AGENDA
City of Monte Sereno
Tuesday, September 1, 2026
City Council
6:00 PM
Monte Sereno City Council Chambers - 18041 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, Ca 95030
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN-PERSON
OR UTILIZE THE VIRTUAL OPTION
How to Participate
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access and participate in the meeting as follows: To listen (only) by telephone dial US: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 When prompted by the system enter participation Webinar ID:
854 8505 5071
and Password: 400386.
To attend the meeting webinar with a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/85485055071?pwd=S42LF1s2X78bXAwbXjVY5yavb67hBu.1 Passcode: 400386
Or iPhone one-tap (telephone connection) : US:
+16694449171,,85485055071#,,,,*400386# US
+17207072699,,85485055071#,,,,*400386# US
Passcode: 400386.
You will be prompted to install the webinar client appropriate for your device. Attendees are encouraged to install the needed software in advance at the following locations depending on the device being used. If you are unable to participate in real-time, you may email to the City Clerk at [email protected] with the subject line "Public Comment Item #__ " (insert the item number relevant to your comment) or "Oral Communications - Non Agenda Item."
Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the City Manager who will use their best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager at 408-498-5285 or [email protected]. If requested of the City Manager, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.
Page
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ORDERS OF THE DAY
The Mayor, or a majority of the Council by vote, may change the order of business, except for public hearings on the agenda for a set time.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Monte Sereno Police Services Presentation Report January - June 2026 Monte Sereno Bi-Annual Report
5 - 10
ANNOUNCEMENTS
(Council Member announcements or individuals invited by Council to make announcement)
JPA/COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers serving on Council committees or appointed by the City to serve on the boards, commissions or committees of other agencies to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter of City business not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. The Council generally may not discuss or take action on matters raised during this portion of the meeting, but may direct staff to follow up. This portion of the agenda is limited to 30 minutes to ensure that all agenda items are heard. Each speaker is allowed up to three minutes, unless additional time is authorized by the Mayor. If additional speakers are unable to speak during the initial Oral Communications period, the Mayor may open an additional Oral Communications period prior to adjournment.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting. Council Members desiring to read or discuss any written communication may do so at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council consideration.
CONSENT CALENDAR
It is recommended that all items listed below be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is required by a Councilmember. One public comment period will be provided, although speakers speaking on more than one item may be allocated additional time by the Mayor or a majority of the Council.
2. Approve the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting
Staff recommends approval of the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting.
Staff Report - SR-26-149 - Pdf
11 - 17
3. Approve Warrant List Dated September 1, 2026 in the Amount of $36,603.46
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.
Staff Report - SR-26-150 - Pdf
18 - 21
4. Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury 22 - 48
Report, "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County"
Staff recommends that the City Council approves the response to 2025- 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, " Pothole Damage:
Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County."
Staff Report - SR-26-141 - Pdf
5. Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II"
Staff recommends that the City Council approves the response to 2025- 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II".
Staff Report - SR-26-142 - Pdf
49 - 95
6. Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Right-of-Way Due to Potential Fire Hazard Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution supporting the removal of eucalyptus trees in the Highway 9 Right-ofWay due to potential fire hazard.
Staff Report - SR-26-145 - Pdf
96 - 101
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
7. Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-### An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace It with a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance)
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. NS-### an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace it With a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance).
Staff Report - SR-26-151 - Pdf
102 - 111
8. Consideration of a Letter of Support for SB 922 (Laird). Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether to authorize the Mayor to send the draft letter of support for SB 922 (Laird) to the Governor.
Staff Report - SR-26-143 - Pdf
112 - 115
9. Consideration of a Letter of Support for AB 1761 (Rogers). Electricity: 116 - 121
calculation methodology: nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether to authorize the Mayor to send the draft letter of support for AB 1761 (Rogers) to the Governor.
Staff Report - SR-26-144 - Pdf
10. Consider Membership in the Government AI Coalition
Staff recommends that the City Council consider membership in the Government AI Coalition
Staff Report - SR-26-140 - Pdf
122 - 126
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make brief announcements or reports on the Councilmember’s own activities. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
COMPLETION OF ORAL COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make a specific request for an item to be placed on a future agenda. No discussion or other action may be taken.
11. Council Tentative Council Meeting Calendar 2026 127 - 134
ADJOURN
* All items on the agenda are subject to action/or change by the City Council In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (408) 354-7635. If requested of the City Clerk, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]
MONTE SERENO
POLICE SERVICES
REPORT
JANUARY-JUNE 2026
CERT
Community
Emergency
Response
Team
EXPLORERS
D.A.R.T.
Disaster
Aid Response
Team
VIPs
Volunteers
In Policing
COMMUNITY COMMUNITY
POLICING OLICIN
&
VOLUNTEERS
Calls For Service
2:24
0:00
4:48
7:12
12:00
9:36
16:48
14:24
PRIORITY 1 CALLS
4,716
18%
14,863
56%
6,767
26%
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
CALL CENTER METRICS LL CENTER
January
ER
y -
R METRI
uary - June
2025
911 Calls (95.95% Calls Answered < 10 Sec)
Incoming Non Emergency Calls
Outbound Calls
4,736
19%
13,925
55%
6,555
26%
COMMUNICATIONS COMMUNICATIONS
CALL CENTER METRICS LL CENTER
January
ER
y -
R METRI R M
uary June
2026
911 Calls (95.90% Calls Answered < 10 Sec)
Incoming Non Emergency Calls
Outbound Calls
2:24
0:00
4:48
7:12
12:00
9:36
16:48
14:24
PRIORITY 1 CALLS
4:22
6:28 6:59
4:07
6:27 7:05
5:00
10:00
15:00
0:00
2:24
4:48
7:12
9:36
12:00
14:24
16:48
PRIORITY 1 CALLS PRIORITY 2 CALLS PRIORITY 3 CALLS
RESPONSE TIMES BY PRIORITY ONSE TIMES B
JANUARY
ES B
Y –
S BY PRIO
ANUARY – JUNE
2025
ARY
5 -
Y JUNE
2026
2025 2026 GOAL
Traffic Enforcement& Case Reports
Intoxicated Driving
(DUI)
COLLATERAL
TEAM
READINESS
DISPATCH
INFRASTRUCTURE
MODERNIZATION
RECRUITMENT
AND RETENTION
PRIORITIES & THEMES
GAME READY
AXON DRONES
PUBLIC SAFETY:
MODERNIZATION &
INNOVATION
AXON DRONES
CASE OVERVIEW #1 PERSONS CRIME
ORBEEZ PROJECTILE GUN
CAMERAS IDENTIFIED THE VEHICLE
Verkada video established the vehicle, time and direction of travel
ALPR CONNECTED THE EVIDENCE
Flock Data helped identify and locate the suspect vehicle RESULT
4 juveniles identified and arrested
ALPR DETECTED
Stolen U-Haul identified entering the jurisdiction
DRONE TRACKED
DFR maintained real-time awareness while patrol positioned safely RESULT
Vehicle Recovered · Suspect Apprehended · Evidence Preserved CASE OVERVIEW #2 PROPERTY CRIME
BURGLARY
CASE OVERVIEW #3 MISSING PERSON
REAL-TIME WELFARE CHECK
DFR LOCATED & TRACKED
Drone First Responder provided real time tracking across a large, difficult to access area.
REAL TIME UPDATES
Continuous telemetry & aerial updates guided officers to the individual.
RESULT
Welfare check conducted successfully. Individual located and safe.
CASE OVERVIEW #4 594 FELONY
PARKING ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT
VERKADA CAPTURED THE INCIDENT
Surveillance video captured the suspect smashing PCO’s windshield and suspect fleeing.
ALPR ALERTED OFFICERS
Flock ALPR identified the vehicle and alerted officers upon its return to the area.
RESULT
Suspect arrested and booked for vandalism of Town property.
Every 2 years our department holds a
Department-wide meeting with all personnel
to review our goals, evaluate our progress, &
share organizational updates for alignment
on priorities & expectations.
WYSM training is intended to improve
communication, understanding, and safety
during interactions between law enforcement
and community members.
Los Gatos Leadership aims to educate,
engage, and develop service-oriented
individuals who live/work in LG so they can
become effective leaders & active
contributors to the community.
Every 2 years supervisors & command staff
participate in a team-building workshop to
strengthen leadership skills & enhance
collaboration.
LGMSPD
DEPARTMENT
MEETING
WHY’D YOU
STOP ME
LOS GATOS
LEADERSHIP
TEAM BUILDING
WORKSHOP
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
National Night Out
LGMSPD Swearing-In Ceremony
LGMSPD Recognition
Community Police Academy
WHAT’SNEXT
HALLOWEEN 2026
CHILDREN’S CHRISTMAS PARADE
CERT DRILLS CERT DRILLS
TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION TECHNOLOGY IMPLEMENTATION
COFFEE WITH A COP
QUESTIONS
&
ANSWERS
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Approve the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends approval of the Minutes of the August 18, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.
Public Noticing:
The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.
Attachments:
08-18-26 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m.
August 18, 2026
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At approximately 7:00 p.m., Mayor Allan called the meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council lead the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present – Chambers: Councilmember Toren, Councilmember Craig, Councilmember Mekechuk, Vice Mayor Shannon and Mayor Allan
Present – Remote: None
Absent: None
Staff: City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica, City Attorney Powell, City Manager Perkins
Staff – Remote: None
ORDERS OF THE DAY
None.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation by Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Presentation by Board Member of Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District, Craig Gleason. Craig spoke on some of the Midpen facts, program and project updates.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None.
CONSENT CALENDAR (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
2. Approve the Minutes of the August 4, 2026 Regular City Council Meeting
3. Approve Warrant List Dated August 18, 2026 in the Amount of $36,115.68 Councilmember Craig requested Item #3 to be pulled.
Mayor Allan opened the Consent Calendar for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Mekechuk to approve Item #2 on the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Toren.
VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)
3. Approve Warrant List Dated August 18, 2026 in the Amount of $36,115.68 Councilmember Craig had some questions on this item.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Craig to approve Item #3 in the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Toren.
VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)
PUBLIC HEARING
None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
None.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Discuss Climate Resilience District
City Manager Perkins introduced the item.
Saratoga Mayor Chuck Page provided a report and answered questions from the Council.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
Informational only. No action required.
5. Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Median Due to Potential Fire Hazard
City Manager Perkins provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment.
Public Comment:
• Resident Weissberg spoke in favor of the item.
• Resident Blumenthal spoke in favor of the item.
• Resident Mr. Rai
• Resident Mrs. Rai
With no one else wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
Due to a technical issue, the Council went on a 10-minute break.
MOTION: Motion by Mayor Allan to adopt a resolution supporting removal of the eucalyptus trees in the Highway 9 median. Seconded by Councilmember Craig.
VOTE: Motion passed. (3-2-0; Noes Mekechuk and Toren)
6. Discuss Communications with the Community
City Manager Perkins introduced the item.
Councilmember Toren elaborated on this item and explained why he wanted it brought forward for discussion.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
Direction was given to staff. No action needed.
7. Discuss How the City Uses Volunteers for Commissions and Committees City Manager Perkins introduced the item.
Councilmember Toren elaborated on this item and explained why he wanted it brought forward for discussion.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
No action is required.
8. Consider and Adopt a Resolution Cancelling the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election and Appointing the Nominated Candidates to the City Council City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Mekechuk to adopt resolution cancelling the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election and Appointing Ken Toren, Burton Craig and Allison Zeidler to Office Pursuant to Election Code Section 10229. Seconded by Vice Mayor Shannon.
VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)
9. Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the City of Monte Sereno Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Public Meetings to Change the Regular Council Meeting Start Time to 6:00 pm and Other Administrative Clarifications
City Manager Perkins provided a staff report and answered questions from the Council.
Discussion ensued.
Mayor Allan opened the Item for Public Comment. With no one wishing to speak, Mayor Allan closed Public Comment.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Mekechuk to amend Resolution No. 1691 to Change the Time for Regular Meetings, Modernize some Procedures, Addition of Item Five - Distribution of Documents to Council During Meeting and Moving Item N after Item F in Section Nine and Reference the 30-Minute Time Limit Under Oral Communications New H in Section A9.
Seconded by Councilmember Craig.
VOTE: Motion passed. (5-0-0)
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
Councilmember Toren reported he attended the Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee meeting where various action items concerning VTA project priorities were considered.
Councilmember Toren offered to provide the Council with additional information regarding the project priorities. Councilmember Tore also reported attending the Legislative Committee meeting, where six bills were considered and voted upon. Additional information regarding the bills and voting positions will be provided to the Council.
Vice Mayor Shannon reported attending the monthly West Valley Sanitation District meeting. The meeting was described as a routine meeting, with no significant matters to report. Vice Mayor Shannon noted that the Sanitation District is operating well under its new leadership.
Councilmember Craig reported that the Youth Commission held its first meeting. The Commission appointed a Chair and Vice Chair and discussed participation in the upcoming City Picnic and other activities planned for the year.
Councilmember Mekechuk reported attending a Silicon Valley Clean Energy meeting and stated that speaking points from the meeting would be provided for inclusion with the meeting minutes.
Councilmember Mekechuk also noted that other commission meetings would be taking place over the following two weeks.
Mayor Allan had nothing to report.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Mekechuk commented he attended the Silicon Valley Climate Youth Action Summit.
The event included approximately 75 elected officials and 225 youth participants. Councilmember
Mekechuk described the event as positive and noted the strong enthusiasm and engagement of the youth participants. Councilmember Mekechuk also provided an update regarding a battery collection pilot program being conducted by West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority. The pilot involves approximately 480 residential customers on a single-family collection route in Monte Sereno. Materials, including battery collection bags and informational stickers, have been distributed to participating households. The pilot is intended to measure resident participation and determine whether the battery collection program should be expanded to additional collection routes. Following completion of the pilot, participation will be evaluated against baseline data.
Council discussion clarified that the pilot is limited to a designated portion of Monte Sereno and does not apply citywide. Approximately one-third of the City's residential households are included in the pilot.
Vice Mayor Shannon commented on attending a wildfire safety town hall meeting hosted by local elected officials. The meeting was well attended and provided information regarding wildfire preparedness, evacuation, and related safety measures. Vice Mayor Shannon noted the increasing number of wildfire safety meetings and public outreach efforts throughout the area and emphasized the importance of residents taking appropriate preparedness measures.
Councilmember Toren and Mayor Allan commented that they attended a vegetation wildfire program and received information regarding wildfire and vegetation management efforts.
Mayor Allan expressed he is looking forward to the picnic and proposed using a Councilmember information table to encourage residents to sign up for City email communications and identify additional opportunities for civic participation and volunteer involvement.
