Agenda packet — Mountain View City Council, September 8, 2026 (part 2 of 3)

PURPOSE:

To establish a policy for multilingual services and communication that:

1. Defines Citywide standards, responsibilities for resources, and procedures for multilingual translation and interpretation services;

2. Enhances all
City government regardless of their primary language;

3. Recognizes and institutionalizes the importance of multilingual and multicultural

4. Complies with federal and state requirements for language access.

DEFINITIONS:

Bilingual employee: A City employee who receives bilingual pay and is on the list of employees certified for bilingual translation maintained by the Human Resources Department.

Community engagement: Any activity that involves working with residents and other community members to connect them with services and/or programs, elicit community feedback or input, or proactively share information about City-related programs, services, and/or policies.

Essential document: Any written material that is necessary to understand and/or access City- related services, programs, and policies as determined by the City Manager or designee.

Language access: Language assistance that results in accurate, timely, and effective communication at no cost to the individual requesting access.

Predominant language: Any language spoken by at least 5% of Mountain View residents who very well
very well
and updating the list of predominant languages in Mountain View. Current information can be found in Attachment A.

Primary language: The language in which an individual most effectively communicates.

EXHIBI T B
Attachment 4
166
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 2 of 10 ends

POLICY: 1. The City of Mountain View is committed to making every reasonable effort to provide meaningful access to essential information, quality services, and the democratic process for all community members. 2. All City staff are responsible for assisting members of the public seeking access to City services and information in their primary language. 3. Any individual who is inhibited from accessing essential City information, services, and public meetings by their ability to speak English may request translation or interpretation services which, if available, will be provided by the City without charge to the individual. 4. City staff will make reasonable efforts to proactively provide meaningful access to essential information in the predominant languages spoken by Mountain View residents. Staff will also make reasonable efforts to translate and distribute other information that is essential or highly relevant to community members in the predominant languages spoken by Mountain View residents. 5. The City shall prioritize which documents and written communications should be translated interest in, each document and written communication. The highest priority will be given to information that is essential to the health and safety of the public. This includes information and services related to emergencies, including, but not limited to, a declared federal, state, or local disaster; information regarding heating or cooling centers; and other information related to weather-related emergencies. In times of normal operations, the highest priority will be given to information and services related to basic access to City services and topics essential to impacted community members, determined via regular community engagement. 6. Categories of City documents and written communications that staff should consider translating as a matter of routine include, but are not limited to: a. Emergency notices, applications, consent forms, intake forms, or other materials related to health and safety concerns, which shall be given the highest priority. 167
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 3 of 10 ends

b. Notices regarding the availability of language assistance services provided at no cost. c. d. Documents that have the potential for determining eligibility or access to services or participation in City programs or activities. e. Written notices of fines or rights; notices of denial, loss, or decreases in benefits or services; and notices of administrative or other hearings. f. Forms or written material related to individual rights. g. News releases, notices of community meetings, or other sensitive community engagement materials, particularly those related to social impact programs or policies. h. Documents related to legal processes, rights, and decisions, including administrative complaint, release, or waiver forms; claim or application forms; and letters of findings. 7. Departments supporting Council advisory bodies are not required to translate formal public meeting notices, agendas, or minutes under this Policy. However, translation is encouraged for agenda items and reports regarding issues that are essential and/or highly relevant as determined by community interest. City Council and Council advisory body meeting notifying the public that meeting materials can be translated and made available upon reasonable advance request as determined by the City. Interpretation of a public meeting or hearing held by the City Council or a Council advisory body shall be provided if requested by members of the public at least two (2) business days in advance. Pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(b)(1), at least twice the allotted speaking time will be provided to a member of the public who utilizes a translator. 8. City staff will make reasonable efforts to ensure that community engagement, public information and outreach campaigns, public meetings, community events, and 168
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 4 of 10 ends

