas Public
Library)
22 23
24 4:00 PM-Silicon Valley Regional
Interoperability Authority (SVRIA)
(GB)
25 26
27 28
7:00 PM-Arts Commission (CM)
29 30
August 2026
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
October 2026
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR
October 2026
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday
1 5:30 PM-Milpitas Chamber of
Commerce Board (GB)
5:30 PM-Santa Clara VTA Board of
Directors (CM)
2 3
4 5
7:00 PM-Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Resources Commission (EC)
6 6:00 PM-Closed Session
7:00 PM-City Council
7 2:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Monthly
Briefing - Northeast Group (CM)
(Santa Clara)
5:30 PM-Veterans Commission (GB)
7:00 PM-Community Housing
Commission (EC)
8 4:00 PM-Treatment Plant Advisory
Committee (CM) (San Jose)
4:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Policy
Advisory Committee (EC)
6:00 PM-Youth Advisory Commission
(HL)
7:00 PM-Cities Assoc of SCC (CM)
9 10
11 12
4:30 PM-Economic Development and
Trade Commission (WL)
13 14
12:00 PM-Santa Clara Valley Water
District - Water Commission (CM)
7:00 PM-Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Board of Directors (GB) (Sunnyvale)
7:00 PM-Planning Commission
15 16
17 18
19 7:00 PM-Technology Commission
(WL)
20 5:00 PM-Closed Session
7:00 PM-City Council
21 4:00 PM-City Council Finance
Subcommittee (CM/EC)
6:00 PM-Energy and Environmental
Sustainability Commission (EC)
22 23
24 25
26 27
1:30 PM-Senior Advisory Commission
(HL)
5:30 PM-Special City Council
28 5:30 PM-Cities Assoc. of SCC -
Recycling and Waste Reduction
Commission (CM)
7:00 PM-Planning Commission
29 30
31 September 2026
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30
November 2026
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 1
JOINT SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MILPITAS CITY
COUNCIL AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY AND JOINT
REGULAR MEETING OF THE MILPITAS CITY
COUNCIL AND HOUSING AUTHORITY
MINUTES
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 2026
The City Council of the City of Milpitas convened in a Special Joint Meeting of the Milpitas City Council and Successor Agency on September 1, 2026, in the City Council Chamber, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd, Milpitas, CA, and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk Mayor Montano called the meeting to order at 5:02 PM. Roll Call was taken by City Clerk Guzzetta.
PRESENT: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
SPECIAL MEETING
The City Council convened in a Special Joint Meeting of the Milpitas City Council and Successor Agency.
1. Adopt a Resolution of the Board of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milpitas Confirming and Designating Officers of the Successor Agency (Staff Contact:
Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111)
Finance Director Cofresí-Howe introduced the item.
There were the following public speakers:
1. Voltaire Montemayor
After discussion, motion: to Adopt Resolution No. SA16 confirming and designating City officials to serve as officers of the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milpitas..
Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Councilmember Lien Motion carried by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
2. Adopt a Resolution for the Sale and Issuance of Refunding Bonds for the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer, 408-586-3111)
Assistant City Manager Transou introduced the item. Director Cofresi-Howe presented the report joined by Consultants Jim Fabian and James Wawrzyniak.
After discussion, motion: to Adopt Resolution No. SA15 of the Successor Agency Board authorizing the issuance and sale of 2026 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds (Redevelopment Project Area No. 1) in a principal amount not to exceed $40,000,000 to refund the outstanding 2015 Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds; approving the Debt Service Savings Analysis, Indenture of Trust, Bond Purchase Agreement, Irrevocable Refunding Instructions, Continuing Disclosure Certificate, and Preliminary Official
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 2
Statement; approving an underwriter's discount not to exceed 0.45% and minimum net present value savings of 3.00% of the principal amount of the 2015 Bonds refunded; and authorizing the Executive Director, Assistant Executive Director, or Chief Financial Officer/Treasurer, or designee, to execute related documents and take other actions necessary to complete the financing.
Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Mayor Montano
Motion carried by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
he City Council recessed at 5:55 PM.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
The City Council reconvened at 6:01 PM.
City Attorney Christian Curtis briefed the public that the closed session concerned anticipated litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2), arising from a written threat of litigation dated May 19, 2026. He further disclosed that the matter had since been filed as a pending lawsuit: Timber Soma MC LP and Soma Capital Partners v. City of Milpitas, Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 26CV502228.
There were the following public speakers:
1. Voltaire Montemayor
The City Council adjourned to closed session at 6:03 PM. (a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) Facts and circumstances related to potential exposure:
Written threat of litigation dated May 19, 2026 and related matters.
REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER
The City Council reconvened in a Joint Regular Meeting of the City Council and Housing Authority at 7:14 PM in the City Council Chamber, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd, Milpitas, CA, and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The City Council recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION
Councilmember Chua provided the invocation.
PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Montano, joined by the City Council, presented proclamations in recognition of Women's Equality Day, National Suicide Prevention Week, and National Preparedness Month.
CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT:
City Attorney Curtis noted there was nothing to report out from Closed Session (2nd check-in)
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 3
PUBLIC FORUM
There were the following public speakers:
1. Karan and Karamjeet
2. Voltaire Montemayor
3. Robert Burrill
4. Rob Means
ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS City Attorney Curtis asked the Mayor and City Councilmembers if they had any personal conflicts of interest.
By roll call, there were no conflicts of interest. City Attorney Curtis asked the Mayor and City Councilmembers if they had any reportable campaign contributions. By roll call, there were no reportable campaign contributions.
READING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
Mayor Montano read the City Council Code of Conduct.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Assistant City Manager Transou requested an amendment to Item 22 to add a request by Councilmember Lam to purchase a ticket to the KTSF 50th Anniversary Banquet at an estimated cost of $200. City Attorney Curtis advised that Council authorization was required. The Council found that the need for action arose after agenda publication and that immediate action was necessary as the event would occur before the next regular Council meeting.
After discussion, motion: (1) to find that the need for action came to the Council’s attention after agenda publication to amend Item 22 to add a request by Councilmember Lam to purchase a ticket to the KTSF 50th Anniversary Banquet at an estimated cost of $200; and (2) to find that immediate action is needed because the event occurs before the next Council meeting.
Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Councilmember Lam
by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
After discussion, motion: to approve the agenda as amended.
Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Councilmember Lien
by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilmember Lien asked to pull Item C11 and Councilmember Chua asked to pull Item C9.
There were no public speakers.
After discussion, motion: to approve the Consent Calendar, excluding Items C9 and C11.
Motion/Second: Councilmember Lien / Councilmember Chua
Motion carried by the following:
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 4
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
3. Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408- 586-3001)
Received City Council Calendar of Meetings for September 2026.
4. Approve City Council Meeting Minutes (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586- 3001)
Approved City Council Meeting minutes of August 3 and 11, 2026.
5. Receive the Preview List of Anticipated Items for the Next Regular City Council Meeting (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Received the list of anticipated agenda items for the next regular City Council meeting.
6. Receive and Review the List of Agenda Items Requested by City Councilmembers (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Received the list of items that have been requested by City Councilmembers and received consensus in previous meetings to date.
7. Receive Report of Actions Taken by the City Manager During the City Council Summer Recess from June 17 through August 10, 2026 (Staff Contact: Scott Transou, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3012)
Received report of actions taken by the City Manager during the City Council Summer Recess from June 17 through August 10, 2026.
8. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Probolsky Research LLC for Citywide Research Services and Surveys (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Charmaine Angelo, Public Information Officer, 408-586-3055)
Authorized the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute a professional services agreement with Probolsky Research LLC for Citywide research services and surveys for a five-year term with an initial not-to-exceed compensation of $414,500, plus a 15% contingency of $62,175, for a total maximum compensation of $476,675, subject to appropriation by the City Council through the annual budget adoption process.
9. Authorize Conveyance of Below Market Rate Unit at 1377 Coyote Creek Way to the Milpitas Housing Authority, and Approve the Sale of the Unit to an Income-Qualified Buyer (Staff Contact: Hanson Hom, Senior Special Projects Associate; and Michelle Silva, Administrative Analyst II, 408-586-3222)
Item pulled from Consent Calendar.
10. Adopt a Resolution to Amend the Classification Plan to Establish the Positions of Asset Management Program Administrator and Purchasing Manager, Reclassify the Purchasing Manager, and Amend the Salary Schedule to Include the Salary Range for Both Classifications, Effective September 1, 2026 (Staff Contact: Kelli Parmley, Human Resources Director, 408-586- 3090)
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 5
Adopted Resolution No. 9536 amending the Classification Plan to: (1) establish a new classification for the Asset Management Program Administrator; (2) establish the classification of Purchasing Manager and reclassify the Purchasing Agent to Purchasing Manager; (3) approve the class specifications for both classifications; and (4) amend the Salary Schedule to include the salary ranges for both classifications.
11. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC for Maintenance and Support of the City’s Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch System and Related Software (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Daniel Nam, Information Technology Director, 408-586- 2712)
Item pulled from Consent Calendar.
12. Waive the Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 38.863 to Amend the Milpitas Municipal Code Title XIII, Chapters B.6, B.8, C.10, and E.4 Relating to the Regulation of Tobacco Retailers (Staff Contact: Jay Lee, Planning Director, 408-586-3077) Determined that the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning) and, as a separate and independent basis, exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption); waive the reading beyond the title; and adopted Ordinance No. 38.863 amending the Milpitas Municipal Code Title XIII, Chapters B.6, B.8, C.10, and E.4 relating to the regulation of tobacco retailers (P-ZA26-0001).
13. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with TDG Engineering, Inc. for the Milpitas Gateway-Main Street Sense of Place Plan (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Jay Lee, Planning Director, 408-586-3077)
Authorized the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute Amendment No. 3 to the Professional Services Agreement with TDG Engineering, Inc. to add scope of work, increase the not- to-exceed amount by $100,000 for a revised maximum compensation of $593,578 (to be fully funded by the grant), and extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2027, subject to execution of an amendment to the Master Funding Agreement Supplement with the granting agency, Metropolitan Transportation Commission.
14. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a Purchase Order for One Specialty DUI Enforcement Patrol Vehicle Funded by the FY2026-27 California Highway Patrol Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Jared Hernandez, Chief of Police, 408-586-2406)
Authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute a purchase order for one specialty DUI enforcement patrol vehicle, including outfitting and decals, in an amount not to exceed $98,660, with the vendor determined by the Purchasing Agent in accordance with Milpitas Municipal Code Section I- 2-3.06, superseding the vendor-specific purchase order authorization approved by the City Council on August 11, 2026.
15. Approve and Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement with KLA Corporation for 1 Technology Drive (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303)
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 6
Approved and authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement between the City of Milpitas and KLA Corporation for 1 and 3 Technology Drive.
16. Adopt a Resolution to Accept the Improvements and Authorize the City Engineer to File a Notice of Completion and Issue a Notice of Final Acceptance after the One-Year Warranty for Curtis Recycled Water Line Repair Project – Phase 1 (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303) Adopted Resolution No. 9537 to accept the improvements for the Curtis Recycled Water Line Repair Project – Phase 1, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and issue a Notice of Final Acceptance after the one-year warranty.
17. Adopt Ordinance No. 232.2 Amending Chapter 3, Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control, of Title VIII of the Milpitas Municipal Code (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303) Waived the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 232.2 amending Chapter 3, Backflow Prevention and Cross-Connection Control, of Title VIII of the Milpitas Municipal Code to align and comply with the Cross-Connection Policy Handbook, adopted by the California State Water Resources Control Board.
18. Adopt Ordinance No. 240.8 Amending Sections of Chapter 6 of Title VIII of the Milpitas Municipal Code Relating to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Permanent Water Waste Restrictions (Staff Contract: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Waived the second reading and adopted Ordinance No. 240.8 Amending Sections of Chapter 6 of Title VIII of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to the Water Shortage Contingency Plan and Permanent Water Waste Restrictions including a ban on watering nonfunctional turf.
19. Authorize the Purchasing Agent, or Designee, to Dispose of Surplus Vehicles and Equipment Each Valued at Over $5,000 and Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with J.J. Kane Associates, Inc. for Auction Services (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602)
(1) Authorized the Purchasing Agent, or designee, to dispose of the 19 surplus vehicles and three pieces of surplus equipment listed in this report, each with an estimated current market value of more than $5,000; and, (2) authorized the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute an agreement with J.J. Kane Associates, Inc. for auction services for the sale of surplus property, for an initial term beginning on the date of contract execution and ending on January 27, 2029, coterminous with Sourcewell Contract No. 111424-JJK, with up to three additional one-year options to extend the agreement through January 27, 2032, to be exercised at the City's sole discretion and contingent on a valid cooperative or other competitively procured contract remaining in effect.
20. Consider Fee Waiver Request from Knights of Columbus St. John Council and St. Elizabeth Catholic Church (Staff Contact: Renée Lorentzen, Recreation and Community Services Director, 408-586-3409)
Approved a fee waiver request of $342 for the annual Knights of Columbus St. John Council Family Picnic Event on August 15, 2026, and a fee waiver of $1,115 for the St. Elizabeth Catholic Church Annual Festival on September 26, 2026.
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 7
21. Approve Milpitas Arts and Culture Grant Requests for a Cultural Menorah Lighting Event and Uganda Culture and Sustainability Event (Staff Contact: Renée Lorentzen, Recreation and Community Services Director, 408-586-3409)
Approved Milpitas Arts and Culture in-kind grant requests from Dina and Marvin Serber for a Cultural Menorah Lighting Event on December 12, 2026; and from CompassPoint Mentorship for a Uganda Culture and Sustainability Event on September 13, 2026, as unanimously recommended for approval by the Arts Commission on May 18, 2026.