Councilmember Mekechuk informed the Council of an upcoming information session for elected officials regarding the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's proposed restrictions concerning the sale of natural gas water heaters. The session is scheduled to take place in Sunnyvale.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Perkins reported that approximately 340 residents were expected to attend the upcoming City Picnic, in addition to various participating service providers, for an anticipated total attendance of more than 400 people. City Manager Perkins attributed the strong attendance to the City's annual tradition, increasing community awareness and participation, and residents returning to the event each year.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
None.
ADJOURN
Mayor Allan adjourned the meeting at approximately 10:40 p.m.
Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve Warrant List Dated September 1, 2026 in the Amount of $36,603.46
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.
Analysis:
The Warrant List includes payments to be made to vendors for goods and services procured by the City. The attached report lists each payment to be made by vendor, amount, and by accounting fund.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Warrant List 9-1-2026
8/26/2026 3:44:28 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 1 of 3 Warrant List 9/1/2026
City of Monte Sereno, CA By Vendor Name
APPKT00131
Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Vendor: Alana Consulting, LLC
Building Consultant 07/27/26- 09/01/2026 Professional Services 14,260.00 08/23/26
Alana Consulting, LLC 100-510-6200
Vendor Alana Consulting, LLC Total: 14,260.00
Vendor: BMI Imaging Systems
BMI Imaging Systems Web Hosting - August 2026 08/12/2026 Web Site Hosting 100-230-6320 225.00 Vendor BMI Imaging Systems Total: 225.00
Vendor: Casey Construction
Casey Construction Construction Services 07/31/2026 Street Maintenance 100-600-6505 2,753.21 Vendor Casey Construction Total: 2,753.21
Vendor: CivicPlus
Reference Books, Publications 2,600.41
and Subscriptions
Municipal Code Publication 10/01/2026
10/1/2026 - 09/30/2027
CivicPlus 100-000-6025
Vendor CivicPlus Total: 2,600.41
Vendor: CSG Consultants, Inc
07/01/26-07/31/26 Building 08/17/2026 Supplemental Services 1,620.00 Inspections
CSG Consultants, Inc 100-510-6270
Vendor CSG Consultants, Inc Total: 1,620.00
Vendor: Hillview Design Print Media
Hillview Design Print Media Name Plates and Gold Badges 08/12/2026 Office Supplies 100-800-6060 271.64 Vendor Hillview Design Print Media Total: 271.64
Vendor: Logan & Powell, LLP
City Attorney Services - July 08/12/2026 Legal - City Attorney 8,154.63 2026
Logan & Powell, LLP 100-210-6210
Calhoun v. City of Monte 08/12/2026 Legal - Special Projects 118.00 Sereno, et al.
Logan & Powell, LLP 100-210-6215
Samoranos v. City of Monte 08/12/2026 Legal - Special Projects 88.50 Sereno
Logan & Powell, LLP 100-210-6215
Vendor Logan & Powell, LLP Total: 8,361.13
Vendor: Maze & Associates
Accounting Services - 8/1/26- 08/15/2026 Supplemental Services 3,144.00 8/15/26
Maze & Associates 100-400-6270
Vendor Maze & Associates Total: 3,144.00
Vendor: M-Group
Planning Consulting Services - 08/18/2026 Supplemental Services 1,189.00 July 2026
M-Group 100-500-6270
Vendor M-Group Total: 1,189.00
Vendor: Municipal Resource Group, LLC
HR On-Demand Consulting 08/11/2026 Professional Services 780.00 Services
Municipal Resource Group, LLC 100-410-6200
Vendor Municipal Resource Group, LLC Total: 780.00
Vendor: Regenerative Landscaping LLC
Monthly Landscape Service - 07/01/2026 Landscaping Services 255.00 July 2026
Regenerative Landscaping LLC 100-800-6410
Monthly Landscape Service - 08/01/2026 Landscaping Services 255.00 August 2026
Regenerative Landscaping LLC 100-800-6410
Vendor Regenerative Landscaping LLC Total: 510.00
Vendor: Ricoh USA, Inc.
Printer and Copier 482.98
Expenditures
Copier Lease 09/04/2026- 08/14/2026
10/03/2026
Ricoh USA, Inc. 100-230-6016
Warrant List 9/1/2026 Packet: APPKT00131
8/26/2026 3:44:28 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 2 of 3 Vendor Name Description (Payable) Post Date Account Name Account Number Amount Overage charges - Black and 08/04/2026 Printing and Copying Expenses 261.09 Color copies
Ricoh USA, Inc. 100-800-6015
Vendor Ricoh USA, Inc. Total: 744.07
Vendor: Tyler Technologies
SBITA – Preliminary/Ongoing 145.00
Implementation Costs
Data and Insights Module - 08/12/2026
August 2026
Tyler Technologies 100-230-6375
Vendor Tyler Technologies Total: 145.00
Grand Total: 36,603.46
Warrant List 9/1/2026 Packet: APPKT00131
8/26/2026 3:44:28 PM ***The payables contained in this report are in an open packet, and have not posted to the General Ledger*** Page 3 of 3 Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Expense Amount
100 - General Fund 36,603.46
Grand Total: 36,603.46
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Expense Amount
100-000-6025 Reference Books, Publica… 2,600.41
100-210-6210 Legal - City Attorney 8,154.63
100-210-6215 Legal - Special Projects 206.50
100-230-6016 Printer and Copier Expe… 482.98
100-230-6320 Web Site Hosting 225.00
100-230-6375 SBITA – Preliminary/Ong… 145.00
100-400-6270 Supplemental Services 3,144.00
100-410-6200 Professional Services 780.00
100-500-6270 Supplemental Services 1,189.00
100-510-6200 Professional Services 14,260.00
100-510-6270 Supplemental Services 1,620.00
100-600-6505 Street Maintenance 2,753.21
100-800-6015 Printing and Copying Ex… 261.09
100-800-6060 Office Supplies 271.64
100-800-6410 Landscaping Services 510.00
Grand Total: 36,603.46
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Expense Amount
**None** 36,603.46
Grand Total: 36,603.46
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County"
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council approves the response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, " Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County."
Background Information:
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury reviews local government operations and may issue reports containing findings and recommendations. When a Grand Jury report requests a response from a public agency, California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 establish the response timing and content requirements.
On June 11, 2026, the Civil Grand Jury issued the report titled "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County." The report examines the ease with which claim information is provided on each jurisdictions website as well as the clarification of action taken on a claim. The report requests that the City of Monte Sereno respond to Findings 1, 2, and 3 and Recommendations 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b. The City’s response is due within 90 days of issuance, by September 10, 2026, unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Judge.
For each finding, the response must indicate either:
1. Agreement with the finding; or
2. Disagreement with the finding, either wholly or in part, identifying the disputed portion and explaining the reason for the disagreement.
For each recommendation, the response must indicate one of the following:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implementing action;
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation;
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a timeframe no longer than six months for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the appropriate Town official or the Town Council; or
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation.
Analysis:
The Civil Grand Jury report directs the City of Monte Sereno to respond to three Findings and four Recommendations related to information available on the City’s website regarding filing a claim against the city for pothole damage. The staff recommended response agrees with the three findings, notes that three Recommendations will be implemented, and that one Recommendations will not be fully implemented.
The findings are results of the Grand Jury investigation and their views on information that should be provided, although not legally required.
Three of the recommendations have already been fully implemented. While the City has not received a claim for pothole damage since before 2020, the recommendations to provide a claim form, claim instructions, and a map showing jurisdictional authority for various streets are now online at: https://www.montesereno.org/2374/File-a-Claim.
The one recommendation which staff is proposing to not fully implement is to provide translation services for the claim form itself. The city’s website offers translation services for the webpage content into dozens of languages. The translation services do not extend to PDF documents, so the actual claim form is not available for translation. However, staff has added much of the information on the claim form to the webpage to allow for translation of the information.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving and transmitting the City’s response.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Transmittal Cover Letter for Grand Jury Report - Potholes
2. Draft Response to Grand Jury - Potholes
3. 2025-26 Grand Jury Report Pothole Damage
September 2, 2026
Honorable Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Subject: City of Monte Sereno Response to 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, " Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County " Dear Judge Emede,
The City Council of the City of Monte Sereno reviewed the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report titled "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County" and is providing this response, as attached, pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05.
It is the City Council's and staff's desire to appropriately address the Civil Grand Jury's findings and recommendations as related to the report. The City of Monte Sereno is committed to effective, accountable, and responsive local government. If additional information or clarification is necessary, the city will respond further as appropriate.
The City Council thanks the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury for its commitment to oversight of local government operations and for evaluating and providing input regarding services provided to the community. The City will continue to review the report, consider the comments received, and pursue improvements that support efficient and effective governance.
Respectfully submitted,
Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
City of Monte Sereno
cc: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
www.montesereno.org
EXHIBIT A
City of Monte Sereno Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County"
DISCUSSION
The following responses are provided pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05.
The City responses are organized by the finding and recommendation numbering used in the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report.
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.
Response: Agreed. Typically, when a claim has been reviewed and there is a legal basis for rejection, the claim is formally rejected, triggering the six-month statute of limitations for filing a lawsuit, rather than the two-year statute of limitations that may otherwise apply.
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.
Response: Agreed. The jurisdictional lines can be unclear and not directly communicated to someone wishing to file a claim.
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.
Response: Agreed. The City of Monte Sereno’s website did not include information about filing a claim against the city.
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.
Response: Implemented. The City has added a citywide street map which notes the jurisdiction/authority for each street in the City. Additionally, the Clerk Clerk is available to assist claimants with inquiries pertaining to whether something is in the City’s jurisdiction.
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.
Response: Implemented. The City of Monte Sereno has not received a claim regarding potholes since before 2020. However, since Caltrans Highway 9 is commonly mistaken as being
in the City’s jurisdiction, the language added note this specific roadway as an example of a road commonly mistaken as being in the City’s responsibility.
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.
Response: Implemented. The City’s claim form, including information on how to file a claim, and a citywide street map have all been added to the City’s website.
Recommendation 3b. 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 – 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.
Response: Will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable. The City’s website provides translation functionality that allows users to view webpages in dozens of languages. The claim form is also available as a downloadable PDF, which can be translated using widely available translation tools. Additionally, the City has provided supplemental information on the webpage to assist users with completing the form, and this information can be translated using the website’s available translation tool.
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 that your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.
People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.
For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.
The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.
Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.
Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicles, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.
According to local media reports, Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages. According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area claims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).
Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road-related damage must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.
For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County isresponsible for expressways and county roads,such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.
Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury requested and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.
Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline;
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.
These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole, the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.
In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine which agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.
If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.
The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.
In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.
Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.
Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims processes should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.
The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded state routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency, is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review. Jurisdictions provided data about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026). Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.
Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga each settled 50% of claims filed (however, they each averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.
The Civil Grand Jury acknowledgesthat the significance of this data islimited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.
How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.
First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.
In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator, usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.
If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars, the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.
If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. The California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, claims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.
Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.
A road’s location within an agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.
Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.
No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.
Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:
1. The public entity created the condition;
2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;
3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;
4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.
If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.
When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.
All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).
Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language, in part, which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):
NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to (insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).
WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.
See Government Code Section 945.6.
You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.
Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jurisdictions may follow this same approach.
In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will share the reason for rejection. Although the reason for rejection is recorded by the agency, there is no legal obligation to provide this information, and agencies may limit this information.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.
When a local road crosses or overlaps a state route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.
County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airports Department.
Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway
POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Montague Expressway
• Oregon Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• Southwest Expressway
Complicated Exceptions
Further complicating efforts to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a particular area, cities, Caltrans, the County, and even the federal government (such as near Moffett Federal Airfield) have maintenance agreements that specify which agency is responsible for certain roadway segments – such as onramps, offramps, and other defined areas (City of Mountain View, 2019). It is not always easy to determine which agency is responsible for which segments.
Complicated Maps
Some jurisdictions have no public maps indicating which roads they are responsible for. The County and some cities, including San José, Campbell, and Mountain View, do post searchable maps online that can help the public narrow down which jurisdiction is responsible for a particular road. However, the maps often use complicated interfaces rather than a simple image or printout, and many maps are not specific to just the roads maintained by the jurisdictions.
San José, which maintains more than 4,000 miles of locally maintained lanes within its borders, has its own mapping website (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026; City of San José, 2020). It shows whether a particular street within its boundaries is maintained by San José, the County, a private entity, or another agency. The website provides a large amount of information, although it is complicated for the average user to navigate.
An alternative source of information is pavement management plans that some agencies make available. These plans may list all roads maintained by the jurisdiction and can be used as a reference. As an example, Morgan Hill has a link to its latest 2024 Pavement Management Report with a list of streets at the end. However, there is no direct link from the claim forms webpage, so claimants would not be aware of this reference (AMS Consulting, 2025).
Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form
Once a person has found the proper jurisdiction, the next step is to download the claim form from the local agency’s website.
Of the 16 jurisdictions, the Civil Grand Jury found that only Gilroy, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale provide adequate claims process information on their webpages or on the claim form itself.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
Most jurisdictions provide forms only in English. This is an omission that could potentially disenfranchise community members who have limited proficiency in English.
The Civil Grand Jury identified three cities that took the helpful step of providing additional language options:
• Morgan Hill provides a PDF of its claim form in English and Spanish. • Sunnyvale has a translation feature that allows claimants to translate the form into one of 200+ languages. Users can either fill out the translated form online and print a copy or print out a blank translated form and fill it out by hand.
• Saratoga’s website uses a third-party widget to translate its website in addition to an online form to many other languages.
The Civil Grand Jury also investigated how easy it is to find claim forms on each jurisdiction’s website by searching for the term “claim form.”
The Civil Grand Jury could not find any information about submitting a pothole claim in four entities: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno.
Cupertino provides a claim form, but users must use the website’s search function to find it.
Gilroy does not link directly to a claim form, although it does provide instructions on how to request a form by email or in person.
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 deadlinesto ensure that the claims process isfairer, 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 the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.
Recommendation 4
The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection lettersto specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.
The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Campbell 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Gilroy 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Los Altos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
Town of Los Altos Hills 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
Town of Los Gatos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of Milpitas 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Monte Sereno 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Morgan Hill 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Mountain View 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Palo Alto 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of San José 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Saratoga 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a
City of Sunnyvale 1, 2 2a, 2b
POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.
Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:
Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-aParks-Public-Works-Concern-87 Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/publicworks/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-andcouncil/contact-city-council Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern6/Fix-It-Form-45 Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhoodcomplaints/
POTHOLE DAMAGE
REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-HillPTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.
Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.
Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.
California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-systeminformation/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.
California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/yourcity/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-aClaim). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.
POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/yourgovernment/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdatacsj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.
City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequentlyasked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.
City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/yourgovernment/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.
County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-conditionbay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.
Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).
Accessed April 15, 2026.
Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).
Accessed April 14, 2026.
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
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II"
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council approves the response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II".