multicultural community. In addition to language access, staff should consider the following: a. The date and day of the week on which the event is being held and if it conflicts with cultural celebrations or observation of cultural traditions. b. The time at which and the day of the week on which the event is being held and whether providing food and/or child care would increase access and be culturally appropriate. c. Culturally appropriate formats for seeking input and facilitating discussion in the context of: ; Norms around conflict, dissent, and public participation; Attitudes toward government and professionals; and Power dynamics based on age, gender, socioeconomic status, education, etc. d. The culturally informed expectations of participants and the intentions of City staff regarding the use of community input or feedback. e. The level of trust or distrust in government and familiarity with City government that participants may have. f. The inclusion of multiple traditions or perspectives in Citywide events. 9. Nothing in this Policy shall preclude a department, division, or program from providing language accessibility services in addition to the standards described herein. All City departments, divisions, teams, and staff are encouraged to explore and pursue opportunities to increase multilingual access to City programs, services, policies, projects, and information. 10. This Policy is not intended to supersede or alter other rules and legal standards relating to translation and/or interpretation obligations. 169
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 5 of 10 ends

PROCEDURE: Responsibility Action Identify predominant languages in the City of Mountain View using data from the most recent Census or American Community Survey and communicate results to the organization. Hire, train, and manage translators and interpreters to meet the needs of the City based on the predominant languages in the City. Coordinate and maintain Citywide telephone interpretation and written translation contracts. Create, maintain, and disseminate a process and procedure for translation of written materials requests and interpretation/ translation services for meetings and events requests. Receive interpretation/translation requests and provide and/or arrange for interpretation/translation at public meetings and City events on request or as needed. Receive requests for translation of written materials and provide for and/or arrange for translation services. Develop and coordinate with Human Resources regarding staff training on this Policy, language access needs in the community, and associated resources, procedures, and practices and provide supplemental training and technical assistance to staff on this policy, predominant languages, identification of community needs, procedures, and other topics and/or considerations associated with the Language Access and Multicultural Engagement Policy as needed. Ensure that essential content available on the City website is accessible in predominant languages in the City. 170
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 6 of 10 ends

Responsibility Action Collaborate with all City departments so that information shared in City news releases, flyers, and other communication channels is accessible in predominant languages when appropriate. Develop best practices for planning events and meetings and developing communications with a multicultural lens. Coordinate periodic Citywide review and update of lists of translated and untranslated essential documents. Periodically evaluate and report to the City Manager on the use of multilingual resources. Periodically review this Policy and update as needed. All City Departments Establish a procedure that is appropriate for department operations and level/type of community interaction for: Responding to requests for language access resources. Providing appropriate multilingual community engagement and communications aligned with the Policy. Identifying and translating essential documents. This can be accomplished by implementing or modifying the Consider opportunities to partner with volunteers and/or community-access needs. Monitor requests for interpretation and written translation to with identifying written materials that should be translated and 171
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 7 of 10 ends

Responsibility Action events/topics for which interpretation/translation should be provided as a matter of routine. Police, Fire, Public Works In the event of an emergency impacting public health and safety, coordinate with the Communications and Outreach Division, which includes the Multicultural Engagement Program, to ensure essential communications are provided in predominant languages. City Attorney, Finance and Administrative Services standard professional services agreement that would require City contractors to provide public services and resources, such as communications, forms/applications, and websites, in all languages predominantly spoken in Mountain View. Human Resources Maintain a list of bilingual employees as defined by Memoranda of Understanding between the City and employee groups. Coordinate with the Multicultural Engagement Program to integrate information about the Language Access and Multicultural Engagement Policy into existing onboarding and ongoing training programs as appropriate. Notice of Language Assistance Services Managers Ensure that written notice of the availability of translation and interpretation services provided at no cost in all predominant available at all public counters at City facilities. 172
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 8 of 10 ends