22. Authorize Travel Request by Vice Mayor Barbadillo to Attend the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo in Anaheim, CA (Staff Contact: Julie Minot, Senior City Manager Analyst, 408-586-3054)
Authorized travel by (1) Vice Mayor Barbadillo to attend the League of California Cities 2026 Annual Conference and Expo in Anaheim, CA from September 23-25, 2026, for an estimated total amount of $2,800, budgeted under the FY2026-27 Individual Elected Official allocation for Conferences/Meetings/ Trainings; and by (2) Councilmember William Lam to attend the KTSF 50th Anniversary Banquet 2026 in Daly City, CA on September 12, 2026, for an estimated total amount of $200.
ITEMS PULLED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
9. Authorize Conveyance of Below Market Rate Unit at 1377 Coyote Creek Way to the Milpitas Housing Authority, and Approve the Sale of the Unit to an Income-Qualified Buyer (Staff Contact: Hanson Hom, Senior Special Projects Associate; and Michelle Silva, Administrative Analyst II, 408-586-3222)
Councilmember Chua explained that she pulled this item to inquire about the selection process for the income-qualified buyer.
Julius Nyanda, Founder and CEO of House Keys, the program administrator, explained the process and how applicants were ranked and selected. Councilmember Chua requested a detailed memorandum on how many entrants and qualified applicants were Milpitas residents.
Mayor Montano cited the current limitations and expressed a desire to see the City have more direct influence over the selection to better prioritize Milpitas residents.
After discussion, motion: to (1) Authorize conveyance of the real property located at 1377 Coyote Creek Way (APN 083-10-079) from the City of Milpitas to the City of Milpitas Housing Authority and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute a grant deed and all other documents necessary to complete the conveyance, in a form approved by the City Attorney; and (2) Approve the sale of the property by the City of Milpitas Housing Authority to the income-qualified buyer at the maximum affordable resale price of $585,000, and authorize the Executive Director, or designee, to execute the purchase and sale agreement, grant deed, escrow instructions, resale restriction agreement, and all other documents necessary to complete the sale, in a form approved by Authority Counsel..
Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Councilmember Lien Motion carried by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
11. Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC for Maintenance and Support of the City’s Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch System and Related Software (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe,
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 8
Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Daniel Nam, Information Technology Director, 408-586- 2712)
Councilmember Lien pulled this item to inquire about the sole source procurement justification and a difference between the amount cited in the recommendation and the fiscal impact section of the report.
Finance Director Cofresí-Howe and Information Technology Director Nam responded to questions from City Council.
After discussion, motion: to Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute an agreement with CentralSquare Technologies, LLC for ongoing maintenance and support of the City’s Public Safety Computer Aided Dispatch System and related software with a term of September 1, 2026 through June 30, 2031, a first-year maximum cost of $143,201, and a total not-to-exceed cost of $831,464 for the full five-year term, subject to the annual appropriation of funds, with the agreement including a payment for FirstTwo visual intelligence platform services retroactive to July 1, 2026..
Motion/Second: Councilmember Lien / None
Motion carried by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
PUBLIC HEARINGS
23. Adopt a Resolution Amending the Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees Adopted by Resolution No. 9516 to Update 161 Fees and Establish Six New Fees, Effective November 2, 2026 (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111) Assistant City Manager Transou introduced the item. Finance Director Cofresí-Howe presented the report, joined by Terry Madsen from Clearsource Financial Consulting and Budget Manager Vurich.
Mayor Montano opened the public hearing.
There were the following public speakers:
1. Voltaire Montemayor
Mayor Montano closed the public hearing.
Councilmember Lien asked for clarification on several of the proposed fee changes.
Mayor Montano expressed concern about the burden of the bounce house permit fee on families with young children and proposed reducing it from $60 to $20 for residents and from $100 to $50 for non- residents. Recreation and Community Services Director Lorentzen explained that the bounce house permit was intended to address a growing volume of requests, ensure appropriate insurance documentation, and clarify rules for inflatable apparatus use in parks. She noted that the fee would apply separately from the underlying park space rental fee, which ranges from $64 to $300 per day depending on park size. Mayor Montano questioned the fee for drop-ins at the After School Activity program and suggested it should be removed. Director Lorentzen explained this new fee was specifically designed to improve access for families who do not need full-year enrollment in the After the Bell program but occasionally require short-term care. She noted that MAP-eligible families could receive a subsidy of 50–75 percent depending on income tier. Upon the clarification, the Mayor expressed support for the fee.
Councilmember Chua indicated she preferred to waive the bounce house permit fee entirely for
September 1, 2026 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 9
residents and retain it for non-residents, and also expressed reservations about the new podium rental fees, suggesting the podium should be included in the community center rental rather than charged separately. She also suggested removing the After School Drop-in fee. City Attorney Curtis clarified that by removing the fee, there would be no option for drop in participation in the After School program.
There was general support from the Council to keep the After Schhol program drop in fee.
Councilmember Lam agreed with Mayor Montano's position of $20 for residents and $50 for non- residents on the bounce house permit. He also agreed that the podium rental fees be included in the community center rental rather than charged separately.
Mayor Montano revised her recommendation for the bounce house fee to be $0 for residents and $60 for non-residents. She also expressed support for including the podium rental with the community center rental fee.
City Attorney Curtis restated the recommended changes to the proposed fees.
After discussion, motion: to Adopt Resolution No. 9538 amending the Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees adopted by Resolution No. 9516 to update 161 fees and establish six new fees, effective November 2, 2026, with the following amendments:
(1) Set the bounce house permit fee would be set at $0 for residents and $60 for non-residents; (2) Remove both podium rental fees from the fee schedule, with no podium delivery to off-site locations.
Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Mayor Montano
Motion carried by the following:
AYES: Mayor Montano, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien NOES: None
ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo
ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Chua requested that the City Attorney follow up with House Keys to verify the details of the C9 buyer selection process and explore, legally, whether the City could adopt a policy further strengthening local preference for Milpitas residents in the disposition of below-market-rate units. City Attorney Curtis indicated he would reach out and provide an update to the Council.
Mayor Montano asked to observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of a catastrophic flood in Nepal.
ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Montano adjourned the meeting 8:38 PM in memory of the victims of the flooding in Nepal.
Draft meeting minutes submitted by City Clerk, Suzanne Guzzetta
TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM LIST
as of 09/08/2026
October 6, 2026 –Regular Meeting (7:00 PM)
CLOSED SESSION
INVOCATION (Vice Mayor Barbadillo)
PRESENTATION
- Fire Prevention Week – October 5-11, 2026 (Proclamation) - Indigenous Peoples’ Day (Proclamation)
- Hindu American Awareness and Appreciation Month (Proclamation) - California Clean Air Day – October 2, 2026 (Proclamation)
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Receive City Council Calendar for October 2026 (City Clerk)
2. Approve City Council Meeting minutes of September 15, 2026 (City Clerk)
3. Preview list of items for October 20, 2026 (City Clerk)
4. Councilmember Request List (City Clerk)
5. Commission Workplans (City Clerk / Economic Development / Recreation)
6. Vehicle Purchases (Finance / Public Works)
7. Final Acceptance of Calaveras Median Beautification Project (Public Works / Engineering)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
8. Pulte South Bay Tech Center Townhome Development (Planning)
LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT SERVICES
9. Mural Policy Update (Recreation)
MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Status Item # Request Submitted by: Date Requested
Open 1
Consider reviewing or developing a policy around the
issue of regulation of electric bicycles and scooters. Barbadillo 8/11/2026 Open 2
Review the City's mixed-use zoning standards,
specifically guidelines governing the percentage of
commercial versus residential components. Barbadillo 8/11/2026 Open 3
Review the City's tree ordinance to assess whether
updates are needed. Barbadillo 8/11/2026
Open 4
Return to the City Council with a recommendation
regarding transitioning the food pantry lease to a market rate model through the Housing Authority
Lam 5/5/2026
Open 5
Consider prioritization of a formal, third-party staffing analysis for te Fire Department similar to the 2019 study Barbadillo 4/7/2026 Open 6
Review the permitting process, including the site
development permit process, to determine whether
updates are needed. Barbadillo 4/7/2026
Open 7
Explore youth programs and intervention initiatives in
the wake of the passing of Milpitas high school student Jared Kavan on March 31st. Montano 4/7/2026
Open 8 Review the Council prioritization process Chua 11/18/2025 In Progress 9
Agendize a review by the Facility Naming
Subcommittee of facilities named after Cesar Chavez
and make recommendations to the Council Montano 4/7/2026 In Progress 10
Alcohol and Massage Parlor Permits come before the
City Council. Montano 2/3/2026
In Progress 11
Look into the process of establishing a Friendship City relationship Montano 11/18/2025
In Progress 12 Develop a project management informational memo. Barbadillo 4/1/2025 In Progress 13 Feasibility study regarding a police satellite office. Montano 2/18/2025 In Progress 14 Bring back a study or analysis of the permit process Chua 11/19/2024 In Progress 15 Main Street Infrastructure Projects Montano 2/28/2023 NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Authorize the City Manager to Send a Response Letter to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report on Pothole Damage Claims (Staff Contact: Scott Transou, Assistant City Manager 408-586-3012)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to send a response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County."
BACKGROUND:
On June 12, 2026, the City of Milpitas (City) received the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury final report titled “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.”
The Grand Jury’s investigation focused on the processes used by the County of Santa Clara and the 15 cities and towns within the county, including Milpitas, for handling claims related to vehicle damage caused by potholes. The report analyzed claims data from 2020 to 2025, reviewed agency websites for accessibility of claims information, and conducted interviews with representatives from jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance. The Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations address issues such as the high rate of claim rejections, challenges in determining jurisdictional responsibility, and the accessibility of claims forms and instructions.
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(c), the City is required to provide a response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court no later than September 17, 2026.
ANALYSIS:
The Grand Jury’s recommendations focus on improving public access to information about jurisdictional boundaries, clarifying which roads are maintained by which agency, and enhancing the accessibility of claims forms and instructions, including translation into multiple languages.
In its draft response letter, the City has documented the following:
• The City already provides online access to GIS-based maps of City-maintained roads and boundaries • City claims forms are accessible and include translation functionality for the most common languages spoken in Milpitas.
• The City’s review of recent claims data indicates that confusion over jurisdictional boundaries has not resulted in rejected pothole claims, and
• The City’s current practices meet or exceed the standards recommended by the Grand Jury.
The City’s response was prepared by conducting an internal review of claims data from the past three (3) fiscal years, in consultation with the City’s Risk Management and Information Technology staff regarding website content and translation tools, and in coordination with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure legal sufficiency of the response. No public comments or formal complaints have been received regarding the accessibility or clarity of the City’s pothole claims process during this period.
If approved, the next steps will include finalizing the response letter and sending it to the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court by the statutory deadline.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):
Alternative 1:
Do not respond to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury final report titled “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.”
Pros: None
Cons: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the City is required to provide a response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Not responding as directed could result in legal consequences imposed upon the City.
Reason for Not Recommending:
The City will be out of compliance with section 933, which could have legal consequences.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b).
ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) City of Milpitas Response to the June 12, 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Pothole Damage - Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County (a) June 12, 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report Pothole Damage - Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County
455 EAST CALAVERAS BOULEVARD, MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035-5479 PHONE: 408-586-3040, FAX: 408-586-3056, www.milpitas.gov
September 11, 2026
Via EMAIL
Hon. Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Re: City of Milpitas Response to June 12, 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report: “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes Within Santa Clara County” The City of Milpitas’ responds to the June 12, 2026, Grand Jury report titled “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes Within Santa Clara County” (the “Report”). The City is providing this response pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.
FINDINGS
Finding 1: Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.
City of Milpitas Response to Finding 1: Milpitas does not have data on the county- wide rejection rate and cannot fully respond to this finding. The City agrees, however, that missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of legal liability (because of a lack of notice of the pothole before the damage occurred) are all reasons that claims may be denied.
Finding 2: Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.
City of Milpitas Response to Finding 2: Milpitas partially disagrees with this finding as it applies to Milpitas. A review of the City’s claims over the last three (3) fiscal years shows that zero (0) pothole claims were rejected because the pothole was in a neighboring jurisdiction. By contrast, six (6) claims were rejected because the pothole was inside Milpitas but owned and maintained by another entity, such as CalTrans, the County, or a private HOA. Claimants commonly submit claims to multiple entities
CI T Y O F MI L P I T A S
OF F I C E O F T H E CI T Y MA N A G E R
Response to Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes Within Santa Clara County” September 11, 2026
when one entity’s road runs through another’s jurisdiction, so while some of these may be the result of confusion, many are merely a result of duplicative claims. More importantly, it does not appear that any of the rejected claims involved confusion over jurisdictional boundaries.
The City disagrees that jurisdictional boundaries are unclear or poorly communicated.
Although jurisdictional boundaries are not always intuitive, they are clearly defined by legal action, and maps of these boundaries are readily available through multiple on-line resources. The City currently publishes on-line maps of its roads and boundaries through its GIS portal at https://milpitas-gis-milpitas.hub.arcgis.com. The same information is also available on LAFCO’s website at https://santaclaralafco.org/policies- and-resources/maps and can be found on commonly used on-line mapping tools. The two most popular search engines (Google, Bing) provide a map of Milpitas’s boundaries in response to the query “Milpitas Map.”
The City agrees that its claims website does not specifically contain information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction. The City, however, does publish this information separately, and the lack of any recent claims misidentifying jurisdictional boundaries suggests that this is not a significant need. The City lacks information to respond to this question as it applies to other jurisdictions.
Finding 3: Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.
City of Milpitas Response to Finding 3: Milpitas disagrees with this finding as it applies to Milpitas. The report does not identify, and the City is unaware, of any specific deficiency with the City’s website, or any feature that makes filing a claim more difficult.
Milpitas has already implemented the translation software recommended in 3b and includes clear filing instruction in the form. Milpitas lacks sufficient information to respond to this finding as it applies to other jurisdictions.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendation 2a: All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas Response to Recommendation 2a: This recommendation is not being implemented as it is unwarranted. The City currently publishes on-line maps of its roads and boundaries through its GIS portal at milpitas-gis-milpitas.hub.arcgis.com.