Background Information:
The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury reviews local government operations and may issue reports containing findings and recommendations. When a Grand Jury report requests a response from a public agency, California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05 establish the response timing and content requirements.
On June 17, 2026, the Civil Grand Jury issued the report titled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II." The report examines VTA’s financial planning, project oversight, coordination, Board continuity, appointment practices, and public communication regarding the BART Silicon Valley Phase II project. The report requests that the City of Monte Sereno respond to Findings 6 and 7 and Recommendations 6 and 7. The City’s response is due within 90 days of issuance, by September 15, 2026, unless otherwise directed by the Presiding Judge.
For each finding, the response must indicate either:
1. Agreement with the finding; or
2. Disagreement with the finding, either wholly or in part, identifying the disputed portion and explaining the reason for the disagreement.
For each recommendation, the response must indicate one of the following:
1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implementing action;
2. The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation;
3. The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of the analysis or study, and a timeframe no longer than six months for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the appropriate City official or the City Council; or
4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation.
Analysis:
The Civil Grand Jury directs Findings 6 and 7 and Recommendations 6 and 7 to all jurisdictions that participate in VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5.This includes all jurisdictions within the County except for the City of San Jose and the County.
Jurisdictions in Santa Clara County are divided into groups for the purpose of making appointments to the VTA Board of Directors. Monte Sereno is a member of Group 3 along with Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, and Saratoga. The Group 3 cities appoint one member to the VTA Board Director and one alternate for a two-year term.
Under Section 2-14 of the VTA Administrative Code, each Group determines its own procedure for selecting directors and alternates. The Code strongly encourages appointing authorities, where possible, to consider transportation experience and qualifications, sufficient remaining time in elected office, and consecutive terms.
The proposed response partially disagrees with Finding 6. The City agrees that transportation qualifications and continuity are important but does not agree with the broad conclusion that the appointing groups often fail to follow the Administrative Code. The Group 3 cities’ existing process considers qualifications, elected-term availability, continuity, equitable representation, and the needs of the participating jurisdictions. Approval of the response would confirm the City’s continued commitment to consider the Section 2-14 factors where possible.
The proposed response agrees with Finding 7 that the appointing groups use different appointment processes. It recommends no change to the Group 3 process at this time. The current process is considered adequate and is consistent with the Administrative Code’s delegation of appointment procedures to each grouping. The City and the other Group 3 jurisdictions would remain open to considering a specific alternative process developed or recommended by VTA, including supporting legal and operational analysis. In the absence of such a proposal, the city does not intend to pursue a uniform countywide appointment process.
This response was coordinated with the other Group 3 jurisdictions and similar responses are planned by those jurisdictions.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that
it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Fiscal Impact:
There is no direct fiscal impact associated with approving and transmitting the City’s response.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Transmittal Cover Letter
2. Response to Grand Jury
3. 2025-26 Grand Jury Report VTA Board
September 2, 2026
Honorable Julie A. Emede
Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Subject: City of Monte Sereno Response to 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" Dear Judge Emede,
The City Council of the City of Monte Sereno reviewed the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report titled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" at its September 1, 2026 meeting and is providing the attached response pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05.
The City’s response addresses Findings 6 and 7 and Recommendations 6 and 7 concerning the qualifications, continuity, and selection processes for City-appointed members of the VTA Board of Directors. The City values effective regional representation and supports consideration of transportation qualifications and continuity when appointments are made.
The City believes the existing appointment process used by VTA Board Appointing Authority Group 3 is adequate and consistent with the discretion provided by the VTA Administrative Code. The City remains open to considering a specific alternative approach developed or recommended by VTA. In the absence of such a proposal, the City does not intend to change the current Group 3 appointment process.
Respectfully submitted,
Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
City of Monte Sereno
cc: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
www.montesereno.org
EXHIBIT A
City of Monte Sereno Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”
DISCUSSION
The following responses are provided pursuant to California Penal Code Sections 933 and 933.05. The City responses are organized by the finding and recommendation numbering used in the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report. The City of Monte Sereno is one of five jurisdictions in VTA Board Appointing Authority Group 3, together with Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, and Saratoga.
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.”
Response: Disagree partially. The City agrees that transportation experience and qualifications, sufficient time remaining in an appointee’s elected term, and continuity through consecutive service are important considerations. The City disagrees with the report’s broad conclusion that Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow Section 2-14. Section 2-14 states that appointing authorities are strongly encouraged to consider these factors “where possible,” while also providing that each grouping determines its own selection procedure. The Group 3 process includes consideration during a joint meeting of the Group’s mayors during monthly mayor and managers’ meetings. The report does not establish that Group 3’s current process is inadequate or that its appointments have failed to account for the Section 2-14 considerations. We are open to considering further guidance in what mechanism the Board would recommend for implementing VTA Administrative Code.
Finding 7. VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
Response: Agree. The appointing authority groups use different selection processes. This is consistent with Section 2-14 of the VTA Administrative Code, which provides that the procedures for selecting directors and alternates are to be determined by the cities in each respective grouping.
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.
Response: Implemented. By approving this response, the City provides that, when participating in Group 3 appointment decisions, it will continue to consider the factors
identified in Section 2-14, including appropriate transportation experience and qualifications, sufficient remaining time in elected office, and consecutive terms, where possible. This certification does not alter the discretion granted to the Group 3 cities to determine their appointment procedure or require appointment of a particular eligible elected official. Each of the other Group 3 jurisdictions acts through its own governing body and may provide a corresponding certification in its response.
Recommendation 7. The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments.
Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable at this time. The city and the other Group 3 cities consider the current Group 3 appointment process adequate. The process reflects the composition and needs of the five participating cities and is consistent with Section 2-14, which expressly assigns each grouping responsibility for determining its own procedure. A uniform process across Groups 2 through 5 could reduce the flexibility needed to account for differences in group size, representation, elected-term timing, and local circumstances. If VTA develops and recommends a specific alternative approach, the city would be open to considering it in coordination with the other Group 3 cities. Unless and until such a proposal is presented, the city does not intend to change the existing Group 3 appointment process.
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 project it has ever undertaken. Known as BART Silicon Valley Phase II (BSVII), the $12.7 billion project extends rail service six miles and includes a large, single-bore underground tunnel and will take 10 years or more from 2026 to complete (VTA, March 2024).
Despite significantly reduced ridership projections and uncertainty about funding sources for both capital and operating costs, VTA has awarded major construction contracts, including for the construction of a launch structure to stage a specialized one-of-a-kind Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM), which will be owned by VTA. Over the next few years, VTA anticipates awarding further construction contracts worth billions of dollars. To reduce uncertainty, the spokesperson for an independent peer review of the project urged VTA to move quickly to “build as much as you can, as fast as you can” (VTA Special Board Meeting, 2025). Such an approach assumes that there will be political will and taxpayer support to finish an incomplete project regardless of cost increases, delays, or reduced ridership.
The VTA’s Board of Directors (Board) has recognized the need for additional oversight and guidance, but the Board has failed to exercise its obligation to provide the strategic direction needed for a successful project. The Oversight Committee it created has been left to define its own role. It was not required to, and does not, provide reports that share available independent analyses of critical issues. The Oversight Committee does not routinely make policy recommendations to the Board and does not hold VTA staff accountable for providing the timely analysis it has requested.
The 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff, and officials in the management and oversight of the BSVII project.
This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
BACKGROUND
The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by state law. It is responsible for operating public transit services, including buses, light rail, and paratransit within Santa Clara County. In addition to public transit, VTA is a planning and funding agency for transportation infrastructure projects throughout Santa Clara County. As established by the California Public Utilities Code Sections 100060-100070, the VTA is governed by a 12-person Board of Directors composed of elected officials appointed by the County of Santa Clara (County) and the cities in Santa Clara County, who each serve two-year terms. The Board has many responsibilities and its monthly meeting agendas are lengthy.
The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District provides regional commuter rail service and is governed by a nine-person Board of Directors elected to four-year termsfrom districtsrepresenting 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.
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 billion with operations to begin in 2036. The most recent estimate is $12.7 billion, and operations are pushed back to 2037 (VTA Auditor General Report, January 2024).
The project's funding sources include federal and state grants, as well as local revenues from voterapproved sales tax measures. All the funding sources are subject to risks, which are identified in this report. Figure 1 shows the funding sources with $700 million to be determined (TBD) and $375 million from a potential ballot measure in November 2026.
Figure 1: Components of $12.7 Billion in BSVII Funding Sources as of April 2026 Source: vtabart.org website (accessed April 9, 2026)
Although two years earlier, VTA had asked for a federal commitment of $6.3 billion, in August 2024, the FTA announced that its share of funding would be capped at $5.1 billion (Geha, 2024).
VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summer 2025). To reduce project costs, VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • Modifying the Santa Clara Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility; • Modifying the tunnel and station ventilation systems; • Substituting a surface parking lot for a parking structure; • Reconfiguring the tunnel to use less concrete and steel.
In addition, the funding strategy assumes $375 million from the yet-to-be-approved regional sales tax measure for a total outstanding gap of $1.075 billion.
Due in part to the significant increase in estimated cost and a perceived lack of communication about the project’s cost, risks, and schedule, the Board conducted a workshop in October 2023 to review the project’s status. At this workshop, individual Board members expressed a lack of confidence in the VTA staff’s management of the project and requested a new system of oversight and project management.
In response, the Board chair established an Ad Hoc BART Silicon Valley Phase II oversight committee (Oversight Committee) responsible for overseeing all aspects of the project, focusing on a full, independent, and transparent review of costs, funding, risks, and completion schedule.
The Oversight Committee’s bylaws later stated that its purpose was to provide “guidance and oversight” of the project (VTA, April 4, 2024).
The VTA independent auditor general was tasked with providing staff support to the Oversight Committee and was authorized to contract with Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) to independently review and comment on VTA staff recommendations regarding costs, risks, and schedule. In turn, the Oversight Committee authorized the SME firm, Gall Zeidler (GZ), to independently assess the risks and viability of cost-saving alternatives.
In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee, which depending on the availability of its members, is scheduled to meet quarterly. BART staff members have been assigned to co-locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSVII designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual. According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury reviewed every meeting of the BSVII Oversight Committee, as well as select VTA Board meetings. This included reviewing agendas, minutes, agenda item reports, public comment submittals, and associated discussions.
In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
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 the possible extension of the 2037 project completion date. The longer timeline for BSVII increases the likelihood that future costs will differ from current estimates, thereby increasing financial risk.
Local, State, and Federal Funding Risks
The capital cost of construction and the net operating costs are to be paid by VTA from specific revenue sources, some of which are grants with fixed amounts.
The financial risks identified by the Civil Grand Jury have been experienced by other major transit agencies. For example, the various rail projects of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) faced escalating cost estimates, reductions in federal funding, cuts into smaller construction segments to match available funding, and shifting agency priorities (Shalby, 2026).
Local Funding Risks
VTA’s capital financing plan calls for the 2016 Measure B to pay $2.5 billion and for the 2000 Measure A to pay $2.0 billion of the estimated $12.7 billion BSVII project. Measure A expires in 2036, before BSVII is expected to be completed. Measure B expires in 2047 (VTA, About 2016 Measure B, n.d.). As the project’s cost estimates have evolved, so have the planned funding sources. Measure B has become a much more significant source of proposed funding.
Because Measure B also funds bus transit, local streets, and highway projects, there are built-in limitations on the amount available to close a BSVII financing gap. Measure B limits spending on BSVII to 23.8% of net sales tax revenue over its 30-year life (FTA, 2024). Net sales tax revenue (defined as Program Tax Revenue in the measure) is calculated as the amount remaining after deducting administrative costs and any debt service.
To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid from Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voterapproved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on
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 wasinformed that VTA has ordered an updated forecast.
Because two key sales tax measures are set to expire, several VTA officials stated in interviews that they would simply place a measure on a future ballot for voter consideration if an extension were needed. Given the current sales tax rates applicable within Santa Clara County and the need for management and oversight reforms identified in this report, there is a risk that voters may not approve such a measure.
State Funding Risk
As of April 2026, the capital construction funding strategy required $1.5 billion from two State of California grants. The VTA has received commitments for nearly $200 million of that total. The sources of funding are the Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) and transportation funds administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), both of which may be affected by a recent state decision to provide a bridge loan to Bay Area transit agencies (MTC, 2026).
In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12-year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART, and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026).
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 hasled BART to project a $376 million budget deficit for FY2026-
27. To seek additional revenue, BART is relying on a 0.5% additional sales tax measure on the November 2026 ballot that would begin in 2027 and remain in place for 14 years. If the ballot measure does not pass, BART has proposed closing up to 15 stations and reducing service hours and train frequency (BART, February 26, 2026). Ironically, the proposed station closures would not affect Santa Clara County because VTA is solely responsible for the net operating costs.
According to VTA records reviewed by the Civil Grand Jury, for the first three years of operation, VTA forecasts annual average costs of $274 million for operations, maintenance, and capital costs.
Average fare revenue is forecast at $60 million, offsetting VTA's financial obligation to BART, resulting in an average annual financial loss of $214 million. Any drop in ridership will lead to further financial losses.
The Need for a BSVII Cash Flow Model
With a price tag of $12.7 billion, BSVII is the largest public infrastructure project in Santa Clara County (Aragon, 2025). Nearly 60% of the planned funding sources include revenue from grants that will not be distributed in advance but will be reimbursed in accordance with each grant’s draw schedule (See Figure 1). The timing of those cash inflows must be carefully matched with the timing of payment schedules for construction contracts worth billions of dollars.
VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons: 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overallschedule; and 2) to identify segmentsfor which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. For each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II A cash flow model that matches receipts and expenditures for BSVII would enable VTA decisionmakers to fully evaluate the alternative approaches being studied. However, VTA officials have advised the Civil Grand Jury that such a model has not yet been developed. A cash flow model is necessary to avoid unplanned delays from cash shortfalls.
Oversight Concerns
VTA Board Recognizes That Oversight Must be Improved
Independent reports and audits have identified problems with project management and VTA Board oversight, including those identified by a prior Civil Grand Jury, the California State Auditor, and the PMOC (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). VTA’s cost-estimation practices, along with its lack of transparency around changes to project scope and cost, were identified as significant deficiencies. VTA’s oversight and management of the BSVII project have also been heavily criticized by the media, in public comments presented at Board meetings, and in lettersto 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 premeeting briefings. As a result, the full Board does not benefit from Oversight Committee analysis, and the public is not fully informed about individual Board member perspectives.
The Committee Has Two Purposes: Guidance and Oversight
“Guidance” suggests that the committee helps the Board establish a strategic direction and recommend actions to keep the project on track. “Oversight,” on the other hand, is a separate function that ensures VTA staff is accountable for following the Board’s direction in an efficient and effective manner. “Guidance” looks forward. “Oversight” monitors implementation as it happens.