Responsibility Action City Clerk Print a statement notifying community members of the availability of translation and interpretation services at no cost pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.3(b)(1) in predominant languages at the top of agendas for the City Council, Council subcommittees, Council advisory bodies, and all other formal public meetings. Provide instructions for joining and participating in hybrid meetings in all predominant languages whenever such instructions are required. Signage and Wayfinding at City Facilities Public Works When building, renovating, or otherwise updating City facilities, incorporate predominant languages into new permanent signs, including wayfinding systems. Consider using United States Department of Transportation pictograms whenever practical and appropriate to maximize accessibility. City Clerk, Library, Community Services, Police Department, and Public Works Ensure that temporary notices posted at City facilities, including, but not limited to, those announcing closures, operating hours, and predominant languages as well as English. Interpretation All Staff Assist members of the public seeking interpretation with accessing services via contacting bilingual employees, the Multicultural Engagement Program, contracted providers, or telephone-based interpretation system. Bilingual Employees Provide interpretation when available and called upon to do so, subject to the requirements and limitations of the Memorandum 173
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 9 of 10 ends

Responsibility Action Arrange for the provision of interpretation when available and called upon to do so. Provide technical assistance to staff when determining when interpretation services should be provided. Translation of Written Materials City Departments In accordance with the guidelines in this Policy, identify and prioritize written materials essential to accessing City services, programs, or policies for translation and work with the Multicultural Engagement Program staff and/or contracted providers to arrange for translation of identified materials. All Staff Consider the need for translation when developing new or working with existing written materials. Arrange for the translation of written documents when called upon to do so. Provide technical assistance to staff for determining which written materials should be translated. Interpretation Services at Public Meetings City Clerk Receive and coordinate with the Multicultural Engagement Program on requests for interpretation at City Council meetings. Council Advisory Body Staff Liaisons Receive and coordinate with the Multicultural Engagement Program on requests for interpretation at Council advisory body meetings. 174
ADMINISTRATIVE INSTRUCTION SUBJECT: Language Access and Multicultural Community Engagement NO.: 20-1

Page 10 of 10 ends

Responsibility Action All Staff Contact the Multicultural Engagement Program no less than two (2) weeks prior to hosting a public meeting to identify the need for and arrange to provide interpretation. Assist members of the public seeking interpretation of a public meeting with contacting the City Clerk, appropriate Council advisory body staff liaison, and/or the Multicultural Engagement Program. Information Technology Enable and support multilingual captioning capabilities for virtual and hybrid meetings to the extent possible. Respond to requests for interpretation at public meetings from staff and members of the public by providing or arranging for the provision of interpretation services. Work with staff to identify the likely demand for interpretation services in various languages for each public meeting and arrange to provide those services. Establish standard operating procedures for interpretation of live and virtual public meetings in collaboration with the City Office and IT Department. Signed Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager Revised: Effective Date: October 7, 2024 HM/6/ADM/20-01ADM Attachment: A. 2024 Predominant Languages in the City of Mountain View 175

176
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206083, Version: 1
Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37-Various Actions Acting in its joint capacity as City Council and Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community:

1. Find that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37, is categorically exempt as Class 1, Existing Facilities, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

2. Approve plans and specifications for Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37, and authorize staff to advertise the project for bidding.

3. Authorize the City Manager or designee to award a construction contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder if the bid is within the available project budget of $1,340,000. 100% of project funding is from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
177

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

Public Works

TITLE: Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill
Landscaping, Project 24-37—Various
Actions

RECOMMENDATION

Acting in its joint capacity as City Council and Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community:

1. Find that , in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscap ing, Project 24 -37, is categorically exempt as Class 1, Existing Facilities, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

2. Approve plans and specifications for Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscap ing, Project 24- 37, and authorize staff to advertise the project for bidding.

BACKGROUND

The Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping project is located adjacent to Shoreline Lake, between the Shoreline Lake Boathouse and the Shoreline Play Structure (see Figure 1). This area includes the C ove, which currently features packed earth, gentle slopes, benches, and trash receptacles, as well as the Hill, which has a small slope with movable picnic tables and umbrellas provided by the Sailing Lake operator.

178
Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37—Various Actions September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

Figure 1: Project Location

This area has been without successful planting for years and replanting is necessary to support the long -term goals of soil stabilization, erosion control, and habitat enhancement. The new landscaping associated with this project will further enhance upland erosion management by reducing sediment sources and sediment loading into Shoreline Lake. This will improve the long- term overall lake water quality.

In addition, this is a high-use recreational area frequented by park users and summer camps. The proposed landscaping will enhance the aesthetics and recreational value of this area while also supporting the functional objectives.