The same information is also available on LAFCO’s website at https://santaclaralafco.org/policies-and-resources/maps and can be found on commonly used on-line mapping tools.
Response to Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes Within Santa Clara County” September 11, 2026
Although the claims website does not specifically link to a map of City boundaries, this does not appear to be a need that warrants including a link in claims materials. Pothole claims account for less than seven percent (7%) of the claims Milpitas received over the last three (3) years. Over that time, zero (0) pothole claims were rejected due to filing in the wrong jurisdiction. Given how uncommon the issue is, this change appears unwarranted. Adding a link for something this minor would not be efficient and would be more likely to cause confusion than benefit.
Recommendation 2b: All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas Response to Recommendation 2b: This recommendation is not being implemented as it is unwarranted. As noted above, the City has not identified any claims in the last three (3) fiscal years that were for locations outside of the jurisdiction. To the extent that confusion exists, it is more likely related to roads owned by other agencies inside of Milpitas.
Recommendation 3a: Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas Response to Recommendation 3a: This recommendation is not being implemented as it is unwarranted. The City’s claims form contains clear instructions and is published on the City’s website. Milpitas is unaware of any instances where the placement of the instructions on the form has caused confusion or impeded filing.
Moreover, including the instructions on the form allows the City’s translation tool (see 3b) to translate the instructions into languages common in Milpitas. Maintaining that functionality provides more benefit than moving the instructions onto the webpage.
Recommendation 3b: Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas Response to Recommendation 3b: This recommendation has been implemented. Since April 24, 2026, prior to the Report being issued, the City’s website has integrated DocAccess to provide accessibility tools, including translation, for all PDF documents. Users who click on the Claims Form are presented with a “translate” button on the right-hand side. Milpitas’s most common languages are listed for easy access in a drop-down menu.
Response to Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving Claims Processes Within Santa Clara County” September 11, 2026
This completes the City of Milpitas’ response to the Report per section 933.
Sincerely,
Willie A. Hopkins, Jr.
City Manager
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795
G R A N D J U R Y
S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 12, 2026
City of Milpitas
c/o Ms. Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Guzzetta,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County.
California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.
Please note:
1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 1, 2, and 3. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b.
Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Thursday, September 10, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected] . Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.
If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara Willie Hopkins, City Manager
State of California
PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdi vision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdi vision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the follo wing actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary re garding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an e xplanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study , and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agenc y or department being investigated or reviewed, including the go verning body of the public agenc y when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not w arranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agenc y or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters o ver which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agenc y or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an in vestigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation re garding the in vestigation, unless the court, either on its o wn determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury , determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026
POTHOLE DAMAGE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage................................................................................ 3 Why So Many Claims Are Rejected........................................................................................ 3 The California Government Claims Act................................................................................. 4 Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation .................................................... 4 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 5 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 6 How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims..................................................................................... 6 Two Common Reasons for Rejection...................................................................................... 7 Rejection Notices are Often Vague.......................................................................................... 8 Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible .......................................... 9 Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form.................................................. 10 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 14 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 16 APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole ......................................................................................... 17 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 18
POTHOLE DAMAGE
SUMMARY
If you hit a pothole within Santa Clara County and damage your vehicle, chances are th at your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.
People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.
For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.
The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.
Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.
Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicle s, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.
According to local media reports , Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages . According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area cla ims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).
Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road -related damag e must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.
For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County is responsible for expressways and county roads, such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.
Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury request ed and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.
Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline;
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.
These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole , the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.
In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine whi ch agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.
If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.
The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.
In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.
Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.
Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims process es should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.
The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded s tate routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency , is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review . Jurisdictions provided dat a about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026) . Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.
Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga e ach settled 50% of claims filed (however, they eac h averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.
The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the significance of this data is limited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.
How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.
First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.
In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator , usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.
If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars , the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.
If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. T he California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, c laims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.
Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.
A road’s location within a n agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.
Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.
No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.
Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:
1. The public entity created the condition;
2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;
3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;
4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.
If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.
When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.
All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).
Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language , in part , which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to ( insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).
WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.
See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jur isdictions may follow this same approach.
In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will shar e the reason for rejection . Although the reason f or rejection is recorded by the agency, t here is no legal obligation to provide this inform ation, and agencies may limit this information.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real ; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR - 130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.
When a local road crosses or overlaps a s tate route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.
County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airport s Department.
Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Montague Expressway
• Oregon Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• Southwest Expressway
Complicated Exceptions
Further complicating efforts to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a particular area, cities, Caltrans, the County, and even the federal government ( such as near Moffett Federal Airfield) have maintenance agreements that specify which agency is responsible for certain roadway segments – such as onramps, offramps, and other defined areas (City of Mountain View, 2019). It is not always easy to determine which agency is responsible for which segments.
Complicated Maps
Some jurisdictions have no public maps indicating which roads they are responsible for. Th e County and some cities, including San José, Campbell, and Mountain View, do post searchable maps online that can help the public narrow down which jurisdiction is responsible for a particular road. However, the maps often use complicated interfaces rather than a simple image or printout, and many maps are not specific to just the roads maintained by the jurisdictions.
San José, which maintains more than 4,000 miles of locally maintained lanes within its borders, has its own mapping website (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026; City of San José, 2020). It shows whether a particular street within its boundaries is maintained by San José, the County, a private entity, or another agency. The website provides a large amount of information, although it is complicated for the average user to navigate.
An alternative source of information is pavement management plans that some agencies make available. These plans may list all roads maintained by the jurisdiction and can be used as a reference. As an example, Morgan Hill has a link to its latest 2024 Pavement Management Report with a list of streets at the end. However, there is no direct link from the claim forms webpage, so claimants would not be aware of this reference (AMS Consulting, 2025).
Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form
Once a person has found the proper jurisdiction, the next step is to download the claim form from the local agency’s website.
Of the 16 jurisdictions, the Civil Grand Jury found that only Gilroy, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale provide adequate claims process information on their webpages or on the claim form itself.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Most jurisdictions provide forms only in English. This is an omission that could potentially disenfranchise community members who have limited proficiency in English.
The Civil Grand Jury identified three cities that took the helpful step of providing additional language options:
• Morgan Hill provides a PDF of its claim form in English and Spanish. • Sunnyvale has a translation feature that allows claimant s to translate the form into one of 200+ languages. Users can either fill out the translated form online and print a copy or print out a blank translated form and fill it out by hand.
• Saratoga’s website uses a third-party widget to translate its website in addition to an online form to many other languages.
The Civil Grand Jury als o investigated how easy it is to find claim forms on each jurisdiction’s website by searching for the term “claim form.”
The Civil Grand Jury could not find any information about submitting a pothole claim in four entities: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno.
Cupertino provides a claim form, but users must use the website’s search function to find it.
Gilroy does not link directly to a claim form, although it does provide instructions on how to request a form by email or in person.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Table 1: Access to online claim process instructions and link to claim form (See References for links)
Jurisdiction Online Claims Process
Instructions
Link to
Claim Form
Caltrans Yes Yes
County of Santa Clara No Yes
Campbell No No
Cupertino No Yes
Gilroy Yes No
Los Altos No No
Los Altos Hills No No
Los Gatos Yes Yes
Milpitas No Yes
Monte Sereno No No
Morgan Hill No Yes
Mountain View No Yes
Palo Alto Yes Yes
San José No Yes
Santa Clara Yes Yes
Saratoga No Yes
Sunnyvale Yes Yes
Many jurisdictions recommend that claimants deliver the claim form in person, including all relevant information, such as photos, receipts, and witness statements. The claimant should retain a signed copy.
Some agencies allow for email submission , but this is the exception. Alternatively, a claimant could submit the claim by mail to the city or town clerk (or, for the County, the Clerk of the Board).
According to the California Government Claims Act, the agency has 45 days from the date the claim form was mailed or delivered in person to respond to the claimant.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
CONCLUSION
Even though state law sets strict rules for filing and reviewing claims, local government agencies retain significant discretion over their processes. By offering clearer online information, improving access to claim forms, expanding language options, and providing more detailed explanations when claims are denied , jurisdictions can significantly improve public trust, reduce frustration , and increase fairness.
Implementing the recommended updates is not only feasible , but it also aligns with the spirit of responsive and transparent public service. The Civil Grand Jury urges all jurisdictions to adopt these improvements by the recommended deadlines to ensure that the claims process is fairer, more consistent, and easier for the public to navigate.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 to 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.
Recommendation 1
No recommendation.
Finding 2
Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.
Recommendation 2a
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Recommendation 2b
All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Finding 3
Fifteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, Santa Clara, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.
Recommendation 3a
Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San José, and Saratoga – should update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Recommendation 3b
Fourteen jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San José, and Santa Clara – should incorporate useable software on their websites that can translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics they serve.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
Finding 4
When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against t he County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.
Recommendation 4
The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara Count y Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Campbell 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Gilroy 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Los Altos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
Town of Los Altos Hills 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
Town of Los Gatos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of Milpitas 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Monte Sereno 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Morgan Hill 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Mountain View 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Palo Alto 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of San José 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Saratoga 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a
City of Sunnyvale 1, 2 2a, 2b
POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.
Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:
Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-a- Parks-Public-Works-Concern-87
Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/public- works/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance
Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-and- council/contact-city-council
Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern- 6/Fix-It-Form-45
Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhood- complaints/
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-Hill- PTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.
Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.
Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.
California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system- information/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.
California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/your- city/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-a- Claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdata- csj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.
City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequently- asked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/your- government/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.
County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-condition- bay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).
Accessed April 15, 2026.
Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 12th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Authorize the City Manager to Send a Response Letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report on VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (Staff Contact: Scott Transou, Assistant City Manager 408-586-3012)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to send a response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.”
BACKGROUND:
On June 17, 2026, the City of Milpitas (City) received the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury final report titled “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.”
The Grand Jury’s report addresses governance, appointment processes, and oversight practices related to the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Board, with particular focus on the management of the BART Silicon Valley Phase II project. The City of Milpitas, as a member agency of VTA and a participant in regional transportation planning, is subject to the administrative and statutory requirements governing such responses.
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(c), the City is required to provide a response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court no later than September 22, 2026.
ANALYSIS:
The City’s draft response was developed through a review of the Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations, with particular attention to those that reference the City’s appointment process for VTA Board representation and the City’s adherence to the VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14). The response reflects the City’s legal framework as a general law city, which is governed by Government Code section 40605 regarding the appointment of representatives to regional boards. The City’s position is that, while it strives to provide continuity and expertise in its appointments, it is constrained by statutory requirements and cannot unilaterally alter the appointment process or bind future elected officials.
The City’s response also addresses the Grand Jury’s recommendation for a uniform appointment process among VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5. The City notes that it is unaware of any operational issues resulting from the current diversity of appointment processes and remains open to considering specific proposals from the Grand Jury or VTA if a need is demonstrated.
If approved, the next steps will include finalizing the response letter and sending it to the Presiding Judge of the Santa Clara County Superior Court by the statutory deadline.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):
Alternative 1:
Do not respond to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury final report titled “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.”
Pros: None
Cons: Pursuant to Penal Code Section 933(c), the City is required to provide a response to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court. Not responding as directed could result in legal consequences imposed upon the City.
Reason for Not Recommending:
The City will be out of compliance with section 933, which could have legal consequences.
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b).
ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) City of Milpitas Response to the June 12, 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (b) June 17, 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II
455 EAST CALAVERAS BOULEVARD, MILPITAS, CALIFORNIA 95035-5479 PHONE: 408-586-3040, FAX: 408-586-3056, www.milpitas.gov
September 11, 2026
Via EMAIL
Hon. Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
[email protected]
Re: City of Milpitas Response to June 17, 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report: “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” The City of Milpitas’ responds to the June 17, 2026, Grand Jury report titled “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” (the “Report”). The City is providing this response pursuant to California Penal Code section 933.
FINDINGS
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.”
City of Milpitas Response to Finding 6: Milpitas disagrees with this finding as it applies to Milpitas. Because appointees must be selected from among the elected members of the City Council, who are subject to both regular elections and term limits, neither continuity nor relevant expertise can be guaranteed. The City, however, has strived to provide continuity and expertise in making its appointments to this seat. In particular, the representative for Milpitas is currently serving a third consecutive term, maximizing the opportunity to build familiarity with the agency’s operations. The Report does not identify, and Milpitas is unaware of, any information suggesting that Milpitas does not follow these admonitions. The Report does not identify any information suggesting that any VTA Board Member from the City has ever lacked sufficient qualifications. Milpitas lacks sufficient information to respond to this finding as it applies to other jurisdictions.
Finding 7: VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
City of Milpitas Response to Finding 7: Milpitas agrees with this finding.
CI T Y O F MI L P I T A S
OF F I C E O F T H E CI T Y MA N A G E R
Response to Grand Jury Report “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” September 11, 2026
RECOMMENDATIONS
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.
City of Milpitas Response to Recommendation 6: This recommendation is not being implemented as it is not reasonable. Milpitas has appointed its current representative to a third consecutive term and has worked to provide and cultivate member expertise. As a general law City with an elected mayor, however, the City’s appointment process is set by Government Code section 40605. The Attorney General has opined that this extends to regional board in addition to internal commissions or committees. The City Council does not have the authority to change this process and cannot bind current or future elected officials.
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.
City of Milpitas Response to Recommendation 7: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted. The Milpitas is unaware of any problems caused by the differences in the selection processes among the groups. As such, the City is unsure as to what this recommendation is intended to address. The City, however, is open to other specific methods that the Grand Jury or VTA might recommend, should there be a need.
This completes the City of Milpitas’ response to the Report per section 933.
Sincerely,
Willie A. Hopkins, Jr.
City Manager
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795
G R A N D J U R Y
S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
June 17, 2026
City of Milpitas
c/o Ms. Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Guzzetta,
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.