Better at Oversight than Guidance
The Oversight Committee requires VTA staff to produce a comprehensive monthly report detailing the financing and construction progress of the BSVII project. The auditor general provides insightful periodic reports on his independent review of the project’s costs, risks, and schedule.
The VTA staff’s monthly reports address the information gap identified in the auditor general’s January 2024 report. As a result, the Oversight Committee can effectively monitor compliance with the Board’s direction.
However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Strategic Guidance on Critical Issues is Informal, Intermittent, and Often Late VTA staff routinely provide private briefings to Oversight Committee members prior to meetings.
Those briefings allow VTA staff to explain and advocate for their recommendations and to receive input and questions from individual members. Occasionally, some agenda materials for an Oversight Committee meeting are not published with the rest of the agenda because VTA staff members will modify presentations up to the last minute based on what they have heard in private briefings.
The Oversight Committee has established an informal standard of limiting its once-monthly meetings to no more than two hours, and meetings often do not begin on time. At the meetings, VTA staff often deliver lengthy presentations on issues for which it will subsequently seek Board approval, leaving little time for committee deliberations.
During these presentations, only a few members ask questions, and rarely does a committee member propose a policy recommendation that the Oversight Committee might take action on.
Individual Oversight Committee members are given the opportunity to express support or concern about a proposed VTA staff position, providing VTA staff with some insight into how to frame their recommendations to the Board.
The Oversight Committee receives independent analyses from the VTA auditor general, its contracted SME, and the PMOC. The committee often receives lengthy written comments from the public but limits oral comments to one minute. Members of the committee rarely comment on materials received from the public, many of which are extensive critiques of the VTA staff recommendations. Following each meeting, the Oversight Committee chair submits a short report summarizing discussion topics, which is placed on the VTA Board’s consent calendar.
Following presentation to the Oversight Committee, formal VTA staff recommendations are made to the VTA Board, but without the benefit of a summary or synthesis of the alternative perspectives from the auditor general, SME, PMOC, or informed public comment.
The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Inadequate Guidance: The KST Contract Decision The Oversight Committee endorsed a major contract change without providing independent analysis, articulating its rationale, or conveying identified risks to the Board.
VTA had issued a contract to a construction consortium, Kiewit Shea Traylor (KST), using a “progressive/design/build” approach, under which KST would design the tunnel project and, after reviews by VTA and its construction management consultant, KST would build it. By the spring of 2025, VTA believed that KST’s proposed design could significantly increase the project’s estimated cost by up to $1 billion and that it would be preferable to engage in a competitive bidding processfor the remaining tunnel work. In a more traditional contract approach, VTA would prepare the design specifications and contract conditions. To accomplish this, it was necessary to limit the contract with KST to only the work required to prepare for the TBM, which VTA would own but make available to the tunneling contractor to operate and maintain.
At its June 12, 2025, meeting, VTA staff presented its proposal to modify the KST contract to the Oversight Committee, which unanimously endorsed it. Two weeks later, the VTA Board met and approved VTA staff recommendations. Although the VTA staff agenda report did include a reference to the Committee’s recommendation, it did not include the risk analysis that had been reviewed by the Committee. The Oversight Committee’s regular report to the VTA Board was placed on the consent calendar and simply reported the committee’s concurrence with the VTA staff recommendation. There was no report or analysis laying out the reasons for the Oversight Committee’s concurrence or the SME’s risk assessment. Therefore, the Board made its decision without a complete understanding of the risks.
Example of Inadequate Guidance: The Twin-Bore versus Single-Bore Decision The Oversight Committee retroactively requested a side-by-side analysis of tunnel options through Downtown San José.
A preliminary design controversy was whether to tunnel two smaller bores for the downtown San José underground tracks or to tunnel a single larger bore at greater depth. Downtown businesses had raised concerns that the twin-bore approach would require additional work and disrupt their operations during construction.
BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin-bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II cooperation, BART officials consented to the single-bore approach after being assured that operational and safety concerns would be met (BART, December 19, 2025).
In December 2022, VTA approved the fabrication and purchase of a large TBM for $76 million, effectively locking in the single-bore approach. In a news article dated November 7, 2023, in the Mountain View Voice, San José Mayor Matt Mahan was quoted as saying: “There is no turning back now” (Hicks, 2023).
Nonetheless, individual Board members and informed public commenters continued to raise questions about whether a twin-bore approach might be cheaper, faster, and safer for BART operations. In response, members of the Oversight Committee commissioned an analysis of the two options for costs, risks, and impact on schedules.
In September 2025, more than 18 months after the request, VTA and its engineering consultants presented their analysis to the Oversight Committee, confirming the single-bore approach.
Although it had requested the analysis, the Oversight Committee did not make a recommendation to the Board. In October 2025, the Board was presented with the VTA staff and consultants’ analysis and confirmed the single-bore approach by declining to take steps to amend the environmental documents or modify the tunneling contracts.
Example of Inadequate Guidance: Scenario 1 versus 1a Decision In October 2025, VTA decided on an approach to the construction of the tunnel without the benefit of the SME’s analysis that the Oversight Committee had requested.
Before design work could progress to a more advanced level, the VTA Board needed to decide between two alternatives for staging the actual tunneling work. The SME had suggested that concurrent tunneling from both ends could reduce costs and accelerate the schedule (VTA, June 12, 2025). The two options were labeled “Scenario 1” (a straight-through tunneling using the larger TBM from west-to-east) and “Scenario 1a” (an option of concurrent tunneling starting at both the east and west portals using two TBMs).
Although this would require two TBMs, the east-to-west work could be done simultaneously with a smaller-bore tunneling machine. Further, the SME reported that a smaller-bore TBM was readily available and would require less lead time than the TBM being fabricated in Germany.
Because the Oversight Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. On
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II August 4, 2025, the Oversight Committee authorized an expenditure of $110,000 and directed the auditor general to contract with GZ for the requested work. GZ presented interim reports on September 11, 2025, and October 9, 2025, and promised to deliver its completed report at the November 2025 meeting of the Oversight Committee.
VTA staff subsequently presented its analysis and recommendations to the Oversight Committee on October 9, 2025. Although the Project Manager stated that the VTA staff was aware of some of GZ’s preliminary analysis (especially differing assumptions about the rate at which each of the two TBMs can move forward when digging a tunnel), VTA staff requested a Board meeting to decide between the two alternatives. In prior presentations to the Oversight Committee, VTA staff said that the analysis would be presented at a Board “workshop” (at which no formal action could be taken). However, a special meeting of the Board was called for October 17, 2025, and VTA staff made its recommendations to the Board, neglecting to advise the Board that the Oversight Committee was still awaiting the GZ analysis that the Committee had authorized.
The Oversight Committee failed to present any report or recommendation at the special meeting.
As a result, the Board adopted ‘Scenario 1’ without the benefit of an independent analysis of the risks.
On February 12, 2026, four months after the Board made its decision, the SME presented his written report analyzing the options and raising concerns that should have been considered before the decision.
VTA Staff Accountability for Responding to Oversight Committee Member Requests The auditor general maintains two types of monitoring reports: a tracking report that lists the requests of individual committee members for information or analysis, and a work plan that lists the schedule for upcoming formal reports, including risk assessments such as financing and procurement risks. Both monitoring reports establish a due date, but the deadlines are often not met.
During public meetings, Oversight Committee members rarely discuss the tracking report or the work plan and do not publicly comment on changes to the expected date in subsequent reports.
More importantly, neither the auditor general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Example of Lack of Accountability: Prolonged Delay in Analysis of Single-Bore versus Twin-Bore The side-by-side analysis of two design options was not provided until more than 18 months after it was first requested.
At the Oversight Committee’s first meeting in November 2023, a member of the public requested that the committee order a cost and risk analysis of the single-bore versus twin-bore options, which remained controversial following the VTA Board’s selection of the single-bore option in 2018. In 2023, the Chair of the Oversight Committee responded that such an “apples-to-apples” (side-byside) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks. Here are some of the subsequent activities:
• At the committee’s meeting on January 19, 2023, two committee members formally requested the “apples-to-apples” analysis and placed it on the committee’s tracking list. (VTA, March 2025). At its meeting on June 13, 2024, the Project Manager reported that the scope of the twin-bore analysis would be worked on and reported to the Board “over the course of the summer.”
• At its meeting on August 8, 2024, a member of the public asked about the status of the “apples-to-apples” analysis.
• At the September 12, 2024, Oversight Committee, the auditor general announced that VTA staff had asked engineering design contractor Mott Macdonald to conduct the “apples-toapples” review. • The March 2025 tracking report included a comment regarding the “apples-to-apples” comparison: “These items are being evaluated as part of cost savings task force efforts with participation from GZ” (VTA, April 2024).
• One year later, on September 11, 2025, Mott Macdonald presented its analysis of the twinbore versus single-bore options – nearly 22 months after the request was first discussed at an Oversight Committee meeting – concluding that the single-bore option was preferred (VTA, September 11, 2025).
Example of Lack of Accountability: An Alternative Strategy Some Call “Plan B” Despite multiple requests for an alternative strategy to address risks associated with the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision.
Since the Oversight Committee meeting on October 9, 2025, committee members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II for the promised $5.1 billion. Some committee members asked whether a “Plan B” might include reducing the number of planned stations or revising the funding strategy. VTA staff reported to the Civil Grand Jury that there was reluctance to discuss a “Plan B” out of concern that the discussion itself might jeopardize the FFGA. At public meetings, VTA staff dismissed requests for an alternative funding strategy, instead reporting that an alternative plan should not be prepared until the FTA made its decision in 2027. This is an example of the VTA staff’s dismissal of the Oversight Committee direction.
Expediency of Decisions versus Rigorous Analysis
The Civil Grand Jury identified tension between VTA Board members’ competing goals: avoiding delays in decision-making and requiring rigorous, independent analysis of costs, risks, and schedule. In public meetings, the Project Manager has often stated that each month of delay adds $20 to $30 million to the overall project cost (Dorsey, 2025).
There is a strong financial incentive to keep the project moving by advancing decisions incrementally—approving one component at a time to show visible progress—without fully evaluating how each step alters the project’s overall cost, scope, and risk. For a project of this size, complexity, and cost, this piecemeal approach masks cumulative effects, increasing the likelihood of cost escalation and delays. These should be identified and addressed through rigorous, frontend analysis.
With two-year terms and constituencies limited to portions of the County, Board members may understandably focus on immediate actions rather than the long-term, systemwide implications that demand a coherent strategic plan.
The Role Assigned to the Auditor General
The Oversight Committee benefits from periodic risk assessments and audits performed by the VTA auditor general on the BSVII project. However, by assigning the auditor general the responsibility to also provide staff support to the Oversight Committee, VTA has created a situation in which the auditor general is asked to provide an independent audit of prior decisions while also assisting the committee in evaluating future policy and management decisions.
At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II The Board is best served when it hears all relevant views on an upcoming decision and is presented with options and a recommendation. The auditor general’s participation and input are critical, but he should not be placed in the position of having to synthesize all the competing views, including his own.
The auditor general is better placed to assist the Oversight Committee in its role of “oversight” and less so in commenting on the Oversight Committee's “guidance” functions. Accordingly, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board would be better served if a VTA staff person were assigned responsibility for staffing the committee. This person could be part of the General Manager’s Office and should not report to the Project Manager. The position would be like that of the chief of staff, which was recently assigned to support the chair of the Board.
Coordination with BART
Because the County of Santa Clara is not part of the BART District, the extension of rail service to San José required a contract that established both VTA’s and BART’s commitment to cooperate.
Under the 2001 Cooperative Agreement, VTA is financially responsible for paying for the design, construction, and operation of the segment in Santa Clara County (BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). BART retained approval authority over design elements that affect operations, maintenance, and safety. To date, this has been accomplished through the joint preparation of a Design Criteria Manual.
As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus twin-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept evaluated in the final environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies:
We also determined that the length of time since the project began, extensive media coverage of the project, conflicting subject-matter opinions, and some public displeasure with the single-bore design have created uncertainty about the project’s direction. We concluded that gaps in transparency and communication, including limited public discussions in recent years, have resulted in mixed messaging on a project that has evolved over multiple decades (BART Independent Office of the Inspector General, 2025).
In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II the size of the Newhall Yard and Maintenance Facility as a capital cost-saving measure. The VTA Project Manager publicly acknowledged a failure to keep BART informed of design issues that might impact BART’s operational efficiency and pledged to develop recommendations to the administrative heads of both agencies on a more formal process to identify and resolve those issues (VTA Oversight Committee, 2025).
Board Experience and Continuity
Since 2019, five audits and reports have critiqued VTA’s governance structure and recommended a series of revisions to improve VTA’s capability to provide Board direction and oversight of the BART extension. Those audits have included the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury in 2019; the Auditor of the State of California, in 2024; the BART Independent Office of the Inspector General in 2025; RSM US LLC, a VTA subcontractor, in 2019; and the VTA Auditor General in 2024. VTA has accepted and acted on most of the recommendations for governance reform, except those relating to the terms and required experience level of Board members.
During the investigation of the BSVII project, sources repeatedly raised concerns about the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA Board, which is responsible for the project’s success. Decisions made today will have a direct impact on its ultimate success. Diligent oversight of its schedule, cost, progress, and scope is required.
According to the California Public Utilities Code, which established the VTA Board, “to the extent possible, the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues” (Pub. Util. Code 10000 et seq).
VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code, which states “Appointing Authorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13).
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Table 3: Appointing Authorities Composition of the VTA Board Appointing
Agency
Group
Jurisdiction Represented Number of
Board Members
Method of
Appointment
Group 1 San José 5 members
1 alternate
Appointed by city
council from city
council members/mayor
Group 2 Los Altos, Los Altos Hills,
Mountain View, Palo Alto
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 2 members
Group 3
Campbell, Cupertino,
Los Gatos, Monte Sereno,
Saratoga
1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 3 members
Group 4 Gilroy, Morgan Hill 1 member
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 4 members
Group 5 Milpitas, Santa Clara,
Sunnyvale
2 members
1 alternate
Determined by
Group 5 members
Group 6 County of Santa Clara 2 members
1 alternate
Appointed by County
Board of Supervisors
Source: California Pub. Util. Code section 100060.
While VTA continues to insist that two-year terms are suitable for its governance (as specified in PUC § 100060.2), peer agencies in the state appoint their Board members to four-year terms, leading to much longer average lengths of service and potentially greater experience and transportation-related knowledge (see Figure 2).