On June 27, 2023, Council authorized establishing this project (Project 24-37) with the adoption of the Fiscal Year 2023 –24 through Fiscal Year 2027 –28 Capital Improvement Program. The project was included in the Fiscal Year 2023–24 (Year One) list of discretionary projects.

On June 24, 2025, Council adopted an amendment to Project 24-37 as part of the Recommended Fiscal Year 2025 -26 Budget and funding for Fiscal Year 2025 -26 CIP projects . This amendment added $1,100,000 to the existing project budget to allow for additions and adjustments to the project scope as detailed in the Analysis section.

N
179
Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37—Various Actions September 8, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

The project require d a consultant to provide professional design and construction support services, and in October 2025, the City executed an agreement with H.T. Harvey for $145,000 to provide these services for the project.

ANALYSIS

The project scope includes vegetation enhancement, improved aesthetics, and erosion control through the installation of native plantings , soil amendment s, minor grading , temporary protective measures for plant establishment, and an expanded irrigation system . Public Works has been closely coordinating with the Community Services Department for all aspects of the project, and staff has identified a small incremental operating and maintenance effort that will be absorbed into the existing operating budget. Additionally, due to the high level of public recreational use in this area, the adjacent pathway, seating, and picnic amenities will be brought into compliance with Americans with Disabilities Act requirements.

The plans and specifications are ready to be advertised for bid . If Council approves the recommended actions, construction is expected to begin in early 2027 and be completed in fall 2027.

ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE

In accordance with CEQA, staff has reviewed the scope of this project and determined that it meets the classification for categorically exempt as Class 1, Existing Facilities, pursuant to Article 19, Section 15301(h), as it consists of minor alterations of existing topographical features and existing landscaping maintenance around an existing public pedestrian trail. Staff recommends that Council make findings that, in accordance with CEQA requirements, the project is categorically exempt as Class 1, Existing Facilities, under CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 19 of the California Code of Regulations) Section 15301(h).

FISCAL IMPACT

Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping , Project 2 4-37, is funded with $ 1,340,000 from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

180
Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37—Various Actions September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

The estimated project costs are as follows:

Table 1: Estimated Project Costs

Construction (including Contingency) $800,000
Consultant Services 145,000
City Project Management 110,000
Construction Inspection and Testing 100,000
Permits and Miscellaneous 50,000
Project Contingency 53,200

Subtotal $1,258,200

City Administration 81,800

TOTAL ESTIMATED COST $1,340,000

The project has sufficient funding for the recommended actions, and no additional appropriation is requested at this time.

LEVINE ACT

California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to- play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Competitively bid contract

181
Shoreline Lake Cove and Hill Landscaping, Project 24-37—Various Actions September 8, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not make environmental findings and do not approve plans and specifications, and defer the project.

2. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING - Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Tsan Liu
Senior Project Manager

Reviewed by:

David O. Printy
Principal Project Manager

Edward Arango
Assistant Public Works Director/
City Engineer
Approved by:

Jennifer Ng
Public Works Director

Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager

cc: APWD—Arango, PPM—Printy, SPM—Liu, SMA—Truong, SMA—Nuñez, File (24-37) 182
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206322, Version: 1
Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 for California Farmers’ Market Association Use, Not to Exceed Eight Sundays through February 7, 2027

1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Authorizing Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 from 7:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m. on Select Sundays Occurring Between September 20, 2026 and February 7, 2027, Not to Exceed Eight Sundays, for Use by the California Farmers’Market Association, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

2. Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement with the California Farmers’ Markets Association for the temporary use of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 for select Sundays occurring between September 20, 2026 and February 7, 2027, not to exceed eight Sundays.