California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.
Please note:
1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 6 and 7. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.
2. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 6 and 7.
Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Tuesday, September 15, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.
If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
cc: Willie Hopkins, City Manager
Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara
State of California
PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a) For purposes of subdi vision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1) The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2) The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b) For purposes of subdi vision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the follo wing actions:
(1) The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary re garding the implemented action.
(2) The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3) The recommendation requires further analysis, with an e xplanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study , and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agenc y or department being investigated or reviewed, including the go verning body of the public agenc y when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4) The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not w arranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c) However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agenc y or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters o ver which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agenc y or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d) A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e) During an in vestigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation re garding the in vestigation, unless the court, either on its o wn determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury , determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
(f) A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.)
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026
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
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 proj ect 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 M achine (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.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
BACKGROUND
The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by s tate 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 Section s 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%.
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.
Financial-Report-ACRF-FY-2024.pdf).
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).
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 bill ion 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 voter- approved 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, Summe r 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;
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 (SME s) 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 BSV II 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.).
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 r eviewing a gendas, 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 document s requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
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).
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 t he possible extension of the 2037 p roject 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) f aced 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 (VT A, 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 revenu e 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 fro m Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voter- approved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on
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, s everal 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).
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).
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 remai n 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. A ny 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. Fo r each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.
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 decision- makers 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 ha ve 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
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 pre - meeting 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 help s 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 identifie d 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.
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 t wo 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 g eneral, 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.
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 believ ed that KST’s proposed design c ould 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 t he 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 w as 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
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II cooperation, BART officials consent ed 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 O versight C ommittee, 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 VT A 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 O versight C ommittee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. O n
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 C ommittee 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 request ed 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 Boa rd 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 g eneral 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:
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-by- side) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks . H ere are some of the s ubsequent 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-to- apples” 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 twin- bore 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 wit h the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision.
Since the Oversight C ommittee meeting on October 9, 2025, committe e members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA
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, front - end 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 g eneral on the BSVII project. However, by assigning the auditor g eneral the responsibility to als o 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.
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 wer e 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 t win-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept eval uated in the f inal 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, conflic ting 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
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 efficien cy 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 A uthorities 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).
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 great er 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:
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.
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 interviewe es 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 do es 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.
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 voter - approved 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 VT A 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.
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 strateg y 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.
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.
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 g eneral is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among V TA 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 s upporting 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;
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 C ommittee 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.
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 Count y 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
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
VTA'S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II kai
BART SILICON VALLEY
PHASE II (BSV I)
BART remai ns fully committed to the successful del ivery of this critical regional investment.
However, that commitment depends on VTA's immedi ate 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 R i chardson, VTA Deputy General Manager
Robert Powers, BART General Manager
Michael Jones, BART Deputy General Manager
Ni Lee, BART Deputy Proj ect Di rector
Mon i ca Born, VTA Program Director
Tom Maguire, VTA Chief Del i very Officer of Mega Projects BSVII: Co ll aborati o n , I n n ovat i on, Safety, R e l i ability 2
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-tunnel- method-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/#docaccess- 8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). 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.
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-bart- extension-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/bart- silicon-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/CA- BART-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-bay- bart-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-board- approves-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-area- transit-
agencies#:~: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.
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-timeline- costs-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.
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-silicon- valley-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.
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-cancels- funding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026.
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-transit- project-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.
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
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Approving the 2026 Biennial Update to the City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586- 3001; and Christian M. Curtis, City Attorney, 408-586-3041) Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the 2026 biennial update to the City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code, including the revised list of designated positions and disclosure categories and the requirement for electronic filing of Statements of Economic Interests beginning January 1, 2027.
BACKGROUND:
The Political Reform Act (Government Code § 81000, et seq.) requires state and local agencies to adopt conflict of interest codes identifying officials and employees who make or participate in making governmental decisions based on the positions they hold. Individuals serving in positions designated in an agency’s conflict of interest code are required to disclose specified financial interests as provided in the agency’s conflict of interest code.
The City of Milpitas is required to review its Conflict of Interest Code biennially in even-numbered years pursuant to Government Code § 87306.5 to determine whether amendments to the Code are necessary.
Amendments may include adding newly created qualifying positions, deleting obsolete positions, revising existing position titles, and updating applicable disclosure categories.
The City’s Conflict of Interest Code was last amended on December 3, 2024, as memorialized in City Council Resolution No. 9369. In preparation for the 2026 biennial update, the City Clerk, in coordination with Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office, reviewed the existing Code and list of designated positions and identified applicable amendments.
Individuals serving in positions designated in the City’s Conflict of Interest Code are required to file a Statement of Economic Interests (FPPC Form 700) within 30 days of assuming a designated position, annually by April 1, and within 30 days of leaving the position. The City Clerk serves as the City’s Filing Officer for Statements of Economic Interests. Filers may also have separate filing obligations based on other positions they hold.
Government Code § 87200 separately identifies certain City officials as statutory filers, including the Mayor, City Councilmembers, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer, and Planning Commissioners. Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill 1170 changed the filing process for § 87200 filers by requiring Statements of Economic Interests to be filed electronically with the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). The City Clerk continues to serve as the City’s Filing Officer for these officials; however, their statements are submitted electronically to the FPPC rather than filed with the City Clerk for forwarding to the FPPC.
Since January 2020, the City has utilized NetFile, an electronic filing system approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission, for the electronic filing and administration of Statements of Economic Interests filed with the City Clerk.
ANALYSIS:
The City Clerk, in coordination with Human Resources and the City Attorney’s Office, reviewed the City’s Conflict of Interest Code and Appendix to identify amendments necessary for the 2026 biennial update. The proposed amendments are shown in redline form as attached as Exhibit A to the resolution and include the addition of newly created qualifying positions, removal of obsolete positions, and revisions to existing position
titles. The list of designated positions also includes Council-appointed Commissioners and Alternates serving on City commissions subject to the Conflict of Interest Code.
The proposed update also revises and simplifies the City’s disclosure categories. The City’s current Conflict of Interest Code contains seven disclosure categories that identify the types of financial interests designated filers are required to report based on the duties and responsibilities of their positions. The proposed Code consolidates the existing seven disclosure categories into five categories, providing a more streamlined framework for assigning disclosure requirements to designated positions while continuing to require disclosure appropriate to each position’s decision-making authority.
In addition, the proposed Conflict of Interest Code will require all Statements of Economic Interests required to be filed with the City Clerk to be submitted electronically through the City’s designated electronic filing system beginning January 1, 2027. Electronic filing will provide a consistent filing process for designated filers and support the City Clerk’s administration, tracking, and retention of Statements of Economic Interests. This requirement also aligns the City’s filing process with the State’s transition to mandatory electronic filing for Government Code § 87200 filers.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):
Alternative 1: Do not adopt the resolution approving the 2026 biennial update to the City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code.
Pros: None
Cons: The City’s Conflict of Interest Code would not reflect current designated positions and disclosure requirements and would not satisfy the City’s obligation to complete its 2026 biennial review and update.
Reason for not recommending: The proposed amendments are necessary to maintain an accurate and current Conflict of Interest Code and ensure compliance with the Political Reform Act and applicable FPPC regulations.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/KEY MILESTONES
Date Milestone/Activity
September 15, 2026 City Council adopts the updated Conflict of Interest Code September 16 – October 15, 2026 Update the City’s filer records and NetFile configuration to reflect the adopted designated positions and revised disclosure categories.
October 16 – November 1, 2026 Notify designated filers of changes to their disclosure requirements, as applicable, and the requirement to electronically file Statements of Economic Interests with the City Clerk beginning January 1, 2027.
December 2026 Complete final system and filer roster review and provide filers with a reminder of the January 1 electronic filing requirement.
January 1, 2027 Electronic filing requirement takes effect.
FISCAL IMPACT:
This item has no fiscal impact. Electronic filing is administered through the City's existing NetFile system, which is funded within the City Clerk's annual operating budget.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b).
ATTACHMENTS:
(a) Resolution
(b) Exhibit A: 2026 City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code with Appendix – Redlined (c) Exhibit A: 2026 City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code with Appendix
RESOLUTION NO. ____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS AMENDING
THE CITY OF MILPITAS CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE, AS REQUIRED BY THE
POLITICAL REFORM ACT
WHEREAS, the State of California enacted the Political Reform Act of 1974, Government Code Section 81000 et seq. (the “Act”), which contains provisions relating to conflicts of interest and requires state and local government agencies to adopt and promulgate conflict of interest codes; and
WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act requires every local government agency to review its conflict of interest code biennially and amend the code when changes are necessary; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Sections 87300 and 87302, the City Council of the City of Milpitas has adopted and incorporated by reference the terms of the standard conflict of interest code adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission and set forth in Title 2, Division 6, California Code of Regulations, Section 18730 (the "Regulations"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code was last amended in 2024 by City Council Resolution No. 9369; and
WHEREAS, the City has completed its 2026 biennial review of the Conflict of Interest Code and identified changes to designated positions, position titles, and disclosure requirements that require amendment of the Code and Appendix; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments consolidate the City’s existing seven disclosure categories into three disclosure categories and assign disclosure requirements to designated positions based on the duties and responsibilities of each position; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments require Statements of Economic Interests required to be filed with the City Clerk to be submitted electronically through the City’s designated electronic filing system beginning January 1, 2027; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the Conflict of Interest Code and Appendix attached as Exhibit A accurately identify the designated positions and applicable disclosure categories and establish the filing requirements applicable to Statements of Economic Interests filed with the City.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:
1. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
2. The terms of Section 18730 of the Regulations, and any amendments to Section 18730 or to the Regulations, and any amendments thereto duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission, together with the Appendix attached to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code, constitute the Conflict of Interest Code of the City of Milpitas.
3. The City Council hereby adopts the amended City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code and Appendix attached hereto as Exhibit A. The adopted Conflict of Interest Code shall be maintained by the City Clerk and made available for public inspection and reproduction as required by law.
2 Resolution No. xxxxx
4. The amended City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code adopted by this Resolution supersedes the Conflict of Interest Code previously adopted by Resolution No. 9369 and shall become effective upon adoption of this Resolution, except that the requirement for electronic filing of Statements of Economic Interests required to be filed with the City Clerk shall take effect January 1, 2027.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of ________, 2026, by the following vote:
AYES: ( )
NOES: ( )
ABSENT: ( )
ABSTAIN: ( )
ATTEST: APPROVED:
Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Carmen Montano, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christian M. Curtis, City Attorney
3 Resolution No. xxxxx
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT A to
Resolution No.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE
CITY OF MILPITAS
California’s 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 that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code.
After public notice and hearing Section 18730 may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendix [or Appendices], designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Milpitas (City).
Officials identified in Government Code section 87200 shall file Statements of Economic Interests in accordance with the filing requirements established by the Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission.
All officials and designated positions are required to submit a statement of economic interests and shall file their statements with the City Clerk as the City’s Filing Officer. The City Clerk shall make and retain a copy of all original statements filed by the Mayor, City Councilmembers and Planning Commissioners, the City Manager, City Attorney and City Treasurer, and shall forward the originals of paper filed original statements to the Fair Political Practices Commission, as required by Government Code section 87200. The City Clerk shall retain the original statements filed by all other officials and designated positions and will make all retained statements available for public inspection and reproduction during regular business hours, per Government Code section 81008. Beginning in the filing year 2020, the City Clerk is authorized to permit electronic filing of Statements of Economic Interest, using an electronic filing system authorized by the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Officials and designated positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests with the City shall file their statements electronically with the City Clerk, as the City’s Filing Officer, using an electronic filing system approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City Clerk shall retain statements filed with the City and make them available for public inspection and reproduction in accordance with Government Code section 81008.
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026 Nothing in this Conflict of Interest Code shall relieve an official or designated employee of any separate filing obligation imposed by the Political Reform Act or a conflict of interest code adopted by another agency.
Adopted by Milpitas City Council on September xx, 2026
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
APPENDIX
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS
Adopted December xx, 2024
PART A
The phrase “Section 87200 Filer” means each person holding one of the positions defined by California Government Code Section 87200, including each of the following positions:
a. Mayor
b. City Councilmember
c. Planning Commissioner
d. City Manager
e. City Attorney
f. City Treasurer (Director of Finance)
g. Any City official who manages public investments
Those holding one of the positions above may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligation if they believe their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination as to whether a position is a required filer consistent with Section 87200.
Effective January 1, 2025, all 87200 filers must submit their filings electronically via the FPPC's electronic filing portal, in accordance with AB 1170.
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
DESIGNATED POSITIONS GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE
The term “designated position” means any position with the City that is either: (a) identified in this Exhibit “A”; or (b) involves the making or participation in making of governmental decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on economic interests.