Multiple reports and audits have suggested weaknesses introduced by VTA’s approach to the appointment of Board members. For example, the 2019 Board Governance Assessment concluded, in part, that some processes and policies (e.g., committee structure, term limits, and Board member selection guidelines) might not reflect best practices or support long-term Board stability (VTA, 2019). Additionally, a report by the 2018-19 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury found that the VTA Board suffers from:
• A lack of experience and limited continuity by many Board members; • Inadequate time for the directors to devote to the Board’s oversight and policy-making functions;
• A lack of engagement by some of the directors, fostered in part by the committee system, resulted in VTA functioning largely as a staff-driven organization.
More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses:
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 interviewees told the Civil Grand Jury that VTA has made efforts to better inform the public and officials since the auditor general's report highlighted communication breakdowns in 2023.
However, there are areas where the public would benefit from VTA focusing more on improving communication.
The VTA’s BSVII project website does not offer a simple, clear dashboard outlining the costs, timeline, and progress of the BSVII project. Although it includes technical reports from the federally sponsored PMOC, it does not include the independent analyses by the SME or the VTA auditor general.
A high-level dashboard would consolidate information from multiple sources, present project metrics to the public, and provide access to source materials. Today, information on funding, expenditures, and schedule status is available on the website, but is buried in layers of reports that are nonintuitive to find or navigate.
In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
CONCLUSION
The VTA Board has failed in its responsibility to provide effective management, oversight, and financial control of the BSVII Project.
Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes:
• There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs, reliance on expiring voterapproved sales tax measures, uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership.
• When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VTA project staff, but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues.
• The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee.
• There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence.
• VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The BSVII project currently requires voter approval of additional sales tax measures to address gaps in construction and operations funding.
Recommendation 1
VTA should adopt and publish a strategy for the completion and operation of the project that reduces dependency on new sales tax measures.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 2
VTA does not maintain a cash-flow model for the BSVII project.
Recommendation 2
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare a cash-flow model for the BSVII project and present it quarterly to the Oversight Committee and the Board.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 3
VTA has not developed an alternative funding strategy for the project in the event that planned funding sources are unavailable or insufficient.
Recommendation 3
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to prepare an alternative funding strategy to meet the project’s estimated total capital costs and VTA’s responsibility for operating and maintenance costs and present it to the Oversight Committee and Board for approval.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 4
Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board.
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 general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among VTA staff and the Oversight Committee. Being involved in the management and policy-making process threatens the auditor general’s independence.
Recommendation 8
The Board should implement an alternative model for supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026
Finding 9
The Board of Directors has not approved the bylaws, nor the charter of the Oversight Committee.
Recommendation 9
VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee, setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues:
• Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks, and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy;
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II • The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to hold subject matter experts accountable for timely analysis of costs, risk, and schedule;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report to the Board on the implications of design and construction issues that impact future ongoing operations and maintenance costs to be borne by VTA.
This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
Finding 10
VTA’s vtabart.org website is poorly organized and not always intuitive to navigate, making it hard to find information about the status, cost, and schedule of the BSVII project.
Recommendation 10
The VTA Board should direct the General Manager to implement and maintain a project dashboard on its vtabart.org website that includes status, cost, and schedule information.
This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6
The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
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 VTA'S MANAGEMENT MANAGEMENT AND AND OVERSIGHT OVERSIGHT OF OF BART BART SILICON SILICON VALLEY VALLEY PHASE PHASE IIII kai BART SILICON VALLEY
PHASE II (BSV I)
BART remains fully committed to the successful delvi ery of this critical regional investment.
However, that commitment depends on VTA's immediate corrective action to restore transparency and accountability.
Sincerely,
Shane Edwards
BART Assistant General Manager, 0perations
BART Project Director
Ce: VTA's BART S i licon Valley Phase II 0versight Committee Members Greg Ri chardson, VTA Deputy General Manager
RobertPowers, BART General Manager
Michael Jones, BART Deputy General Manager
Ni Lee, BART Deputy Proj ect Director
Mon ica Born, VTA Program Director
Tom Maguire, VTA ChiefDel ivery Officer ofMega 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-tunnelmethod-chosen-for-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii). Accessed April 29, 2026.
AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC. “Project Monitoring Report.” March 9, 2026. (https://vtabart.org/transparency-commitment/#docaccess8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). Accessed May 1, 2026.
Auditor General, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Auditor General’s Risk Assessment Report on VTA’s BSVII Finance Risks.” May 1, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?MeetingID=4412&ID= 9358). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Auditor of the State of California. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight.” June 2024. (https://www.auditor.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/2023-101-Report.pdf).
Accessed April 5, 2026.
California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 10000 et seq.
Cal. Pub. Util. Code section 100060 et seq.
Dorsey, Dustin. “Silicon Valley BART Extension construction remains on time, budget.” ABC Eyewitness News. December 8, 2025. (https://abc7news.com/post/silicon-valley-bartextension-construction-remains-time-budget-west-portal-site/18265543/). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Federal Transit Administration. “FY 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment.” June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/grants/grant-programs/capital-investments/bartsilicon-valley-phase-ii-project-profile-fy-0).
Federal Transit Administration. “BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project San Jose, California. June 2024. (https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/2024-08/CABART-Silicon-Valley-Phase-II-Eng-Profile-20240705.pdf). Accessed March 30, 2026.
Geha, Joseph. “Feds Commit $5.1 Billion to South Bay BART Extension.” KQED.org. August 2, 2024. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11998646/feds-commit-5-1-billion-to-south-baybart-extension#:~:text=Joseph%20Geha,increases%20to%20the%20current%20figure).
Accessed April 22, 2026.
Hicks, Tony. “VTA Board approves purchase of machine to bore BART line.” Mountain View Voice. November 7, 2023. (https://www.mv-voice.com/news/2023/11/07/vta-boardapproves-purchase-of-machine-to-bore-bart-line/). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-areatransitagencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026
Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District Independent Office of the Inspector General. “Transparency & Communication Gaps in BSVII Project.” December 19, 2025. (https://www.bartoig.org/investigation-reports-2025#docaccess-98152ed2acf38 cd4da53e1efbb737c86cc96ef6c2e1f439edf6ec6f51905271f). Accessed April 5, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District and Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, Comprehensive Agreement, November 22, 2001.
(www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/O%26M%20Agreement_Silicon%20Valley%20B ART%20Extn.pdf). Accessed May 12, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. “BART Board initially approves Alternative Service Plan outlining budget balancing details.” February 26, 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/news/articles/2026/news20260226-0). Accessed April 29, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. "January 2026 Monthly Ridership Snapshot." February 2026. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/2026- 02/202601%20Monthly%20Ridership%20Snapshot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District. " 2019 Monthly Ridership Reports." 2019. (https://www.bart.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ridership_2019.zip). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, BART Silicon Valley Phase II Project. n.d. (https://www.vtabart.org). Accessed May 12, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, “VTA Board of Directors Workshop Reviews BART Phase II Timeline, Costs, And Next Steps.” October 23, 2023. (https://www.vta.org/blog/vta-board-directors-workshop-reviews-bart-phase-ii-timelinecosts-and-next-steps). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Auditor General. “Auditor General’s Initial Monitoring Report on VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Project.” VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Extension Oversight Committee Agenda. Item 8a. January 19, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4233).
Accessed April 5, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/RSM US LLC. “Board Governance Assessment – Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority.” December 20, 2019. (https://www.vta.gov/ sites/default/files/2020-01/VTA%20Board%20Governance%20Assessment%20 %281%29.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Agency. “BART Silicon Valley Extension Project Implements Major Cost Reductions.” November 13, 2024. (https://www.vta.org/blog/bart-siliconvalley-extension-project-implements-major-cost-reductions). Accessed April 23, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority/HayGroup. “Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Organizational and Financial Assessment Executive Report.” March 2007. (https://ti.org/pdfs/HayGrouponVTA.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Operations and Maintenance Agreement By and Between the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District.” May 22, 2020. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2020- 12/VTA%20BART%20Operations%20and%20Maintenance%20Agreement_0.pdf).
Accessed April 23, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority Administrative Code (With Amendments through March 6, 2025).” March 2025. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/VTA_Administrative_Code_2025-3-
6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Bylaws for VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee.” April 4, 2024. (https://www.vta.gov/sites/default/files/2024-04/ vta-bsv-oversight-committee-bylaws_0.pdf). Accessed April 8, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Special Board Meeting. October 17, 2025. (https:// santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=4297&Inline=True) Accessed April 9, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Agenda Item 4, Item #4. March 13, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4138&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 11a. June 12, 2025.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4430). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “BSVII Project Update.” Summer, 2025. (https://vtabart.org/vtas-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii-extension-project-summer-2025/).
Accessed May 13, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 8. January 15, 2026.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4354&Inline=True ). Accessed April 22, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “2000 Measure A.” n.d. (https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2000-measure-a). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “About 2016 Measure B.” n.d. (https://2016measureb.vta.org/about). Accessed April 29, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 10b. Slide 21. September 11, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4273&Inline=True ). Accessed April 13, 2026.
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Fact Sheet: VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project.” March 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024- 07/VTABSV_FactSheet_2024_OverviewBenefits%201.pdf). Accessed April 13, 2026.
Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancelsfunding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026.
VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transitproject-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026.
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
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Right-of-Way Due to Potential Fire Hazard Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adoption of a resolution supporting the removal of eucalyptus trees in the Highway 9 Right-of-Way due to potential fire hazard.
Background Information:
As part of the City Council’s goals for current year as well as last year, the Council has prioritized a goal to Improve Wildfire Prevention and Preparedness (Attachment 1). This goal includes maintaining evacuation routes and efforts to reduce the fire hazard risks on Highway
9. As Highway 9 would likely serve as a main evacuation route for many Monte Sereno residents in the event of a wildfire, reducing risks that may prevent the roadway from being used as an evacuation route has been identified as a priority for the City Council.
At the August 18, 2026 City Council meeting, the Council adopted Resolution No. NS-3971 to support removal of the eucalyptus trees in the Highway 9 median. Council also directed staff to draft a resolution that would support removal of all eucalyptus trees in the Highway 9 right-ofway, which includes the shoulders of the highway. This resolution would repeal Resolution No.
NS-3971.
Analysis:
Eucalyptus trees can be problematic for several reasons, including the following:
Fire Hazard -
Hazardous Limbs
Shallow Roots
Eucalyptus trees are prone to fire as their bark and oil make them highly flammable.
Eucalyptus trees can also drop limbs without warning. This can happen for several reasons including Sudden Branch Drop, which is a natural self-pruning process to help the tree conserve water during droughts or extreme heat.
Additionally, eucalyptus trees have shallow and widespread roots which can make them prone to uprooting and falling in high winds, particularly if the soil is wet from rain.
If the Council adopts a resolution in support of removal of these trees, it could be used to further such efforts with elected officials and State agencies.
California Environmental Quality Act:
This is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) in that it is a governmental organizational or administrative activity that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment (CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5)).
Fiscal Impact:
No fiscal impact will occur if the draft resolution is adopted.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution to Support Removal of Eucalyptus Trees in Highway 9 ROW
2. Reso No 26-3971 Support Removal of Eucalyptus Trees in Highway 9 Median.docx
RESOLUTION NO. 26-###
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO SUPPORTING REMOVAL OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREES IN THE HIGHWAY 9 CALTRANS RIGHT-OF-WAY AND REPEALING RESOLUTION NO. 26-3971 WHEREAS, State Route Highway 9 is a state highway which is managed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); and WHEREAS, State Route Highway 9 would likely serve as a main evacuation route for Monte Sereno residents and residents from neighboring cities in the event of a wildfire; and
WHEREAS, providing clear evacuation routes in the event of wildfire is a priority for the City in order to reduce the time needed for residents to evacuate; and WHEREAS, eucalyptus trees are prone to fire as their bark and oil make them highly flammable; and
WHEREAS, eucalyptus trees can be subject to Sudden Branch Drop, which is a natural self-pruning process to help the tree conserve water during droughts or extreme heat; and
WHEREAS, eucalyptus trees have shallow and widespread roots which can make them prone to uprooting and falling in high winds, particularly if the soil is wet from rain; and
WHEREAS, removal of the eucalyptus trees in Highway 9 right-of-way would potentially reduce spread of wildfire and reduce the risk of downed trees blocking a major evacuation route; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno adopted Resolution No. 26-3971 on August 18, 2026 to support removal of the eucalyptus trees in the median of Highway 9; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno desires to repeal Resolution No. 26-3971 and to support the removal of all eucalyptus trees in the Highway 9 right-of-way.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO that the eucalyptus trees in Highway 9 right-of-way are a potential hazard for the residents of Monte Sereno and neighboring cities and it strongly supports efforts for the removal of these trees.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO that Resolution No. 26-3971 is hereby repealed and of no further force and effect.
REGULARLY ADOPTED AND PASSED this 1st day of September 2026, by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTESTED:
__________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 26-3971
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO SUPPORTING REMOVAL OF THE EUCALYPTUS TREES IN THE HIGHWAY 9 MEDIAN
WHEREAS, State Route Highway 9 is a state highway which is managed and maintained by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and WHEREAS, State Route Highway 9 would likely serve as a main evacuation route for Monte Sereno residents and residents from neighboring cities in the event of a wildfire, and
WHEREAS, providing clear evacuation routes in the event of wildfire is a priority for the City in order to reduce the time needed for residents to evacuate, and WHEREAS, eucalyptus trees are prone to fire as their bark and oil make them highly flammable, and
WHEREAS, eucalyptus trees can be subject to Sudden Branch Drop, which is a natural self-pruning process to help the tree conserve water during droughts or extreme heat, and
WHEREAS, eucalyptus trees have shallow and widespread roots which can make them prone to uprooting and falling in high winds, particularly if the soil is wet from rain, and
WHEREAS, removal of the eucalyptus trees in the median of Highway 9 would potentially reduce spread of wildfire and reduce the risk of downed trees blocking a major evacuation route.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO the eucalyptus trees in the median of Highway 9 are a potential hazard for the residents of Monte Sereno and neighboring cities and supports efforts for removal of these trees.
REGULARLY ADOPTED AND PASSED this 18
th day of August 2026, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: CRAIG, SHANNON, ALLAN
NOES: TOREN, MEKECHUK
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
APPROVED:
Docusign Envelope ID: 402A377A-2A92-8690-803B-5A1174BC3407
Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
ATTESTED:
__________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Docusign Envelope ID: 402A377A-2A92-8690-803B-5A1174BC3407
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-### An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace It with a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance)
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt and waive the first reading of Ordinance No. NS- ### an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Replace it With a New Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance).
Background Information:
The Los Gatos Monte Sereno Polic Department has reported an increase in the use of alcohol and drugs by Monte Sereno and Los Gatos youth. Recently, the Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District Superintendent Heath Rocha coordinated meetings with the Los Gatos High School Principal Dave Poetzinger, Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department staff, Town of Los Gatos Mayor and Manager, and the City of Monte Sereno Mayor and Council Members and Manager to discuss their concerns about the increased use of alcohol and drugs by students. The School District has several initiatives they are undertaking to address the issue.