Each of the following positions shall be deemed a Designated Position:
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
ORIGINAL
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Discontinued as of
9/30/26
NEW
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Effective 10/1/26
Administrative Analyst II 5 3
Asset Management Program Administrator - 1, 3
Assistant City Attorney 1, 2 1
Assistant City Engineer 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3
Assistant City Manager 1, 2 1
Assistant Director of Recreation and
Community Services 1, 2, 7 1, 5
Assistant Finance Director 1, 2 1
Assistant Fire Marshal 2, 3 1, 2, 4
Assistant Chief of Police 5 3
Associate Civil Engineer 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3
Associate Planner 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Budget Manager 4 3
Building Inspection Manager 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Building/Neighborhood Preservation Inspector 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4 Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Business Systems Analyst/Dev 5 3
Buyer 4 3
Capital Improvement Projects Manager 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4 City Clerk 5, 6 3, 4
City Engineer 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Code Enforcement Officer - 4
Deputy City Attorney 1, 2
Deputy City Clerk 5, 6 3, 4
Deputy City Manager 1, 2 1
Deputy Director of Information Technology 5 3
Deputy Fire Chief 5 3
Deputy Fire Chief (Fire Marshal) 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Deputy Public Works Director 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Economic Development & Strategic Initiatives Director 1, 2 1, 5
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
ORIGINAL
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Discontinued as of
9/30/26
NEW
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Effective 10/1/26
Finance Manager 1, 2 1, 3
Financial Analyst II 5 3
Fire Battalion Chief 5 3
Fire Chief 5, 6 3, 4
Fire Captain, Prevention/Hazmat Inspector 3, 6 3
Fire Marshal 2, 3, 5, 6
Fire Prevention Inspector 2, 4
Hazmat Inspector 2, 4
Housing Official 1, 2, 7 1, 2, 5
Human Resources Director 5 3
Human Resources Manager 5 3
Information Technology Director 5 3
Information Technology Manager 5 3
Plan Review Manager 5 2, 3, 4
Plan Check Engineer 5 2, 4
Plan Checker 5 2, 4
Planning Director 1, 2 1, 2, 3, 4
Planning Manager 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 4
Police Captain 5 3
Police Chief 5 3
Police Support Services Manager - 3
Principal Civil Engineer 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Principal Planner 1, 2 1, 2, 4
Public Information Officer 5 3
Public Works Division Manager 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Public Works Director 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Public Works Inspector 6 2, 4
Purchasing Manager 4 3
Recreation and Community Services Director 5 3, 5
Recreation Services Supervisor 5 3
Risk Analyst II 5 3
Senior Administrative Analyst 5 3
Senior Accountant 4 3
Senior Building Inspector 5, 6 2, 4
Senior Buyer 4 3
Senior City Manager Analyst - 3
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 6 4
Senior Human Resources Analyst 5 3
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
ORIGINAL
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Discontinued as of
9/30/26
NEW
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Effective 10/1/26
Senior Plan Check Engineer 5 2, 3, 4
Senior Planner 1, 2 1, 2, 4
Senior Public Works Inspector 2, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Transportation and Traffic Engineer 2, 3, 5
CITY OF MILPITAS COMMISSIONS
Arts Commission 5, 7 3, 5
Community Advisory Housing Commission 1, 2 1, 2, 5
Economic Development & Trade Commission 1, 2 1, 5
Energy and Environmental Sustainability
Commission 1, 2 1, 3, 5
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
Commission 1, 2 1, 3, 5
Science, Technology & Innovation
Commission 1, 2 1, 3, 5
CONSULTANTS and NEW POSITIONS
Individuals serving as a consultant as defined in FPPC Regulation 18700.3 or in a new position as defined in Regulation 18734 created since this Code was last approved who make, or participate in making, decisions must file under the broadest disclosure category set forth in this Code, subject to the following limitation: The City Manager may determine, that due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. A clear explanation of the duties and a statement of the extent of the disclosure requirements must be a written document (Gov. Code § FPPC Regulations 18219 and 18734).
The City Manager’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code (Gov. Code §81008).
ELECTRONIC FILING
Effective January 1, 2027, all designated filers must submit their filings electronically via the City’s electronic filing portal.
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
PART B - DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Disclosure categories identify the types of economic interests that the designated position must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she is assigned. “Investment” means financial interest in any business entity (i ncluding a consulting business or other independent contracting business) and are reportable if they are either located in, doing business in, planning to do business in, or have done business in during the previous two years in the jurisdiction of the City of Milpitas.
This Conflict of Interest Code does not require the reporting of gifts from outside this City’s jurisdiction if the source does not have some connection with or bearing upon the functions or duties of the position, per FPPC Regulation 18730.1.
Following is the list of seven five disclosure categories, defined:
Category 1 (General / Real Property Disclosure) : All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, includi ng gifts, loans, and travel payments, from sources located in, doing business in, or owning real property within the City of Milpitas; and all interests in real property located within the City or within two miles of its boundaries, including any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest, or option to acquire property.all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that are located in, doing business in, or that own real property within the City of Milpitas and .
Category 2: all interests in real property which is located in whole or in part within, or not more than two miles outside the boundaries of the City of Milpitas, including any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest or option to acquire property.
Category 32 (Land Development / Construction) : all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that are engaged in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the City of Milpitas.
Category 43 (City Vendors / Procurement) : all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the City of Milpitas.
Category 5: all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the designated positions’ department, unit or division.
Category 64 (Regulated / Permitted Businesses) : all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, from, business entities subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the designated positions’ department, unit or division.
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026 Category 75 (Grant Recipients): all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, and income from a nonprofit or other organization, if the source is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the City of Milpitas or its subdivisions.
EXHIBIT A to
Resolution No.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE
CITY OF MILPITAS
California’s 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 that contains the terms of a standard conflict of interest code which can be incorporated by reference in an agency’s code.
After public notice and hearing Section 18730 may be amended by the Fair Political Practices Commission to conform to amendments in the Political Reform Act. Therefore, the terms of 2 California Code of Regulations Section 18730 and any amendments to it duly adopted by the Fair Political Practices Commission are hereby incorporated by reference. This regulation and the attached Appendix [or Appendices], designating positions and establishing disclosure categories, shall constitute the conflict of interest code of the City of Milpitas (City).
Officials identified in Government Code section 87200 shall file Statements of Economic Interests in accordance with the filing requirements established by the Political Reform Act and the Fair Political Practices Commission.
Officials and designated positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests with the City shall file their statements electronically with the City Clerk, as the City’s Filing Officer, using an electronic filing system approved by the Fair Political Practices Commission. The City Clerk shall retain statements filed with the City and make them available for public inspection and reproduction in accordance with Government Code section 81008.
Nothing in this Conflict of Interest Code shall relieve an official or designated employee of any separate filing obligation imposed by the Political Reform Act or a conflict of interest code adopted by another agency.
Adopted by Milpitas City Council on September xx, 2026
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
APPENDIX
CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE
OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS
Adopted December xx, 2024
PART A
The phrase “Section 87200 Filer” means each person holding one of the positions defined by California Government Code Section 87200, including each of the following positions:
a. Mayor
b. City Councilmember
c. Planning Commissioner
d. City Manager
e. City Attorney
f. City Treasurer (Director of Finance)
g. Any City official who manages public investments
Those holding one of the positions above may contact the Fair Political Practices Commission for assistance or written advice regarding their filing obligation if they believe their position has been categorized incorrectly. The Fair Political Practices Commission makes the final determination as to whether a position is a required filer consistent with Section 87200.
Effective January 1, 2025, all 87200 filers must submit their filings electronically via the FPPC's electronic filing portal, in accordance with AB 1170.
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
DESIGNATED POSITIONS GOVERNED BY THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST CODE
The term “designated position” means any position with the City that is either: (a) identified in this Exhibit “A”; or (b) involves the making or participation in making of governmental decisions which may foreseeably have a material effect on economic interests.
Each of the following positions shall be deemed a Designated Position:
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
ORIGINAL
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Discontinued as of
9/30/26
NEW
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Effective 10/1/26
Administrative Analyst II 5 3
Asset Management Program Administrator - 1, 3
Assistant City Attorney 1, 2 1
Assistant City Engineer 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3
Assistant City Manager 1, 2 1
Assistant Director of Recreation and
Community Services 1, 2, 7 1, 5
Assistant Finance Director 1, 2 1
Assistant Fire Marshal 2, 3 1, 2, 4
Assistant Chief of Police 5 3
Associate Civil Engineer 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3
Associate Planner 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Budget Manager 4 3
Building Inspection Manager 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Building/Neighborhood Preservation Inspector 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4 Building Official 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Business Systems Analyst/Dev 5 3
Buyer 4 3
Capital Improvement Projects Manager 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4 City Clerk 5, 6 3, 4
City Engineer 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Code Enforcement Officer - 4
Deputy City Clerk 5, 6 3, 4
Deputy City Manager 1, 2 1
Deputy Director of Information Technology 5 3
Deputy Fire Chief 5 3
Deputy Fire Chief (Fire Marshal) 2, 3, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
Deputy Public Works Director 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Economic Development & Strategic Initiatives Director 1, 2 1, 5
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
ORIGINAL
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Discontinued as of
9/30/26
NEW
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Effective 10/1/26
Finance Manager 1, 2 1, 3
Financial Analyst II 5 3
Fire Battalion Chief 5 3
Fire Chief 5, 6 3, 4
Fire Captain 3, 6 3
Fire Prevention Inspector 2, 4
Hazmat Inspector 2, 4
Housing Official 1, 2, 7 1, 2, 5
Human Resources Director 5 3
Human Resources Manager 5 3
Information Technology Director 5 3
Information Technology Manager 5 3
Plan Review Manager 5 2, 3, 4
Plan Check Engineer 5 2, 4
Plan Checker 5 2, 4
Planning Director 1, 2 1, 2, 3, 4
Planning Manager 2, 3, 5 1, 2, 3, 4
Police Captain 5 3
Police Chief 5 3
Police Support Services Manager - 3
Principal Civil Engineer 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Principal Planner 1, 2 1, 2, 4
Public Information Officer 5 3
Public Works Division Manager 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Public Works Director 1, 2 1, 2, 3
Public Works Inspector 6 2, 4
Purchasing Manager 4 3
Recreation and Community Services Director 5 3, 5
Recreation Services Supervisor 5 3
Risk Analyst II 5 3
Senior Administrative Analyst 5 3
Senior Accountant 4 3
Senior Building Inspector 5, 6 2, 4
Senior Buyer 4 3
Senior City Manager Analyst - 3
Senior Code Enforcement Officer 6 4
Senior Human Resources Analyst 5 3
Senior Plan Check Engineer 5 2, 3, 4
Senior Planner 1, 2 1, 2, 4
Senior Public Works Inspector 2, 5, 6 1, 2, 3, 4
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
DESIGNATED POSITIONS
ORIGINAL
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Discontinued as of
9/30/26
NEW
DISCLOSURE
CATEGORIES
Effective 10/1/26
CITY OF MILPITAS COMMISSIONS
Arts Commission 5, 7 3, 5
Community Housing Commission 1, 2 1, 2, 5
Economic Development & Trade Commission 1, 2 1, 5
Energy and Environmental Sustainability
Commission 1, 2 1, 3, 5
Parks, Recreation & Cultural Resources
Commission 1, 2 1, 3, 5
Technology Commission 1, 2 1, 3, 5
CONSULTANTS and NEW POSITIONS
Individuals serving as a consultant as defined in FPPC Regulation 18700.3 or in a new position as defined in Regulation 18734 created since this Code was last approved who make, or participate in making, decisions must file under the broadest disclosure category set forth in this Code, subject to the following limitation: The City Manager may determine, that due to the range of duties or contractual obligations, it is more appropriate to assign a limited disclosure requirement. A clear explanation of the duties and a statement of the extent of the disclosure requirements must be a written document (Gov. Code § FPPC Regulations 18219 and 18734).
The City Manager’s determination is a public record and shall be retained for public inspection in the same manner and location as this Conflict of Interest Code (Gov. Code §81008).
ELECTRONIC FILING
Effective January 1, 2027, all designated filers must submit their filings electronically via the City’s electronic filing portal.
City of Milpitas Conflict of Interest Code Adopted September xx, 2026
PART B - DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES
Disclosure categories identify the types of economic interests that the designated position must disclose for each disclosure category to which he or she is assigned. “Investment” means financial interest in any business entity (i ncluding a consulting business or other independent contracting business) and are reportable if they are either located in, doing business in, planning to do business in, or have done business in during the previous two years in the jurisdiction of the City of Milpitas.
This Conflict of Interest Code does not require the reporting of gifts from outside this City’s jurisdiction if the source does not have some connection with or bearing upon the functions or duties of the position, per FPPC Regulation 18730.1.
Following is the list of five disclosure categories, defined:
Category 1 (General / Real Property Disclosure): All investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, includi ng gifts, loans, and travel payments, from sources located in, doing business in, or owning real property within the City of Milpitas; and all interests in real property located within the City or within two miles of its boundaries, including any leasehold, beneficial or ownership interest, or option to acquire property..
Category 2 (Land Development / Construction): all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, that are engaged in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property within the jurisdiction of the City of Milpitas.
Category 3 (City Vendors / Procurement): all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments that provide services, products, materials, machinery, vehicles or equipment of a type purchased or leased by the City of Milpitas.
Category 4 (Regulated / Permitted Businesses): all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, from, business entities subject to the regulatory, permit, or licensing authority of the designated positions’ department, unit or division.
Category 5 (Grant Recipients): all investments and business positions in business entities, and sources of income, including gifts, loans and travel payments, and income from a nonprofit or other organization, if the source is of the type to receive grants or other monies from or through the City of Milpitas or its subdivisions.
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Consider Recommendations from Mayor Montano for Appointments to City Commissions (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3005) Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Receive Mayor Montano's recommendations and approve and confirm the recommended appointments to City Commissions.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Milpitas has 13 Commissions (including the Measure F Oversight Committee), with members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Commissions advise the Milpitas elected officials on a variety of community interest and policy areas. Commissioner appointments and removals are governed by various sections of the California Government Code, Milpitas Municipal Code, and the adopted Milpitas Commissioner Handbook and By-Laws.
Any resident interested in serving on a City Commission must complete a Commission Application and submit the form to the City Clerk. Copies of the applications are provided to the Mayor for her consideration. Per Government Code 40605, in a general law city where the office of Mayor is an elective office, the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shall make all appointments to boards, commissions, and committees unless otherwise specifically provided by statute.
On May 19, 2026, the City Council approved the commission realignment to a quarterly structure. Under the approved structure, commissioner term expiration dates are updated only upon appointment to a new term or appointment to fill a vacant seat. The appointments presented in this report are the first to conform to the new appointment structure.
ANALYSIS:
Appointments and removals are as follows:
Appointments will be provided by the Mayor in a revised report prior to the meeting.
All recommended Commissioner appointments have been reviewed and confirmed by the City Clerk’s office.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
The action is an organizational or administrative activity of the City government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment and is not a project pursuant to Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15378.
ATTACHMENT(S):
n/a
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Negotiate and Execute an Amendment to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute an amendment to the Janitorial Services Agreement with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. to add scope of work, schedules, and pricing for park restrooms and currently inactive locations and services and to add $511,927 for a revised not-to-exceed amount of $2,998,790, subject to appropriation by the City Council through the annual budget adoption process.
BACKGROUND:
On December 5, 2023, City Council authorized the City Manager, or designee, to execute an Agreement for janitorial services with Imperial Maintenance Services, Inc. (Imperial) based on the results of a competitive Request for Proposal (RFP 24-036) process. The Agreement was executed on December 21, 2023, with a term of January 7, 2024, through January 6, 2029, and a maximum compensation of $2,486,863.
On August 11, 2026, City Council authorized staff to negotiate and execute a new parks and landscaping services contract which streamlined the scope of work to exclude services such as graffiti abatement, parks infrastructure maintenance, and routine park restroom operations such as opening, closing, and cleaning that are not optimally addressed by a landscaping contractor. For restroom operations, staff are now returning to City Council with this recommended amendment to reduce overall costs for the City and allocate the work with the appropriate vendor. The current landscaping vendor will continue to provide park restroom services until Imperial begins on October 1, 2026
ANALYSIS:
When assessing the scope of work for the parks and landscaping maintenance services RFP 25-1069, staff determined that it was not cost-effective for the landscaping company to provide park restroom services, which has been the practice for the last several years. Landscaping services are subject to prevailing wage requirements as set by the California Director of Industrial Relations, while janitorial services are not, resulting in higher wage staff performing lower wage work. Staff obtained quotes for park restroom services from the landscaping vendor currently providing these services as well as Imperial. The quote from the landscaping vendor was $390,000/year, and the quote from Imperial was $214,190/year, a difference of $175,810/year. By contracting with Imperial for these services beginning October 1, 2026, the City will receive cost savings of $395,572 through the remaining term of the contract.
If approved, this amendment will add scope of work, schedules, and pricing for park restroom services and locations and services that were not reflected in the original Agreement. Locations and services may be adjusted as required, subject to a City-issued work order which will be limited by the contract maximum compensation. This proposed amendment will add $511,927 to cover costs associated with cleaning, opening, and closing restrooms at 19 City parks for a total cost of $481,929 through the remainder of the contract, with the remaining balance of the requested increase (approximately $30,000) needed to cover cleaning services for the Police Department, Community Center, and Senior Center that were added beginning August 1, 2025, resulting in a revised not-to-exceed contract amount of $2,998,790.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):
Alternative 1: Do not authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute the amendment.
Pros: This will increase City control over service delivery standards and scheduling as the City’s Public Works staff will have to be utilized to provide these services.
Cons: The City does not currently have sufficient internal resources to provide these services while also overseeing ongoing operations and maintenance of the City’s infrastructure.
Reason for Not Recommending: The City does not currently have sufficient resources to perform these services. If this work is to be absorbed directly by the City, the City will need to purchase equipment and hire additional staff. Until that is addressed, maintenance and repair activities will be delayed.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/KEY MILESTONES
Upon City Council approval, staff will negotiate and execute the amendment with Imperial by September 30, 2026. Imperial will begin parks restroom services on October 1, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding in Fiscal Year 2026-27 for these services was adopted and approved by City Council on June 9, 2026, and there are sufficient funds budgeted and available in the Public Works Facilities and Parks Maintenance operating budget for the current fiscal year ending June 30, 2027. Funding after June 30, 2027, will be subject to appropriation by the City Council through the annual budget adoption process.
Fiscal Summary of Contract:
Original
Agreement
Proposed
Amendment
Year 1 1 January 7, 2024 – January 6, 2025 $461,730 $453,745 Year 2 2 January 7, 2025 – January 6, 2026 469,877 542,867 Year 3 3 January 7, 2026 – January 6, 2027 493,354 725,701 Year 4 3 January 7, 2027 – January 6, 2028 517,992 627,889 Year 5 3 January 7, 2028 – January 6, 2029 543,910 648,588 $2,486,863 $2,998,790
1 Proposed Amendment amount reflects actual costs.
2 Proposed Amendment amount reflects actual costs, which included addition of the Police Department, Community Center, and Senior Center as of August 1, 2025.
3 Proposed Amendment amount includes park restroom services beginning October 1, 2026.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b).
ATTACHMENT(S):
None.
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Authorize the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute Purchase Orders with Multiple Vendors for Maintenance Supplies, Materials, and Related Services (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111; and Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute purchase orders with 34 vendors for as-required citywide purchases of maintenance supplies, materials, and related services for a five-year term beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2031, in the individual not-to-exceed amounts set forth in Attachment A and a combined five-year total not to exceed $11,850,000, subject to appropriation by the City Council through the annual budget adoption process; and find, pursuant to Milpitas Municipal Code Section I-2-3.03, that the award of multiple purchase orders within each supply category and the sole source and limited source awards identified in Attachment A are in the best interest of the City.
BACKGROUND:
The City infrastructure includes vehicles, motorized equipment, buildings, streets, parks, medians, water and sewer systems, and other public assets. To preserve these assets, maintain efficient City operations, and ensure public safety, City staff purchase supplies (including parts), materials, and services that include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) General Maintenance, Repair, and Operations (MRO) Supplies and Facilities Maintenance Supplies:
parts for plumbing, HVAC, electrical, and system repairs; and consumables such as janitorial supplies, chemicals, and air filters
(2) Fleet Maintenance Supplies: parts and consumables
(3) Park and Landscaping Maintenance Supplies: paint, electrical supplies, aggregate materials, plants, shrubs, trees, irrigation system components, turf maintenance supplies, and chemicals
(4) Utility Operations and Maintenance Supplies: waterworks and electrical supplies, pump stations, reservoirs, water quality testing and treatment supplies and chemicals, and aggregate materials
(5) Street Maintenance Supplies: electrical supplies, pavement marking materials and traffic signs, traffic intersection equipment and streetlight components, and aggregate materials
ANALYSIS:
On June 18, 2026, the City issued an Invitation for Bid (IFB 26-229) for Maintenance Supplies and Related Repairs. Vendors were instructed to submit bids based on their ability to provide supplies and services within the five supply categories: general MRO supplies and facilities maintenance supplies, fleet maintenance supplies, park and landscaping maintenance supplies, utility operations and maintenance supplies, and street maintenance supplies. The IFB provided for the award of blanket purchase orders to the lowest cost, responsive and responsible vendors based on the discount off list price offered for each supply category. As stated in the IFB, the City intended to award multiple blanket purchase orders within each supply category so that the City would have adequate capacity and capability to meet its requirements, and the City reserved the right to request pricing from multiple awarded vendors to obtain the best value on individual orders.
The IFB was publicly noticed on the City’s Website and on OpenGov, the City e-procurement website, in accordance with Milpitas Municipal Code Section I-2-3.11. Upon release, notifications were sent to 7,436 vendors, and 116 firms downloaded the solicitation documents. The City received 25 submittals by the bid due date of August 4, 2026, and following review, 24 were deemed responsive and responsible. One submittal was determined to be non-responsive. Notice of intent to award was posted, and the seven-day protest period provided by Milpitas Municipal Code Section I-2-3.19 has closed.
While the products and related services offered by the responding vendors meet a significant portion of the City’s required demand, Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) supplies, parts, and related services for specialized City equipment were not offered by any bidder. Category 2 of the IFB expressly included OEM parts for City fleet vehicles, and the IFB required bidders to be the authorized distributor for the products offered. Notwithstanding notice to 7,436 vendors, no responsive bid offered OEM parts or authorized service for the City’s specialized equipment. The solicitation therefore constitutes the good faith review of available sources required by Milpitas Municipal Code Section I-2-3.06, which authorizes award without competition where the Purchasing Agent determines in writing that only one viable source exists or that there is a compelling reason for using only one source, with negotiation as appropriate as to price, delivery, and terms.
Staff identified 10 OEM sole source or limited source vendors, which are listed in Attachment A together with the basis for each determination. A written determination will be placed in each contract file, and these awards will be included in the Purchasing Agent’s annual sole source report to the City Council.
This recommendation requests authorization to negotiate and execute purchase orders with all 34 of these vendors. See Attachment A (Recommended Contract Awards by Vendor) for a list of the recommended vendors and additional details. The total estimated not-to-exceed for these 34 vendors is $11,850,000, which is approximately $2,370,000/year. The amounts shown in Attachment A are individual maximums for each vendor and are not transferable among vendors. Not-to-exceed amounts are inclusive of shipping and freight, which the IFB limits to 12% of the gross value of an order. All contracted vendors will be required to comply with the City’s standard terms and conditions, and purchases are not guaranteed. All purchases will be subject to City request and the appropriation of funds.
Even with these awarded purchase orders, additional gaps still exist and some areas require additional vendor redundancy. Staff will return to City Council with a separate request for authorization to issue purchase orders to additional vendors after a more thorough gap analysis has been completed. That request is anticipated for the November 10, 2026 City Council meeting and is expected to involve approximately 71 additional vendors.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):
Alternative 1: Do not authorize the City Manager, or designee, to negotiate and execute these purchase orders.
Pros: This alternative would allow additional time to evaluate individual vendor requirements before five-year purchase order amounts are established.
Cons: If these purchase orders are not approved, there will be a delay in addressing maintenance and repair needs for City assets. This will affect City operations, asset longevity, and public safety.
Reason for Not Recommending: This would restrict City staff’s ability to purchase the necessary supplies, materials, parts, equipment, and related services necessary to maintain efficient operations, preserve City assets, and ensure public safety. Maintenance and repair work would be delayed or paused until the necessary goods and services could be purchased.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/KEY MILESTONES
Following approval of this recommendation, staff will issue notices of award and will execute purchase orders as each vendor delivers the insurance certificates and other documentation required by the IFB. Purchase orders are anticipated to be in place by October 1, 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Funding in Fiscal Year 2026-2027 was adopted and approved by City Council on June 9, 2026. There are sufficient funds budgeted and available in the adopted operating budgets of the using Departments for the current fiscal year for the purchase of maintenance supplies, materials, and related services. These purchases are funded by the General Fund, Water and sewer enterprise funds, and other funds, depending on the asset being maintained. Consistent with Milpitas Municipal Code Section I-2-4.03, no purchase order will be issued unless a sufficient, unencumbered appropriated balance is available. Funding in the future fiscal years will be requested and appropriated through the annual budget process. No additional funding is requested at this time.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
This item is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378(b).
ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) Recommended Contract Awards by Vendor
ATTACHMENT A – RECOMMENDED CONTRACT AWARDS BY VENDOR
Solicitation-Awarded Vendors:
# Vendor Category(ies) Goods/Services Provided
5-Year Not-
to-Exceed
1 55GEEKS MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies
Electrical and low-voltage
infrastructure solutions, including
data/network connectivity, security
systems, EV charging, and energy
systems
$250,000
2 AZCO Supply, Inc. Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies; Utility
Operations and Maintenance
Supplies; Street Maintenance
Supplies
Transportation and utility
infrastructure supplies, including
traffic signal/ITS equipment,
controllers, cabinets, detection
systems, and roadway lighting
$750,000
3 Backflow Apparatus &
Valve dba BAVCO
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies
Backflow-prevention equipment and
parts, including repair parts, test kits,
enclosures, pressure-control valves,
water meters, and expansion valves
$500,000
4 Varsity Brands, Inc.
dba BSN Sports LLC
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies
Athletic and sporting-goods products:
team uniforms, apparel, footwear,
and sports equipment across multiple
sports
$500,000
5 D & J International
Inc.
MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies; Park and
Landscaping Maintenance
Supplies
Polyethylene film and plastic
packaging products, including plastic
bags and custom high-/low-density
polyethylene film products
$250,000
6 Ennis-Flint, Inc. Street Maintenance Supplies Pavement and traffic-marking materials, including waterborne and
solvent-based traffic paints and
road/highway/parking-lot marking
products
$500,000
7 Ferguson US
Holdings, Inc. dba
Ferguson Enterprises,
LLC
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies; Utility
Operations and Maintenance
Supplies
Water and utility infrastructure
materials: pipe, valves, fittings,
sanitary-sewer and stormwater
products, meters, pumps, and related
contractor supplies
$500,000
8 Fonroche Lighting
America Inc
MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies; Park and
Landscaping Maintenance
Supplies; Utility Operations and
Maintenance Supplies; Street
Maintenance Supplies
Off-grid solar LED lighting systems,
including solar streetlights,
parking/area lighting, pathway
lighting, bollards, and smart/IoT-
enabled solar lighting systems
$500,000
9 Geveko Markings Inc. Street Maintenance Supplies Road and pavement-marking materials, including preformed
markings, hot-applied materials,
traffic paints, glass beads, primers,
and application equipment
$100,000
ATTACHMENT A – RECOMMENDED CONTRACT AWARDS BY VENDOR
# Vendor Category(ies) Goods/Services Provided
5-Year Not-
to-Exceed
10 Global Equipment
Company Inc. dba
Global Industrial
MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies; Fleet Maintenance
Supplies; Park and
Landscaping Maintenance
Supplies; Utility Operations and
Maintenance Supplies; Street
Maintenance Supplies
Broad industrial/MRO catalog:
fasteners, material-handling
equipment, plumbing supplies, tools,
storage, safety equipment, janitorial
supplies, and shop equipment
$250,000
11 Granite Construction
Company
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies; Utility
Operations and Maintenance
Supplies; Street Maintenance
Supplies
Aggregates, asphalt concrete, ready-
mix concrete, base materials, sand,
and specialty aggregates
$375,000
12 Iteris, Inc. Street Maintenance Supplies Intelligent transportation/smart- mobility technology, including
video/radar traffic detection,
intersection sensors, traffic analytics,
and signal optimization
$1,000,000
13 Lawson Products, Inc. MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies; Fleet Maintenance
Supplies; Park and
Landscaping Maintenance
Supplies; Utility Operations and
Maintenance Supplies; Street
Maintenance Supplies
Industrial MRO supplies, including
fasteners, chemicals, electrical
products, hardware, hydraulics,
material-handling products, safety
supplies, and welding supplies
$125,000
14 Milpitas Materials
Company
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies; Utility
Operations and Maintenance
Supplies; Street Maintenance
Supplies
Ready-mix concrete and specialty
concrete products, including colored,
lightweight, pervious, early-strength,
water-resistant, and fiber-reinforced
concrete
$375,000
15 Nancy Massa dba
Steel Source
Construction
MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies; Fleet Maintenance
Supplies; Park and
Landscaping Maintenance
Supplies; Utility Operations and
Maintenance Supplies; Street
Maintenance Supplies
Primary product is the MX Water
Quality Sampling Station for
municipalities and water utilities
$100,000
16 Pinion Group LLC MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies; Fleet Maintenance
Supplies; Park and
Landscaping Maintenance
Supplies; Utility Operations and
Maintenance Supplies; Street
Maintenance Supplies
Batteries (sealed lead-acid, golf cart,
and automotive) and lighting products
(Satco, ATG, Keystone, and Maxlite)
$250,000
ATTACHMENT A – RECOMMENDED CONTRACT AWARDS BY VENDOR
# Vendor Category(ies) Goods/Services Provided
5-Year Not-
to-Exceed
17 Rentokil North
America, Inc dba
Target Specialty
Products
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies
Pest-management and environmental
services/products, including termite
and general pest control, bed-bug
services, bird management, and
bioremediation
$500,000
18 Sierra Pacific Turf
Supply, Inc.