The Town of Los Gatos adopted an updated Social Host Ordinance in 2022. The ordinance is designed to confront and mitigate the prevalent problem of underage use of intoxicants at private and public venues. It allows law enforcement officials to issue citations for civil fines and fees against people responsible for gatherings at which intoxicants are served to, consumed by, or in the possession of minors. The ordinance holds adults responsible for underage use of intoxicants (alcohol, controlled substances and/or cannabis) in their households whether or not the adults are present.
Adults face a civil fine of $1,500 for the first violation and $3,000 for subsequent violations.
Additionally, for subsequent violations, recovery of the costs of law enforcement’s response to an incident may be imposed on the adults.
Analysis:
The Monte Sereno Municipal Code currently includes Chapter 4.25 regulating social gatherings. This chapter makes the following social gatherings unlawful:
A. No person under the age of twenty-one years shall have in his or her possession or consume any alcoholic beverage at any place not open to the public, unless that person is accompanied by and is being supervised by his or her parent or legal guardian.
B. No person shall suffer, permit, allow, or host a social gathering at his or her place of residence where one or more persons under the age of twenty-one (21) are present and alcoholic beverages are in the possession of, or being consumed by, any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years who is not accompanied by and under the supervision of his or her parent or legal guardian.
This Chapter only allows for the reimbursement of Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department costs when a disturbance at a premises requires a second response by a police officer. No fines or penalties can currently be imposed on the person in charge of the premises when underage use of intoxicants has occurred.
The proposed ordinance allows for the following:
Defines ‘Underage Social Gathering’ as a gathering of two or more persons held on private or public property where intoxicants are consumed by any underage person. Defines the ‘Social Host’ as any person who has the right of possession of the public/private property where an underage social gathering occurs, including the tenant, lessee, and person who exercises control over the property, or any person who organizes or controls the underage social gathering. The social host does not need to be present at the gathering to incur liability.
Makes it unlawful for any person to knowingly host (including where they reasonably should have been aware) an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City.
When an underage social gathering is hosted by a juvenile, the parents or guardians of the juvenile are liable for penalties.
Civil fine penalties added for the adults of $1,500 for the first violation and $3,000 for subsequent violations. Additionally, for subsequent violations, recovery of the costs of law enforcement’s response to an incident may be imposed on the adults.
The proposed ordinance aligns with the Town of Los Gatos’ ordinance, which will make enforcement more efficient for the Police Department as the same regulations would apply in both jurisdictions if the draft ordinance were adopted.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Fiscal Impact:
No fiscal impact is anticipated with the adoption of the updated ordinance, although any fines imposed would provide a modest revenue increase.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance NS-###
1 of 7
ORDINANCE NO. NS-###
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO AMENDING TITLE 4 OF THE MONTE SERENO MUNICIPAL CODE TO REPEAL CHAPTER 4.16 (SOCIAL GATHERINGS) AND REPLACE IT WITH A NEW CHAPTER 4.16 (SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE) WHEREAS, the City of Monte Sereno desires to amend its social gatherings requirements; and
WHEREAS, the occurrence of underage social gatherings, defined in this ordinance as a gathering of two or more underage persons on private or public property where intoxicants are consumed by underage persons, is harmful to such persons and a threat to public welfare, health, and safety. The Surgeon General's Call to Action (2007) is hereby incorporated by reference, to further establish the health, safety and public welfare concerns that exist with underage drinking or cannabis use; and
WHEREAS, reliable research indicates that underage consumption of intoxicants is a contributing factor in the three leading causes of teenage deaths: 1) unintentional injury, 2) homicide and 3) suicide. Underage drinking is associated with alcohol abuse and a negative impact on the developing brain of youth. Likewise, consumption of intoxicants is associated with violent crimes including sexual offenses, DUI, and alcohol-related traffic deaths. Underage drinking is a common factor in public disturbances, vandalism, and physical altercations, all of which may require intervention by local law enforcement; and WHEREAS, research has identified easy access to intoxicants and permissive attitudes as two key factors that contribute to underage drinking, cannabis, or other drug use; and WHEREAS, Local, state and national studies have established that underage youth most commonly procure intoxicants from social sources (parties, friends, homes) and others who purchase it for them; and
WHEREAS, underage social gatherings frequently occur on private or public property where adults who own or control the property have failed to ensure that alcoholic beverages, cannabis, or other intoxicating products are neither served to, nor consumed by underage persons. Furthermore, there are times when parents or other adults are present at the social gathering who condone the underage drinking, cannabis, or controlled substance use and provide the alcohol, cannabis, or controlled substance products; and WHEREAS, problems associated with underage social gatherings on private or public property are difficult to prevent and deter unless the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department has the legal authority to direct the social host to disperse the gathering and to cite the social host; and
WHEREAS, law enforcement personnel have in the past been required to respond to underage social gatherings on private and public property where intoxicants are provided to and consumed by underage persons. Such calls for service can result in a disproportionate expenditure of public safety resources and delay official responses to other calls; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno, pursuant to the City's police powers under Article XI, sections 3 and 5 of the California Constitution, has the authority to enact
2 of 7
and enforce laws that promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its residents; and WHEREAS, an ordinance that imposes liability with penalties on social hosts is necessary to deter and prevent such gatherings. Social hosts or anyone who organizes, supervises, aids, conducts, permits, or controls the underage social gathering need not be present at such gathering to incur liability under this ordinance.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF MONTE SERENO DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council, therefore, finds that underage social gatherings held on private or public property are a threat to the public peace, health, safety and general welfare, and a public nuisance as they affect the entire Monte Sereno community as well as the neighborhoods in which they occur.
SECTION 2. The purposes of this ordinance are to:
1. protect the public health, safety, and welfare by deterring the service to and consumption of alcoholic beverages or cannabis products by underage persons; and
2. reduce the cost to the public of providing police response services. These purposes are achieved by issuing a criminal citation which requires the social host to pay a fine and fees for the actual costs incurred by the Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department; and SECTION 3. The recitals to this Ordinance are hereby incorporated and are expressly made a part hereof.
SECTION 4. Chapter 4.16 of Title 4 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code is repealed and replaced to read in its entirety as follows:
“CHAPTER 4.16 SOCIAL HOST ORDINANCE
4.16.015 Definitions
4.16.020 Duty of the Social Host
4.16.025 Prohibition of Underage Gatherings on Private and Public Property
4.16.030 Hosting by Juvenile
4.16.035 Exemption
4.16.040 Penalties for Violations
4.16.045 Recovery of Response Costs
4.16.050 No Mandatory Duty of Care
4.16.015 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) "Alcohol." The definition of "alcohol" in Section 23003 of the California Business & Professions Code, as amended from time to time, shall apply to this chapter. As of the introduction of this chapter, section 23003 defines "alcohol" to mean "ethyl alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl, or
3 of 7
spirits of wine, from whatever source or by whatever process produced." (b) "Alcoholic beverage." The definition of "alcoholic beverage" in Section 23004 of the California Business & Professions Code, as amended from time to time, shall apply to this chapter.
As of the introduction of this chapter, section 23004 defines "alcoholic beverage" to mean alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer that contains one-half of one percent or more alcohol by volume and that is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed or combined with other substances."
(c) "Cannabis" means all parts of the plant Cannabis Sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis Indica, or Cannabis Ruderalis, or any other strain or varietal of the genus Cannabis that may exist or hereafter be discovered or developed that has psychoactive or medicinal purposes. "Cannabis" also means marijuana as defined by section 11018 of the Health and Safety Code, and amended by the California Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult use of Marijuana Initiative, and as defined by other applicable state laws. "Cannabis" does not mean "industrial hemp" as defined by section 11018.S of the Health and Safety Code. Cannabis is classified as an agricultural product separately from other agricultural crops.
(d) "Cannabis Product" means cannabis or a cannabis product, respectfully, intended to be sold for either medical or adult use.
(e) "City" means the City of Monte Sereno.
(f) "Controlled Substance" means a drug or substance whose possession and use are regulated under the California Controlled Substances Act (Health & Safety Code Section 11000 et seq.). Such term does not include any drug or substance for which the individual found to have consumed or possessed such substance has a valid prescription issued by a licensed medical practitioner authorized to issue such a prescription, or in the case of medical cannabis, a recommendation for medical marijuana from an approved provider, or a State of California medical identification card.
(g) "lntoxicants" means alcohol, controlled substances and/or cannabis as defined herein. (h) "Juvenile" means any person under eighteen years of age. (i) "Private or public property" means any location such as a residence and adjoining property, an apartment, condominium, hotel or motel room, or other dwelling unit, or a hall or meeting room, park, or any other place of assembly, public or private, whether occupied on a temporary or permanent basis, whether occupied as a dwelling or specifically for a party or other
4 of 7
social function or used with or without permission or compensation. (j) "Response costs" means the costs associated with responses by law enforcement to underage social gatherings including, but not limited to:
(1) salaries and benefits of law enforcement personnel for the amount of time spent responding to, remaining at, or otherwise dealing with unruly or underage gatherings; (2) the cost of any medical treatment to or for any law enforcement personnel injured responding to, remaining at or leaving the scene of an underage social gathering; (3) the cost of repairing any Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department equipment or property damage, and the cost of the use of any such equipment, in responding to, remaining at or leaving the scene of an underage social gathering; and (4) any costs recoverable in accordance with California Civil Code section 1714.9. (k) "Social Host" means any person or persons with a right of possession of private or public property at which an underage social gathering occurs, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) the owner of record as of the time of the underage social gathering or tenant or lessee of the property;
(2) any person who exercises control over the private or public property at the time of the underage social gathering;
(3) anyone who organizes, supervises, officiates, aids, conducts, allows, permits or controls the underage social gathering.
A social host need not be present at such gathering to incur liability under this ordinance. (l) "Underage social gathering" means a party or gathering of two or more persons held on private or public property in the City where intoxicants are consumed by any underage person. (m) "Underage person" means any person under twenty-one years of age.
4.16.020 Duty of Social Host.
It is the duty of the Social Host to take reasonable steps to prevent underage access to intoxicants on private and public property. Such steps include, but are not limited to, controlling the quantity of intoxicants, verifying the age of persons attending the gathering by inspecting drivers' licenses or other government-issued identification cards to ensure that underage persons do not consume intoxicants while at the gathering, and supervising the activities of underage persons at the gathering.
4.16.025 Prohibition of Underage Social Gatherings on Private and Public Property.
It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to knowingly host an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City. For purposes of this chapter, a person knowingly hosts an underage social gathering whenever the social host is aware that an underage person has consumed intoxicants or reasonably should have been aware had the social host taken reasonable steps to prevent consumption of intoxicants by underage persons in accordance with Chapter
5 of 7
4.16.030. Hosting by Juvenile.
In the event that a juvenile hosts an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City in violation of this chapter, the parents or guardians of that juvenile may be jointly and severally liable for any penalties and response costs imposed pursuant to this chapter.
4.16.035 Exemption.
This chapter does not apply to conduct involving the use of alcoholic beverages that is protected by Article I, Section 4 of the California Constitution.
4.16.040 Penalties for Violations.
(a) The Code Enforcement Officer and/or City Police, at their discretion, may immediately issue a citation for violation of this Chapter upon evidence of the violation. There is no requirement of a first warning in order for the enforcement officer to issue this citation. (b) Administrative Fine: A first violation of this chapter shall result in a citation with a $1,500 fine. A second violation and subsequent violations shall result in a citation with a $3,000 fine. (c) The Code Enforcement Officer and/or City Police shall give notice of a violation of this chapter by issuing a citation to any and all responsible persons identified by the chapter within 10 days of the violation. The citation shall also give notice of the right to request an administrative hearing to challenge the validity of the citation and the time for requesting that hearing. (d) The administrative fine prescribed in this section is in addition to any cost recovery fee for public safety responses that may be assessed pursuant to section 4.16.045.
4.16.045 Recovery of Response Costs.
When the City Police make an initial response to an underage social gathering on private or public property in the City and the Code Enforcement Officer and/or a police officer issues a citation for violation of this chapter, the officer shall, in writing, inform any responsible person(s) at the property or location that:
(a) An underage social gathering exists; and
(b) The social host(s) will be charged for any response costs incurred for subsequent responses to the property for hosting an underage social gathering within a 12-month period. (c) This warning will be given to all social hosts at the time of the first response to an underage social gathering where a citation is issued for violation of this chapter. (d) Within 30 calendar days of the initial citation, a written warning will be delivered via certified mail to the owner of record of the involved property. (e) When a police officer responds to an underage social gathering at a residence or other private or public property within the City within 12 months of a citation and warning given to social hosts at the same property, and such officer issues a second or subsequent citation pursuant to this chapter, all responsible persons shall be jointly and severally liable for the City's response costs concerning such second or subsequent underage social gathering, but only to the extent that the identified social host(s) concerning the first citation at such property remain the social host(s) for the second or subsequent citation at such property.
6 of 7
(f) The requirement of a first warning does not limit the ability of public safety personnel to issue a civil citation for the imposition of civil penalties for cost recovery on the same day that the warning is given if the warning does not end the serving, consumption of or possession of intoxicants by underage person(s) at any gathering. The cost recovery for public safety responses shall be separate and distinct from a citation and administrative fine for a violation described in section 4.16.040.
4.16.050 No Mandatory Duty of Care.
This chapter is not intended to impose and shall not be construed or given effect in a manner that imposes upon the City, or any officer, employee, agent, or representative of the City, a mandatory duty of care toward persons or property within or without the City limits, so as to provide a basis of civil liability for damages, except as may otherwise be imposed by law.” SECTION 5. Environmental Review.
The adoption of this ordinance is not a “project” as defined by the CEQA guidelines Section 15378: “Adoption of the ordinance does not have the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Further projects subject to the ordinance will require a discretionary permit and CEQA review and will be analyzed at the appropriate time in accordance with CEQA.” Therefore, no environmental assessment is required or necessary.
SECTION 6. Effective Date.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect 30 days after its adoption.
SECTION 7. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision of such Ordinance and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 8. Certification.
The City Clerk shall cause this ordinance to be posted and/or published in the manner required by law.
This Ordinance was introduced at the meeting of the City Council on the 1st day of September 2026, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 15th day of September 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Lionel M. Allan, Mayor
7 of 7
Attest: ___________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
___________________________________
Kirsten Powell, City Attorney
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consideration of a Letter of Support for SB 922 (Laird). Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether to authorize the Mayor to send the draft letter of support for SB 922 (Laird) to the Governor.
Background Information:
On January 28, 2026, SB 922 was introduced to the California State Senate. If adopted, SB 922 would provide clarity that local governments have an ability to levy a charge imposed to recover the cost of street maintenance and repair, or other costs associated with the use of public roads, to provide public services or public works.