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies
Golf, landscape, and sports-turf
supplies, including turf seed,
fertilizers, fungicides, herbicides,
insecticides, soil amendments, and
irrigation products
$100,000
19 Statewide Traffic
Safety and Signs, Inc.
dba AWP Safety
Street Maintenance Supplies Traffic-control services and equipment for work zones, including
flagging, arrow boards, temporary
traffic-control setups/plans, and smart
work-zone technologies
$100,000
20 Tahoe Supply
Company, LLC
MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies
Janitorial, cleaning, and facility-
maintenance supplies and
equipment, including floor-care
chemicals/equipment, cleaners,
liners, waste receptacles, mops, and
safety supplies
$250,000
21 Underground Republic
Water Works, Inc.
Utility Operations and
Maintenance Supplies
Underground utility infrastructure
materials for sewer, stormwater, and
fire-protection systems; excludes
Clow hydrants and check valves
which were awarded to another
vendor through a separate bid
process.
$500,000
22 Unipak Corp. MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies
Plastic and polyethylene packaging
products, including trash liners,
plastic bags, reclosable bags,
retail/merchandise bags, poly tubing,
sheeting, and films
$250,000
23 Washington Western
Systems, Inc.
Street Maintenance Supplies Traffic-signal and intelligent- transportation equipment, including
traffic signal cabinets/controllers,
detection systems, communications
equipment, and backup power
$100,000
24 Z.A.P. Manufacturing,
Inc.
Street Maintenance Supplies Traffic and roadway signs, including new traffic-control signs/blanks and
refurbished aluminum signs with
reflective sheeting; also provides
custom signage
$325,000
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED FOR SOLICITATION-AWARDED VENDORS $8,450,000
ATTACHMENT A – RECOMMENDED CONTRACT AWARDS BY VENDOR
OEM Sole Source/Limited Source Vendors:
# Vendor Category(ies) Justification
5-Year Not-
to-Exceed
25 Altec Industries, Inc. Fleet Maintenance Supplies
and Repair Services
Provides authorized parts and repairs
for the City’s Altec boom trucks
$100,000
26 DGDG 16 LLC dba
Capitol Ford
Fleet Maintenance Supplies
and Repair Services
Provides authorized repairs and parts
for Ford vehicles and is the
authorized Ford dealer in the City’s
area equipped to handle ongoing
fleet repairs for the City’s light- and
medium-duty Ford vehicles
$500,000
27 Playcore Wisconsin,
Inc. dba GameTime
Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies
Provides proprietary playground parts
and components
$250,000
28 Bobcat of Chico dba
Iconic Machinery
Fleet Maintenance Supplies
and Repair Services
Provides authorized Bobcat parts and
repairs
$500,000
29 Jams Services, LLC Street Maintenance Supplies Sole authorized dealer for CA for Rectangular Flashing Beacons
(pedestrian safety device used for
crosswalks)
$500,000
30 Kompan, Inc. Park and Landscaping
Maintenance Supplies
Provides proprietary playground parts
and components
$250,000
31 Mission Valley Ford
Truck Sales, Inc.
Fleet Maintenance Supplies
and Repair Services
Provides authorized repairs and parts
for Ford vehicles and specializes in
larger Ford truck repairs (F450 and
up)
$50,000
32 Owen Equipment
Sales
Fleet Maintenance Supplies
and Repair Services
Authorized regional parts distributor
and service provider for the City’s
Vactor sewer trucks
$250,000
33 Peterson Power
Systems, Inc.
Fleet Maintenance Supplies
and Repair Services
Authorized Caterpillar dealer for this
territory; provides Caterpillar parts
and service for the City’s Caterpillar
heavy equipment
$500,000
34 Trane U.S. Inc. MRO and Facility Maintenance
Supplies
OEM parts and equipment for
furnaces, air handlers, A/C, heat
pumps, coils, VAV boxes, and air
handler units
$500,000
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED FOR OEM VENDORS $3,400,000
GRAND TOTAL ALL VENDORS THIS RECOMMENDATION $11,850,000
CITY OF MILPITAS
AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Approve the Improvement Agreement with CDP Development, Inc., for an Amazon Distribution Warehouse Building Located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Development
Meeting Date: 9/15/2026
Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager, or designee, to execute an Improvement Agreement between the City of Milpitas and CDP Development, Inc., secured by performance and labor and material bonds, each in the amount of $2,915,746 for an Amazon distribution warehouse located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive.
BACKGROUND:
On September 10, 2025, the Milpitas Planning Commission approved Site Development Permit No. SD24- 0006, Environmental Assessment No. EA24-0002, and Tree Removal Permit No. TR25-0021 to construct an approximately 487,564 square-foot tilt-up concrete industrial building and associated site and public improvements at 1000 Gibraltar Drive (“Project”) by CDP Development, Inc. (“Developer”). The approval was appealed to the City Council. On December 2, 2025, following a public hearing, the City Council denied the appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's approval by Resolution No. 9461.
ANALYSIS:
In accordance with Milpitas Municipal Code XI-1-17 – Improvement Agreement, Bonds, the Developer is required to enter into an Improvement Agreement with the City for the construction of off-site public improvements (“Improvements”) associated with the Project. The Improvements will be completed concurrently with the on-site work. The Improvements will be accepted by the City after completion of construction which consists of, but not limited to, asphalt pavement improvements including full-streets grind and overlay of Gibraltar Drive and full-street crack and slurry seal treatment of South Milpitas Boulevard; concrete improvements including replacement of curb, gutter, driveways, sidewalk and ADA curb ramps; modification and upgrade of traffic signal facilities at the intersections of South Milpitas Boulevard and Ames Avenue, and South Milpitas Boulevard and Gibraltar Drive; new utility improvements such as sewer, storm, and domestic, fire, and recycled water services; replacement of all existing fire hydrants along the Project frontage; installation of landscaping and irrigation; and other miscellaneous items of work as identified on the improvement plans.
The Agreement requires the Developer to complete the Improvements within one year of the Agreement's effective date, with extensions at the City's sole discretion, and to warrant the Improvements for one year following acceptance. The City Engineer's approved cost estimate for the Improvements is $2,915,746. The Developer has posted a performance bond and a labor and material bond, each in that amount, which are included with the Agreement as Exhibit C. The Improvements will be accepted by the City Council after construction is complete and the City Engineer has approved the work.
The City Engineer has reviewed the Public Improvement Plans (2-1484) and recommends the City Council approve the Improvement Agreement l.
POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):
Alternative 1: Do not approve the Agreement.
Pros: None
Cons: The denial of approval of the Improvement Agreement will cause construction of the off-site public improvements to be delayed and will prevent the Developer from occupying the new industrial building.
Reason for Not Recommending: The Improvements are designed to support the public and the Project. Staff recommend approval of the Improvement Agreement to allow the Project to move forward.
PROJECT SCHEDULE/KEY MILESTONES:
The improvements will be completed by the Developer within one (1) year from the date of the Improvement Agreement.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no cost to the City associated with approving the Improvement Agreement. The Developer will construct all improvements at its sole expense, secured by performance and labor and material bonds of $2,915,746. The Developer funds all City costs for plan review, permitting, and construction inspection through a developer deposit account. Following completion and City Council acceptance of the improvements, the City will have perpetual ownership and maintenance responsibility, with the Developer providing a one-year warranty following acceptance. The Public Works Department provides funding for future maintenance of newly accepted City infrastructure through its budget, subject to the annual appropriation of funds by the City Council.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):
The 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024) was certified by the Planning Commission on March 24, 2021 by Resolution No. 21-007. On September 10, 2025, the Milpitas Planning Commission reviewed and adopted the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Project, as modified in the Resolution No. 25-012, finding pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 that no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required. The City Council upheld that determination on December 2, 2025 by Resolution No. 9461. The public improvements covered by the Agreement were analyzed in the FEIR and Addendum, and approval of the Agreement requires no further environmental review.
Attachment(s):
(a) Improvement Agreement
(b) Resolution No. 25-012
RESOLUTION NO. 25-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS, APPROVING SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. SD24-0006, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA24-0002, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT NO. TR25-0021, TO REMOVE AND REPLACE 25-ORDINANCE SIZED TREES, DEMOLISH ALL
EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE INCLUDING FOUR INDUSTRIAL/OFFICE
BUILDINGS, SURFACE PARKING LOTS, AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS, AND DEVELOP A NEW, ONE-STORY, 487,564-SQUARE FOOT TILT-UP CONCRETE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING WITH OFFICE SPACE, SURFACE PARKING LOTS, 781 VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, 50 OVERSIZED TRUCK TRAILER PARKING
SPACES, AND ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROXIMATELY
28.96-ACRE SITE IN THE M2 (HEAVY INDUSTRIAL) ZONING DISTRICT LOCATED AT 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE (ALSO KNOWN AS 1001 S. MILPITAS BLVD.) (APN 086-42-033); AND ADOPT THE ADDENDUM TO THE 1000 GIBRALTAR DRIVE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2020069024), MAKING CEQA FINDINGS PURSUANT TO CEQA GUIDELINES SECTION 15162 AND 15164.
WHEREAS, on March 24, 2021, by adoption of Resolution No. 21-006, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas approved to de molish existing onsite buildings, parking lots, and associated improvements and to remove and replace 88 ordinance-sized trees, construct a new, 491,040-square foot tilt-up concrete distribution center with office space, parking lots, 346 vehicle parking spaces, 101 truck trailer spaces, and associated site improvements located at 1000 Gibraltar Drive per Site Development Permit No. SD19-0008, Environmental Assessment EA20- 0007, and Tree Removal Permit TR19-0007 (the “previous project”); and
WHEREAS, in order to evaluate the previous project under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA,” codified at Public Resources Code § 21000, et seq., as further governed by the CEQA Guidelines, found at 14 C.C.R. § 15000, et seq.), an environmental impact report was prepared (the Draft EIR, as revised by the Final EIR’s errata section, together with the other sections of the Final EIR, are collectively referred to herein as the “ 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR,” State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024) was certified on March 24, 2021, by the Planning Commission by adoption of Resolution N o. 21-007 available for review at https://www.milpitas.gov/379/Environmental-Documents-CEQA; and
WHEREAS , on June 22, 2022, by adoption of Reso lution No. 22-008, the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas approved a time extension request per Time Extension No.
TE22-0005 to extend the expiration date of the previous project’s entitlements, Site Development Permit No. 19-0008 and Tree Removal Permit No. TR19-0007 to March 24, 2024. The approved project entitlements expired as the development did not vest th e previous project per Milpitas Municipal Code Section XI-10-64.06, Expiration of Permit or Approvals, and was not constructed; and
WHEREAS, on November 25, 2024, Panattoni Development Company (“Applicant”), on behalf of the property owner, submitted an applicat ion to the City of Milpitas for the approvals
necessary for Site Development Permit SD24-0006, Environmental Assessment EA24-0002, and Tree Removal Permit TR25-0021. The proposed development (the “Project” ) is a similar but modified version of the previous project, thus consists of and requires:
a. Site Development Permit (P-SD24-0002): Develop a new, one-story, 487,564- square foot tilt-up concrete industrial building with office space and associated site improvements, including new internal roadways, landscaping, offsite public improvements, and a new surface parking lo t with 781 vehicle parking spaces, 50 oversized parking stalls for tractor-trailers, and 27 loading dock doors; and
b. Environmental Assessment (P-EA24-0002): Consider an Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2020069024); and
c. Tree Removal Permit (P-TR25-0021): To remove 25-ordinance sized trees pursuant to Section X-2-4.02 of the Milpitas Municipal Code.