The full text of the bill, as currently amended, is online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB922 Analysis:
SB 922 would reaffirm long-standing local authority related to the recovery of street maintenance and repair costs associated with providing essential public services.
Specifically, SB 922 will clarify that restrictions on local road charges apply only to weightbased charges imposed for the privilege of using streets or highways. The bill makes clear that local governments may recover the cost of street maintenance and repair associated with providing public services.
Essential public services, including garbage, recycling, and green waste collection, rely on the regular use of local streets by heavy service vehicles. These vehicles provide critical public health and environmental benefits. Cities and counties have long been able to recover the cost of maintaining streets used to deliver essential services from waste haulers. These practices are familiar, predictable, and transparent for both local governments, service providers, and residents. Importantly, these assessments help ensure that streets remain safe and functional for the delivery of services communities rely on every day.
A recent court decision, Rogers v. City of Redlands, undermined this practice by determining that road repair costs recovered through solid waste rates violated an unrelated section of the vehicle code. As a result, cities and counties risk losing those vital revenue streams and are facing litigation regarding those existing cost recovery mechanisms.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Draft Letter of Support for SB 922
September 2, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SB 922 (Laird) Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.
REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City Monte Sereno respectfully requests your signature on SB 922 (Laird), which would provide needed clarity regarding a local agency’s ability to recover the cost of maintaining and repairing streets used in the delivery of essential public services.
Cities are responsible for maintaining most local streets and roads. Heavy service vehicles, including garbage, recycling, and green waste collection trucks, regularly travel on local streets and contribute to pavement wear and deterioration. Historically, cities have addressed these impacts through servicerelated rates, fees, or franchise arrangements tied to the provision of those services.
Recently, a court decision has created uncertainty regarding these long-standing practices. As a result, cities are facing increased legal challenges to existing service-related fees, placing street maintenance funding at risk and creating uncertainty for local governments attempting to responsibly manage and maintain their transportation infrastructure.
SB 922 would help address this uncertainty by clarifying that restrictions on local charges apply only to weight-based charges imposed for the privilege of using streets or highways. The bill further makes clear that fees for the provision of public services may recover the cost of street maintenance and repair associated with providing such services.
The City of Monte Sereno would benefit from this legislation by reinstating an essential revenue stream used for road maintenance and repairs due to heavy vehicle loads.
For these reasons, the City of Monte Sereno respectfully requests your signature on SB 922 (Laird). 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
www.montesereno.org
Sincerely,
Lionel M. Allan
Mayor
Cc: Gail Pellerin, Assemblymember
Josh Becker, State Senator
Montana Cruz, Cal Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager, Peninsula (via email) League of California Cities, [email protected]
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consideration of a Letter of Support for AB 1761 (Rogers). Electricity:
calculation methodology: nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council consider whether to authorize the Mayor to send the draft letter of support for AB 1761 (Rogers) to the Governor.
Background Information:
On February 9, 2026, AB 1761 was introduced to the California State Assembly. If adopted, AB 1761 would bring transparency to the way Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), a charge on nearly all energy bills, is calculated. The PCIA is a fee designed to ensure that customers who leave a utility’s electricity generation service still pay their share of energy contracts the utility already signed for them.
The full text of the bill, as currently amended, is online at:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1761 Analysis:
The Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) fee is charged by investor-owned utilities (IOUs) in California (including PG&E) to all customers, including those who receive generation service from a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA), which includes Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE). The fee is designed to ensure that customers who leave a utility’s electricity generation service still pay their share of energy contracts the utility already signed for them.
The fee is calculated by the IOU and the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC), without transparency about the data, assumptions, or methods used to calculate the rate. This bill would require the CPUC and IOUs to disclose all data used to calculate PCIA costs, including cost inputs, forecasting assumptions, and methodologies. The bill would also ensure that when parties make proposals in a proceeding to change the PCIA they provide all the underlying data informing that proposal.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Draft Letter of Support for AB 1761
2. AB 1761 Fact Sheet
3. SVCE Support Letter for AB 1761 (Rogers)
September 2, 2026
The Honorable Gavin Newsom
Governor, State of California
1021 O Street, Suite 9000
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: AB 1761 (Rogers) Electricity: calculation methodology: nonbypassable charges: data disclosure - REQUEST FOR SIGNATURE
Dear Governor Newsom,
The City Monte Sereno respectfully requests your signature on AB 1761 (Rogers), a measure that supports energy affordability by improving transparency and certainty in how the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), a charge on nearly all energy bills, is calculated.
Many residents of the City of Monte Sereno are customers of Silicon Valley Clean Energy, a Community Choice Aggregator (CCA). The PCIA is a fee designed to ensure customers who leave utility generation service, like customers of a CCA or Energy Service Provider (ESP), pay their portion of legacy power costs. But since the PCIA was implemented, there has been no consistent standard for what data must be made available in any California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) process or proceeding where the PCIA or a related charge is set. Without adequate transparency, CCAs and ESPs are unable to verify the accuracy of the PCIA charges that their customers must pay and cannot confidently forecast rates – both of which are affordability tools needed to protect customers from unexpected rate increases. Additionally, the lack of consistent data creates costly disputes and inefficiencies in CPUC proceedings.
To address these problems, AB 1761 proposes amending the Public Utilities Code to require the CPUC and investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to disclose all data used to calculate PCIA costs, including cost inputs, forecasting assumptions, and methodologies. The bill would also ensure that when parties or the CPUC make proposals in a proceeding to change the PCIA, they provide all the underlying data informing that proposal. Sensitive information would remain protected through Commission-approved nondisclosure agreements, a practice already used to protect sensitive information in other compliance areas
The City of Monte Sereno residents would benefit from this legislation by ensuring they receive energy bills that are fair and accurate.
For these reasons, the City of Monte Sereno respectfully requests your signature on AB 1761 (Rogers). 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
www.montesereno.org
Sincerely,
Lionel M. Allan
Mayor
Cc: Gail Pellerin, Assemblymember
Josh Becker, State Senator
Montana Cruz, Cal Cities Regional Public Affairs Manager, Peninsula (via email) League of California Cities, [email protected]
Assembly Bill 1761 – Improving Energy Bill Transparency Updated: February 18, 2026
Assemblymember Chris Rogers, 2
nd Assembly District
Bill Summary
AB 1761 improves transparency to how the Power Charge
Indifference Adjustment (PCIA), a charge on nearly all
energy bills, is calculated.
Background
Electricity bills in California are on the rise, in part due to challenging market conditions and outdated and
inefficient regulatory policies. Families and businesses are feeling the impact. Lawmakers and regulators need
practical, consumer-focused solutions that ensure
customers do not pay more than their fair share.
One tool to ensure customers receive energy bills that
are fair and accurate is increased transparency in how
PCIA charges are calculated. The PCIA is a fee
designed to ensure customers who leave utility
generation service, like customers of a Community
Choice Aggregator (CCA) or Energy Service
Provider (ESP), pay their portion of legacy power
costs. But since the PCIA was implemented, there has
been no consistent standard for what data must be
made available in any California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC) process or proceeding where
the PCIA, or a related charge, is set.
Problem
CCAs, ESPs, and their customers must pay the PCIA
charge but often lack access to the data, assumptions, and methods used to set it. This transparency problem leads to disputes, inefficiencies, and unexpected rate impacts for customers. More specifically:
• Disclosures vary by utility and by CPUC
proceeding, resulting in repeated fights between
CCAs and Investor-Owned Utilities (IOUs) over
data access and increased administrative
inefficiencies as the CPUC resolves disputes on a
case-by-case basis.
• Utilities sometimes make mistakes. In a 2019
PG&E proceeding, CalCCA identified $73
million in errors (including a $16 million increase
for CCA customers). In a recent proceeding,
PG&E identified an accounting error that would
have cost CCA customers $217 million.
• In an ongoing PCIA Rulemaking, the
Commission withheld information on the
evidence underlying their proposal and the rate
impacts of a proposed change. The CPUC did not
respond to a Public Records Act request for the
information.
Without adequate transparency, CCAs and ESPs are
unable to verify the accuracy of the PCIA charges that
their customers must pay and cannot confidently forecast rates – both of which are affordability tools needed to protect customers from unexpected rate increases.
Solution
AB 1761 proposes amending the Public Utilities Code to
require the CPUC and IOUs to disclose all data used to
calculate PCIA costs, including cost inputs, forecasting assumptions, and methodologies. The bill would also
ensure that when parties make proposals in a proceeding to change the PCIA they provide all the underlying data informing that proposal. Sensitive information would
remain protected through Commission-approved
nondisclosure agreements – a practice already used to
protect sensitive information in other compliance areas.
Greater transparency allows CCAs and ESPs to better
advocate for their customers and assess proposals to
change the PCIA. It also can inform cost forecasts and
shield customers from sudden rate swings. It reduces
repeated fights over information, improves regulatory
efficiency, and encourages utilities to verify calculations since the underlying data would be open to review. Costs to implement the proposal are miniscule, as most of this information already exists, while the benefits for rate, accuracy, stability, and consumer protection are
substantial. This proposal strengthens confidence that
customers pay their fair share — and not more.
For More Information:
Logan Pitts, Legislative Director
[email protected]
(916) 319-2002
Support
California Community Choice AssociationCalCCA(sponsor)
333 W El Camino Real, Suite 330 | Sunnyvale, CA 94087 | 1-844-474-SVCE (7823) | SVCleanEnergy.org Campbell | Cupertino | Gilroy | Los Altos | Los Altos Hills | Los Gatos | Milpitas | Monte Sereno | Morgan Hill | Mountain View | Saratoga | Sunnyvale | Unincorporated Santa Clara County June 2, 2026
Senator Ben Allen
Chair
Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee
1021 O Street, Suite 3350
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: SVCE Support for AB 1761 (Rogers) on Data Transparency Dear Chair Allen:
I write on behalf of Silicon Valley Clean Energy (SVCE) to support AB 1761 (Rogers), which would require the California Public Utilities Commission to ensure all data used to calculate charges related to the Power Charge Indifference Adjustment (PCIA) is provided to load-serving entities and ratepayer advocates.
As background, SVCE is a community-owned agency serving the majority of Santa Clara County communities, acquiring clean electricity on behalf of more than 270,000 residential and commercial customers.
Disclosure of data used in the calculation of the PCIA provides key insights into the decision-making process at the California Public Utilities Commission, including for Energy Resource Recovery Account (ERRA) proceedings that set rates for investorowned utilities and calculates departed load’s PCIA charge. Recently, in an ongoing PCIA rulemaking, the Commission withheld data on the evidence underlying their proposal and its impact on rates. This resulted in an incomplete understanding of ratepayer impacts prior to the Commission adopting the policy change.
Additional data transparency will allow stakeholders to better understand the impact of proposed regulatory changes on ratepayers and should lead to better stakeholder feedback and better final policies.
For these reasons, SVCE supports AB 1761 (Rogers) and urges the Senate Energy, Utilities, and Communications Committee to pass the bill.
Sincerely,
Monica V. Padilla
Chief Executive Officer
Docusign Envelope ID: E3887D5F-0E37-82CF-83CE-75639BE5D439
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Sep 01 2026
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Diana Perkins, City Manager
Department: City Manager
Title: Consider Membership in the Government AI Coalition Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council consider membership in the Government AI Coalition Background Information:
The Government AI (GovAI) Coalition started as an idea by the City of San José in 2023.
While asking companies for more information on their products surrounding privacy and data usage, vendors were hesitant to provide the information. Staff from the City of San José AI and Digital Privacy Team shared these concerns to government staff in other agencies, who shared the same concerns. Proposing to join forces, San José initiated the first meeting of what would become the GovAI Coalition. This meeting was held the first week of November 2023 with about 50 agencies.
The GovAI Coalition is composed of government members from local, state, and federal agencies united to promote responsible and purposeful AI in the public sector. As government agencies look to artificial intelligence (AI) to improve services, the GovAI Coalition strives towards a more just and beneficial technological future for all. AI tools have the potential to make government services more responsive, efficient, and accessible to all, but AI also poses serious risks.
To improve the lives of the people we serve while protecting our communities against AI risks, it is vital that public agencies establish safeguards for the responsible use of AI.
The GovAI Coalition enables public sector AI to serve the public good through resource sharing, standards, and advocacy.
The GovAI Coalition is committed to:
Using AI for social good,
Ensuring ethical, non-discriminatory, and responsible AI governance, Promoting vendor accountability,
Improving government services, and
Fostering cross-agency collaboration and knowledge sharing.
Analysis:
The GovAI Coalition was created for government, by government. Members of government agencies are eligible for all Coalition activities including being eligible for the GovAI Coalition board and chairing Coalition committees.
Membership in the GovAI Coalition connects public servants, agencies, and industry experts to promote safe, ethical, and practical use of artificial intelligence in the public sector. There is no cost to become a member of the coalition.
Membership would allow the City to share in standardized tools such as AI policy templates and AI fact sheets as well a collaborate with other agencies to share best practices.
Attached is report from Council Member Mekechuk regarding potential membership in the GovAI Coalition.
California Environmental Quality Act:
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) in that it is a fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.
Fiscal Impact:
No fiscal impact is anticipated with this discussion or GovAI membership. Based on direction from Council, additional staffing impacts or consultant services may be needed.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's Council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno's City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on the City of Monte Sereno's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
1. Council Member Mekechuk's Report on GovAI Coalition
Mekechuk Report on GovAI Coalition.docx Page 1
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
Councilmember Report
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Bryan Mekechuk, Councilmember
DATE: August 24, 2026
SUBJECT: Consideration of Membership in the Government AI (GovAI) Coalition Purpose
I recommend that the City of Monte Sereno join the Government AI (GovAI) Coalition, a national, government-led network dedicated to the responsible and purposeful use of artificial intelligence in the public sector. Membership is free, requires no ongoing financial commitment, and would give our small city access to shared tools, policy templates, and a peer network that we could not build on our own.
Membership is institutional, not individual. The GovAI Coalition has three membership categories (government agencies, academia and civil Society, and private sector) and all of them are organizations, not individual people. If Monte Sereno joins, the City becomes the member as a government agency.
Background and Context
This item grows out of a broader regional conversation about how local governments can responsibly adopt artificial intelligence (AI). On Thursday, August 20, 2026, Vice Mayor Lisa Shannon and I both attended the same presentation at Stanford University of the Stanford HAI 2026 AI Index Report, sponsored by the Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG). Neither of us was aware that the other would be attending until we saw one another at the event, which speaks to how timely and relevant this topic has become for cities like ours. Other elected officials from small cities attended, including the Towns of Portola Valley and Los Altos Hills, and the City of Saratoga.
In addition, I am registered to continue that dialogue on Thursday, September 10, 2026, at the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Library in San José, where SVLG is hosting another AI-focused event for local policymakers, titled “From Pilot to Practice: Building Local Government Capacity for AI Adoption.” The event will feature a panel of AI architects and share practical insights from SVLG’s recent report on AI adoption in local government.
In California, Matt Mahan, the mayor of San José, has been a leader in municipal AI adoption across the region, driving initiatives like the “AI for All” platform, internal workforce upskilling, and broader government deployment. He has been joined by San José city leadership including the Chief Information Officer, Khaled Tawfik, and City Manager, Jennifer Maguire.
Our City has limited resources and we are trying to tighten our operating budget. Our residents are sophisticated with high expectations. AI tools may provide the opportunity for the City to do more with the same resources, faster and with a higher quality output. There are many opportunities where AI tools can be used, yet our staff doesn’t have the time or bandwidth to identify them. Hiring a consultant to do such work is expensive, and recreates a wheel already in place elsewhere.
Mekechuk Report on GovAI Coalition.docx Page 2
What the GovAI Coalition Is
The GovAI Coalition was founded and is led by the City of San José and now includes more than 3,000 members across over 900 local, state, and federal agencies nationwide. It was created “for government, by government” to help public agencies adopt AI responsibly ‒ with appropriate attention to transparency, privacy, ethics, and accountability. The Coalition develops and freely shares practical resources, including model AI policies, procurement guidance, and “AI FactSheet” disclosure templates, and it convenes committees and working groups where member agencies share what is, and is not, working.
Importantly, several of our neighboring jurisdictions are already members, including the Town of Los Gatos and the Cities of Saratoga and Campbell.
Cost of Joining
There is no cost to join. Membership in the GovAI Coalition is free to government agencies, and there are no membership dues or required fees. The only investment could be a modest amount of staff time ‒ as much or as little as the City chooses ‒ to review Coalition materials and participate in meetings when a topic is relevant to us. Since participation is voluntary and self-paced, membership creates no unfunded obligation for the City. Volunteers could reduce even that modest amount of staff time to nearly zero.
Benefits for the City of Monte Sereno
Monte Sereno is a very small organization ‒ roughly eight FTEs (Full Time Equivalents) serving approximately 3,750 residents. We do not have dedicated technology staff or contractors, nor the bandwidth to research AI governance, draft policies from scratch, or evaluate AI vendors on our own. The GovAI Coalition effectively lets us borrow the collective work of hundreds of larger agencies.
Specific benefits include:
▪ Ready-made resources. Access to vetted policy templates, procurement guidance, and disclosure tools that we can adapt rather than build from nothing ‒ saving staff time and consultant costs. ▪ Community engagement tools. Resources to help us communicate clearly with residents about how and why the City might use AI, should the question ever arise. ▪ Preparedness and credibility. Even if the City does not deploy an AI tool in the near term, AI is increasingly embedded in the software and shared services local governments already rely on.
Membership positions Monte Sereno to respond thoughtfully ‒ and signals to residents that the City is approaching AI responsibly.
▪ Regional alignment. Los Gatos, Saratoga, and Campbell are already members, so we would be able to compare notes directly with neighbors navigating the same small-city realities and shared regional systems.
▪ Vendor and procurement support. Coalition committees help member agencies identify AI vendors whose practices align with responsible-governance values ‒ a real advantage for a city too small to negotiate or evaluate vendors alone.
▪ One-on-one readiness support. The Coalition offers direct support to help staff understand and adopt AI responsibly, which is valuable when we cannot spare staff for extensive training.
Mekechuk Report on GovAI Coalition.docx Page 3
My Role and Commitment
First, any staff or Councilmembers could participate at any time in any of the meetings (in person or via Zoom), panels or conferences that the GovAI Coalition offers.
To make it easy and fast for the City, I am prepared to volunteer my time to represent the City’s interest in this effort. Specifically, I would do the administrative work related to joining the Coalition on the City’s behalf, attend its meetings, and bring relevant and useful information back to the City Manager and City Council for consideration. This would include vetting upcoming GovAI Coalition events and highlighting high value attendance opportunities for staff and Councilmembers.
Further, please note that I want to be clear about the limits of my role: I would participate in an informational capacity only, and I would not make any statements, commitments, or representations on behalf of the City. Any decision to adopt a policy, tool, or practice would remain entirely with the City Manager and City Council through the City’s normal processes.
To keep City Council informed, I would report on any Coalition activities in which I am involved as part of my Councilmember reports during our regular City Council meetings.
Recommendation
I recommend that the City Council receive this report and direct me to complete the GovAI Coalition’s free membership application on behalf of the City of Monte Sereno. With no financial cost, my willingness to serve as the City’s point of contact, and the participation commitment entirely within the City’s control, membership offers meaningful upside with minimal downside to the City.
Respectfully,
Bryan
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
January 6, 2026 West Valley Recycles Presentation N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Accept the Annual Approval and Signing of the City Council Code of Ethics GGL N Consent Calendar Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) GGL N Consent Calendar Revisions to City of Monte Sereno Council Ad-Hoc Committees DP N New Business Discuss Selection of Meeting Date for Strategic Goal Setting DP N New Business Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute an Agreement with CliffordMoss, LLC for Consulting Services for a Potential Police Services Parcel Tax Including Public Opinion Polling, Public Outreach, and a Prop 218 Compliant Ballot Measure for an amount not to exceed $84,850 Plus a 10% Contingency for Program Costs.
DP N New Business
January 20, 2026 Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to 2025 STEM Winners from the City of Monte Sereno
GGL N Presentation
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Authorize the City Manager to Establish Automated Payments for City Hall Utility Bills
DP N Consent Calendar
Consider Establishment of an Appointment to the Monte Sereno City Council Financial Implementation Support and Audit Support Ad Hoc Committee DP N Consent Calendar
Application 2025-3089 for a Variance application for reduced rear yard setback of 25 feet where 30 feet is required at 18113 Bancroft Avenue. (CEQA: Exempt, Guidelines sections 15302, 15303)
DP Y Public Hearing
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Consideration and Appointment to Fill One Alternate Representative Vacancy on the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board
GGL N New Business
February 3, 2026 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department Semi-Annual Report Police N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
February 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Hold Public Hearing and Adopt a Reso Overruling Objections and Determining to Proceed with Weed Abatement
GGL Y Public Hearing
Discuss Hosting a City Picnic and Consider a Budget for the City Picnic GGL N New Business Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants Deadline, Selection Dates, and Budget Amount
DP N New Business
Discuss a Potential City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Property
DP N New Business
Discuss the Creation of Leadership Monte Sereno DP N New Business March 3, 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department Semi-Annual Public Safety Report Fire N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution to Authorize the City Manager to Accept or Not Accept Applications for Annexation to the City of Monte Sereno DP N Consent Calendar
Adopt a Resolution to Extend the Memorandum of Understanding with the Monte Sereno Association of City Employees for One Year with an Expiration Date of June 30, 2027
DP N Consent Calendar
Discuss the Creation of Leadership Monte Sereno DP N New Business Council Goal Setting Session for Fiscal Year 2026-2027 DP N New Business Accept the Resignation of Council Member Mekechuk as Primary Director of the Santa Clara County VTA Policy Advisory Board and Appoint a New Primary Director
DP N New Business
March 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
2025 Housing Element Annual Progress Report DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of 2026-2027 City Council Goals DP N Consent Calendar Establishment of a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to Analyze Existing City Hall Facilities and Needs
DP N Consent Calendar
Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants DP N Unfinished Business
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
April 7, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Review potential SB10 Multifamily Zoning Overlay DP Y Public Hearing Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027 GGL N New Business
April 21, 2026 Meeting Cancelled
May 5, 2026
Special Meeting
General Plan Update Study Session DP N Unfinished
Business
May 5, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of Ordinance No. NS-247, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 10, Chapter 10.05 by Amending Section
10.05.010 (Zoning District Designations) and Adding Section 10.05.044 (MultiFamily Residential Overlay Zone) and Chapter 10.06 by Amending Section
10.06.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units; Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; Standards And Requirements) and Chapter 10.08 by Amending Section 10.08.040 (Site Development Permit Required) and by Amending Section 10.08.050 (Permit Process); and Chapter 10.11 (Amendments, Annexations and Enforcement) By adding Section 10.11.016 (Multi-Family Overlay District Amendment Process).
DP N Consent Calendar
Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Agreement with the County of Santa Clara for the Countywide Household Hazardous Waste Collection Program.
DP N Consent Calendar
Application 2024-3066 for a Site Development Permit for a new approximately 4,915 square foot two-story house, a Tree Removal Permit to remove one tree, and a Variance for reduced front, side, and rear yard setbacks at 18571 Withey Road.
DP Y Public Hearing
Application 2026-3001 for a Variance for a detached Accessory Dwelling Unit DP Y Public Hearing
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
(ADU) in the front yard that is 992 square feet in floor area where a maximum of 800 square feet in floor area is allowed at 15391 Winchester Boulevard.
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Receive the report and provide feedback on the West Valley Homeless Services Feasibility Study and adopt a Resolution of Intent to support participation in a West Valley Homeless Services Implementation Task Force DP N New Business
May 18, 2026
Special Meeting
Receive an Informational Update on the Potential Police Services Parcel Tax and Provide Direction to Staff
DP N Unfinished
Business
May 19, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Adoption of a Resolution Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Brush) a Public Nuisance and Set Public Hearing (SCCF)
GGL N Consent Calendar
Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with The Pun Group for Annual Financial Audit Services for Fiscal Year 2025/2026.
DP N Consent Calendar
First Study Session for Review of Proposed FY 26/27 Budget DP N New Business Discuss Monte Sereno Residents Participation in Leadership Los Gatos and Provide Direction for Next Year’
DP N New Business
June 2, 2026 VTA Local Investment Plan Presentation VTA N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Accept a Report on the Status of the City’s Vacancies, Recruitment, and Retention Efforts Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2561
DP Y Public Hearing
Appointment of 2026-2027 Youth Commissioner GGL N New Business Discussion of Japan Friendship City DP N New Business
Consideration of a Letter of Opposition to SB 866 (Blakespear) Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention Program: Housing Element DP N New Business
June 16, 2026 San Jose Water Presentation by John Tang Water N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Adoption of Resolution Establishing and Fixing the Amount of Special Real Property Tax Levy for Police Protection Purposes for the Fiscal Year 2026-2027 GGL N Consent Calendar
Calling of Election Resolution GGL N Consent Calendar
Updated Fee Schedule for User and Regulatory Fees DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of a Resolution Setting Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2026-27 DP N Consent Calendar Annual Street Maintenance - Adoption of Projects FY 26/27 MW N Consent Calendar Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with Eide Bailly for Annual Financial Audit Services DP N Consent Calendar
Consider Terminating the Potential Police Services Parcel Tax Ad Hoc Committee DP N Consent Calendar Adoption of the FY 26/27 Budget DP Y Public Hearing
Accepting changes of the Council Policy for Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Public Meetings with SB707 Updates
DP N Unfinished
Business
Appointment of a member to the 2026-2028 VAT BPAC GGL N New Business June 30, 2026
Special Meeting
DP N New Business
July 7, 2026
July 21, 2026
Meetings Cancelled
August 4, 2026 San Jose Water Presentation by Tanya Moniz-Witten Water N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Consideration to Authorize the City Manager to Execute First Amendment to the Professional Services Agreement with Maze and Associates Accounting Corporation for Accounting Services
DP N Consent Calendar
Youth Commission Non-Voting Members Resolution GGL N Consent Calendar Adopt a Resolution Confirming a Weed Abatement Report and Assessment List to be Entered on the Tax Assessment Roll
GGL Y Public Hearing
Receive and adopt the General Plan Update DP Y Public Hearing Consideration of Nominees Citizen of the Year Award GGL N New Business Appointment to Fill One Vacancy on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural GGL N New Business
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Commission for an Unexpired Term Ending December 31, 2027 League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate GGL N New Business City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
Adoption of Updated General Plan DP N New Business
How the City Uses Volunteers DP N New Business
Communications with the Community DP N New Business
Consideration of Support for the Diablo Canyon 2045 Coalition DP N New Business August 18, 2026 Midpen Presentation N Presentation
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Discuss Communications with the Community DP N New Business Discuss How the City Uses Volunteers for Commissions and Committees DP N New Business Receive report from City of Saratoga Mayor Chuck Page on Climate Resilience Districts
DP N New Business
Consider Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Median Due to Potential Fire Hazard
DP N New Business
Consider Adoption of a Resolution to Amend the City of Monte Sereno Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Public Meetings to Adjust the Council Meeting Start Time and Other Administrative Corrections KP N New Business
Consider and Adopt a Resolution Canceling the November 3, 2026 General Municipal Election and Appointing the Nominated Candidates to the City Council GGL N New Business
September 1, 2026 Los Gatos Monte Sereno Police Department Semi-Annual Report Police N Presentation Finance Reports Warrant list DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County" DP N Consent Calendar
Approve Response to 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" DP N Consent Calendar
Consideration of a Resolution to Support to Remove Eucalyptus Trees in the Highway 9 Right-of-Way Due to Potential Fire Hazard
DP N Consent Calendar
Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-### An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 4 of the Monte DP N New Business
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Sereno Municipal Code to Repeal Chapter 4.16 (Social Gatherings) and Adopt Chapter 4.16 (Social Host Ordinance)
Consideration of a Letter of Support for SB 922 (Laird). Vehicles: local agency charges: use of streets or highways.
DP N New Business
Consideration of a Letter of Support for AB 1761 (Rogers). Electricity: calculation methodology: nonbypassable charges: data disclosure.
DP N New Business
Consider Membership in the Government AI Coalition DP N New Business September 15, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Youth Commission reporting on upcoming activities GGL
October 6, 2026 Santa Clara County Fire Department Semi-Annual Public Safety Report Fire N Presentation Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
October 20, 2026
Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
City Manager’s Quarterly Report DP N New Business
November 3, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
November 17, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
December 1, 2026 Youth Commission Report GGL N Presentation Finance Reports Warrant list N Consent Calendar
Monte Sereno City Council
2026 Tentative Council Meeting Calendar
Updated: August 27, 2026
Council Meeting
Date
Agenda Item Staff Public
Hearing?
Agenda
Category
Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Better Street Commission & S&A Applicants GGL N New Business Council Nomination of Mayor and Vice Mayor DP N New Business Discuss Committee to Review Police Costs and Potential Revenue Sources DP N New Business December 15, 2026 Finance Reports DP N Consent Calendar Meeting Minutes GGL N Consent Calendar
Declaring Weeds a Public Nuisance GGL N Consent Calendar Consider and Set City Council Meeting Dates for 2027 GGL N New Business Recognition of Outgoing Betters Streets Commissioners and Site and Architectural Commissioners
DP N New Business
Consider and Approve City Committee/Commission Assignments for CY2027 DP N New Business Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Fund (SLESF) DP N New Business