WHEREAS , Milpitas City Staff conducted a full analysis of the Project to ensure compliance with the City’s General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Engineering Design Requirements , Transportation Analysis Guidelines, and all other applicable laws, regulations and standards, as all further explained in detail in City staff’s report to the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Division completed an environmental impact assessment for the project in accordance with the Cali fornia Environmental Quality Act ( “CEQA”) and prepared an Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR in accordance with CEQA, and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA; and
WHEREAS, the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR concluded that impacts of the proposed Project are consistent with or less than the previous project and the environmental analysis conducted for the same;
WHEREAS, in connection with the approval of a project involving the preparation of an environmental impact report that identifies one or more significant effects, CEQA requires the decision-making body of the lead agency to inco rporate feasible mitigation measures that would reduce those significant environment effects to less than significant level; and
WHEREAS, whenever a lead agency approves a project requiring the implementation of measures to mitigate or avoid significant effect s on the environment, CEQA also requires a lead agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during the project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas is the lead agency, and the Milpitas Planning Commission is the decision-making body for the proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, the Milpitas Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR ( “Addendum”), attached hereto and incorporated herein as
Exhibit 2, together with the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3 , and adopted the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, as modified by this Resolution, to ensure the Project is in compliance with CEQA and State and local guidelines implementing CEQA at its meeting on September 10, 2025; and
WHEREAS, per 14 C.C.R. §§ 15162 and 15164, the Planning Commission hereby adopts the Addendum, together with its findings and c onclusions that no supplemental or subsequent environmental review is required because: (a) no substantial changes are proposed in the Project which will require major revisions of the 1000 Gibra ltar Drive FEIR; (b) no substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the Project is being undertaken which will require major revisions in the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR; and (c) no new information which was not known and could not have been known at the time the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR was certified has become available; and
WHEREAS, as separate and independent bases, the Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the Project is exempt from further CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan or Zoning); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission makes and accepts as its own the findings set forth in the resolution; and
WHEREAS, on September 10, 2025, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, at which all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered all of the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing in making its decision; and
NOW THEREFORE , the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines and resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. Recitals
The Planning Commission has duly considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the City staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2: Record
The location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings upon which this decision is based is within the Planning Department, City of Milpitas, 455 East Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California 95035.
SECTION 3. CEQA Finding
An Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH No. 2020069024) was published on September 5, 2025. The Addendum finds that the impacts of the proposed Project remain consistent or less than with the impacts previously analyzed in the certified 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR. The Addendum further concludes that proposed Project does not require any substantial revisions to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR, that no new significant information or changes in circumstances surrounding the proposed Project have occurred since the certification of the 1000 Gibral tar Drive FEIR, and that the previous analysis completed for the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR remains adequate under CEQA. As further discussed in the Addendum, the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) has been updated to identify the relevant mitigation meas ures applicable to the Project from the 1000 Gibraltar Drive FEIR’s MMRP. The Planning Commission therefor e finds that its actions are consistent with CEQA and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164, and that no additional environmental review is required. Therefore, the Planning Commission thereby approves and adopts this Addendum and its Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3, respectively.
SECTION 4. Site Development Perm it (MMC Section XI-10-57.03(F))
The Planning Commission makes the following findings based on the evidence in the public record in approving Site Development Permit No. SD24-0006:
1. The layout of the site and design of the proposed buildings, structures and landscaping are compatible and aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.
The proposed Project’s architecture is refl ective of a modern and ‘Contemporary’ architectural style that incorporates various wall planes and massing elements that adds interest to the proposed elevations and was modeled to be similar from the previously approved building. The high-quality archit ecture sets a new standard for future development in the heavy industrial zoned area. Although the proposed warehouse will be one-story tall, the proposed architectural design with alternating colors, delineations, and materials provides the illusion that the building could be more than one-story. The exterior façade of the Project includes three, two-story glass corners including the main office entry and surrounding site vantage points while the bu lk of the structure is offset by various façade elements including concrete panel accent s and multi-colored paint patterns with three different shades of gray and a blue accent trim and two types of blue-glazed glass.
The proposed landscaping plan is compatible as it adds a variety of drought tolerant groundcovers and approximately 234 new trees, in addition to retaining approximately 58 existing trees along the perimeter of the si te and will include modern stormwater bioretention areas. The proposed new surface pa rking lots will also be a substantial improvement from the existing unmaintained site with new striped parking stalls, EV ready and EV charging stalls, landscaping, and deline ated areas for trucks, employee/visitor parking, and flex delivery drivers.
Generally, buildings surrounding the Project site vary in height. At a maximum height of
46.5-feet up to 49.5-feet to the top of pa rapet, the proposed building complements neighboring one- to two-story buildings that are also industrially zoned uses. The varying rooflines add to the building’s aesthetic and the Applicant has provided line of sight studies in the proposed plan set to ensure that roof top equipment is adequately screened by parapets from any ground or street level vantage point, as well as realistic renderings which demonstrate that the proposed Project will be compatible to the neighborhood in scale, bulk, and height and will be aesthetically harmonious with adjacent and surrounding development.
2. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Ordinance.
The Project site is zoned M2 (Heavy Industrial). It is anticipated that the facility would operate as a warehousing and distribution center and is a permitted use per MMC Table XI-10-7.02-1 “Industrial Zone Uses”. As demonstrated in Table 1, the Project complies with the required setbacks, number of parking spaces, landscaped area, and maximum floor area ratio. The proposed signage will be reviewed under a future separate permit.
Although the M2 Zoning District does not identify any maximum height limits, the construction of any new buildi ng greater than 35-feet in height requires the Planning Commission to make a finding that any such exce ss height will not be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of any other structure or use currently existing or anticipated, pursuant to MMC XI-10-7.03. Given that heights of s urrounding structures vary and there are sufficient setbacks between the proposed build ing and structures on adjacent parcels and the Project would be largely centered around the surface parking lot in a large 28.96-acre lot, the proposed height of the Project would not be detrimental to the light, air, or privacy of any other structure as further demonstra ted by the renderings on Sheet A601 of the proposed plans.
Additionally, during the development review process, Planning staff asked the Applicant if it was feasible to reduce the maximum height of the building to 35-feet or below; however, the Applicant indicated that the proposed height is the minimum required height necessary for the feasibility of the development to occur and support the operations of the Project, provides more storage and shelfing capacity, and is the industry standard to include interior ceiling heights at a minimu m of 36-40 feet. Considering all of the above and if the Planning Commission grants the finding of excess height beyond 35-feet at approximately 46-feet and 6-inches (up to 49-feet and 9-inches to top of parapet) with an internal 36-foot clear ceiling height, the Project will be consistent with the Milpitas Zoning Code. The Planning Commission finding is included as Section 5 of this Resolution
Table 1: Heavy Industrial (M2) Zoning District
Development Standards Conformance
Standards M2
Requirements Proposed Complies
Front Setback
(Min.) 35 feet from face of curb 65 feet, 9 inches Yes Street Side
Setback (Min.) 35 feet from face of curb 73 feet Yes Rear Setback
(Min.) None 217 feet Yes
Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) 1.0 0.387 Yes
Landscaping Required front yard area and
required side yard area
New landscaped
areas within
required front
yard and side yard
areas
Yes
Parking
Office: 1 per 350 sq. ft.
Warehouse:1 per 1,500 sq. ft.
349 stalls required
781 stalls Yes
Building Height
(Max.)
None. However, prior to
construction of any structure
that exceeds three (3) stories
or thirty-five (35) feet in
height, the Planning
Commission must make a
finding as stated in the
Complies column
46 feet, 6 inches;
up to 49 feet, 6
inches to top of
parapet
Yes, if the Planning
Commission makes the
following finding:
That any such excess height
will not be detrimental to the
light, air or privacy of any
other structure or use
currently existing or
anticipated.
The Planning Commission
finding is included as
Section 5 of this Resolution
3. The Project is consistent with the Milpitas General Plan.
The proposed Project is consistent with the Mi lpitas General Plan, as demonstrated and outlined in Table 2, and particularly Policy ED 1-5, which wants to make Milpitas a more predictable place for companies to do busin ess by reducing impediments to growth and actively planning to provide adequate space for companies to provide long-term growth needs, and Policy LU 7-3, which encourages the development of new industrial areas and the redevelopment of existing older or margin al areas with new similar uses, especially those in locations which facilitate efficient multi-modal commute patterns. The proposed Project will be developed on an existing corpo rate industrial/office campus lot spawning
28.96-acres that has been underutilized and vacant since 2018 and is over 45 years old. The Project is also considered an infill development on previously developed land and will be
served by existing utilities and will ensure the land continues to be used as an industrial use, providing a desired manufacturing land use as a warehousing and distribution center that is specifically listed in the General Plan’s description for Manufacturing (MFG). The City’s Office of Economic Development has also provided a letter of support. Furthermore, reinvestment into the Project site will help promote additional economic activity into the area and employment opportunities, as well as provide offsite public improvements that was coordinated closely with the Applicant and City’s Engineering Division.
Table 2: General Plan Consistency
Policy Consistency Finding
ED 1-3: Strengthen the City’s position as a
premier regional location for high -tech industrial
and advanced manufacturing uses in Silicon
Valley.
Consistent: The City embarked on a
multi-year process to update the City’s
General Plan in 2016, which included
several consultant -prepared studies
including economic development
projections, which at the time saw
increasing potential growth of attracting
new high -tech industrial and advanced
manufacturing uses in the City. The
previously approved project was
submitted before the unprecedented
global COVID -19 pandemic and was
approved in the midst of the pandemic in
March 2021, at a time of uncertain
economic conditions and high
construction costs. As such, construction
of the previous project became financially
infeasible, resulting in expired
entitlements. As economic conditions
began to improve over time, renewed
interest in redeveloping this subject lot
with a modified Project proposal ensued.
Approval of the proposed Project would
attract an established web
-based retail
tenant or similar prospective tenants to
invest in the site and City as a viable “last
mile” warehousing and distribution
facility and ensure the lot remains as an
industrial us e and strengthens the City’s
position as a premier regional location in
Silicon Valley. The Project site is also
strategically located near major freeways
and the Applicant has strategically
modified the Project’s surface parking lot
Policy Consistency Finding
design from the previously approved
entitlements for efficiency, including
separating locati ons for access and
circulation for trucks, employee/visitor
vehicles, and flex delivery parking in
designated areas of the surface parking lot
with gates separating
internal access into
the truck yard area.
ED 1-5: Make Milpitas a more predictable place
for companies to do business by reducing
impediments to growth and actively planning to
provide adequate space for companies to meet
long
-term growth needs.
Consistent: The proposed Project’s new
concrete tilt up industrial warehouse
building and site planning was carefully
modified from the expired entitlements to
plan for the future growth of a web -based
retail tenant to meet long -term growth
needs and add an employment center with
local job opportunities. The Addendum
prepared to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final
Environmental Impact Report estimates
the Project to generate an average of 363
employees, which also accounts for
seasonal fluctuations.
The large 28.96 -acre site has been vacant
and underutilized since 2018, and the
City’s General Plan 2040 prioritizes the
maintenance of its industrial lands with
active uses and tenants that are consistent
the intent of the Manufacturing land use
designation. Additionally, the City’s
Office of Economic Development
provided a letter of support for the Project.
LU 7-3: Encourage the development of new
industrial, manufacturing, and business park areas
and the redevelopment of existing older or
marginal areas with new similar uses, especially
those in locations which facilitate efficient multi-
modal commute patterns. Use available public
financing to provide n ecessary infrastructure
improvements to encourage economic
development and revitalization.
Consistent: The redevelopment of the
existing, outdated, and underutilized site
will lead to a new state -of-the-art modern
industrial warehousing building with
careful site planning, such as locating all
oversized trucks and trailers in the parking
lot to be separated by different entry
points with two protective gates, while
ensuring adequate parking, access and
circulation remains for other passenger
vehicle types with new improved
pedestrian walkways.
Policy Consistency Finding
Through these ongoing coordination
efforts with City staff, the Applicant has
agreed to several off
-street public
improvements including but not limited to
pavement restoration along
portions of
Gibraltar Drive and S . Milpitas B lvd.,
sidewalk replacements along perimeter of
the lot
to meet ADA requirements , and
operational upgrades to traffic signals at
the S. Milpitas Blvd./Ames Avenue and
Gibraltar Drive inter
sections. The
improvements will be coordinated by the
City’s Engineering Division with the
Applicant and are included as Conditions
of Approval (Exhibit 1 to Resolution 25-
012).
CD 1-2: Encourage infill development projects to
accommodate contemporary uses and design and
planning approaches and requirements in manner
that minimizes conflicts with the surrounding
existing development.
Consistent: This infill Project will
accommodate a new
warehouse/distribution building to serve
the needs of a contemporary business that
would be constructed with a modern
design to replace a dilapidated corporate
industrial office campus site that was
constructed over 45 years ago around
1980.
The Project site is surrounded by a mix of
other commercial, office, manufacturing,
and industrial uses and the Project will
retain its industrial land use. Therefore, the
proposed Project will not create a conflict
with the surrounding development and will
add to the diversity of contemporary
building types in the area.
SECTION 5: Building Height Finding (MMC Section XI-10.7.03)
Consistent with MMC Section XI-10.7.03, Industrial Zone General Development Standards, the Planning Commission finds and determines, base d upon the totality of circumstances in the record, that although there is no maximum building height in the M2 Heavy Industrial Zoning District and that construction of the new, one-story warehouse would result in a maximum building height of 46.5-feet up to 49.5-feet to the top of its parapet with a maximum internal ceiling height of 36-feet, that the proposed ex cess height above 35-feet in height will not
be detrimental to the light, air or privacy of a ny other structure or use currently existing or anticipated.
SECTION 6: Planning Commission Approval
The Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts the Addendum to the 1000 Gibraltar Drive Final Environmental Impact Report per Environmental Assessment No. EA24- 0002, attached hereto as Exhibit 2, and approves Site Development Permit No. SD24-0006 and Tree Removal Permit No. TR25-0021 based on the above Findings and subject to the Conditions of Approval, attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and the Addendum’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 incorporated herein.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on September 10, 2025.
Chair
TO WIT:
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the following resolution was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Milpitas on September 10, 2025, and carried by the following roll call vote:
COMMISSIONER AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN
Chia Ling Kong
Michael Caulkins
Mercedes Albana
Dipak Awasthi
Alexander Galang
Parveen Gupta
Sonia Medina-Ashby
X
X
X
X
X
X
X