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
183

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

Community Development

TITLE: Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4
and 8 for California Farmers’ Market
Association Use, Not to Exceed Eight
Sundays through February 7, 2027

RECOMMENDATION

1. Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Mountain View Authorizing Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 from 7:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m. on Select Sundays Occurring Between September 20, 2026 and February 7, 2027, Not to Exceed Eight Sundays, for Use by the California Farmers’ Market Association, to be read in title only, further reading waived (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

BACKGROUND

Dating back to 2014, the City of Mountain View has allowed the California Farmers’ Market Association (CFMA) to temporarily relocate the Sunday Farmers’ Market from the Mountain View Transit Center parking lot to the City -owned Parking Lot No. 12, located between California Street, Bryant Street, and Mercy Street , on Sunday s when there are home games of the San Francisco 49ers football team. Relocation away from the usual location of the Sunday Farmers’ Market in the Transit Center parking lot facilitates maximum utilization of the Valley Transportation Authority light rail line by attendees of the 49ers games in Santa Clara.

Due to the development of the affordable housing project on City- owned Lot No. 12, that lot is no longer available as the alternate farmers’ market location. In collaboration with CFMA, the City identified City -owned Lot Nos. 4 and 8, located on Hope Street between Villa Street and Evelyn Avenue (see Figure 1), as the new alternate location for the Sunday Farmers’ Market.

184
Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 for California Farmers’ Market Association Use, Not to Exceed Eight Sundays through February 7, 2027
September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

Figure 1: Lot Nos. 4 and 8

On March 24, 2026, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a n amended and restated Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) and amended and restated ground leases for a hotel and office/mixed -use project on Lot Nos. 4 and 8 proposed by RGC Mountain View I, LLC (RGC). In consultation with RGC, the City does not anticipate construction activity on Lot Nos. 4 and 8 during the requested dates, making them available for CFMA use.

ANALYSIS

In May 2026, the San Francisco 49ers released their schedule of games for the 2026-2027 season.

There are currently six Sunday home games that result in conflicts with operating the Sunday Farmers’ Market at the Transit Center parking lot:

• September 20, 2026
• September 27, 2026
• October 4, 2026
• November 8, 2026
• November 29, 2026
• December 13, 2026

185
Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 for California Farmers’ Market Association Use, Not to Exceed Eight Sundays through February 7, 2027
September 8, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

There is also potential for additional Sunday home games if the team advances to the postseason.

The allowance for up to eight Sunday closures will accommodate the six scheduled regular season games and up to two potential postseason games between the end of the regular season and the Super Bowl, which is scheduled on February 14, 2027, in the Los Angeles area.

FISCAL IMPACT

Under the proposed license agreement with the CFMA, the City will receive $443 per farmers’ market event.

CFMA will be responsible for all costs associated with setting up and operating the farmers’ market, including the posting of required “No Parking” signage. Therefore, there are no additional City costs associated with these activities.

LEVINE ACT

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Other permit, license, or entitlement for use

ALTERNATIVES

1. Deny the request and direct staff to identify an alternative location to relocate the regularly scheduled Sunday Farmers’ Market.

2. Provide other direction to staff.

186
Temporary Closure of Parking Lot Nos. 4 and 8 for California Farmers’ Market Association Use, Not to Exceed Eight Sundays through February 7, 2027
September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING

The Council meeting agenda and Council report were posted on the City’s website and announced on Channel 26 cable television. Email notifications were sent to the Downtown Committee, Downtown Business Association, and Old Mountain View Neighborhood Association.

Prepared by:

Amanda Rotella
Economic Vitality Manager
Approved by:

Christian Murdock
Community Development Director

Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager

CDD/AR-09-08-26CR

Attachment: 1. Resolution
187
Attachment 1
-1-

CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
RESOLUTION NO.

SERIES 2026

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW AUTHORIZING TEMPORARY CLOSURE OF PARKING LOT NOS. 4 AND 8 FROM 7:30 A.M. THROUGH 2:30 P.M. ON SELECT SUNDAYS OCCURRING BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 20, 2026 AND FEBRUARY 7, 2027, NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT SUNDAYS, FOR USE BY THE CALIFORNIA FARMERS’ MARKET ASSOCIATION

WHEREAS, the California Farmers’ Market Association is a growers’ organization proposing to operate a certified farmers’ market in accordance with California Department of Agriculture regulations in downtown Mountain View; and

WHEREAS, the California Farmers’ Market Association is willing to provide all necessary services to operate the market, including setup, cleanup, promotion of the temporary move from the typical location at the Mountain View Transit Center, coordination wi th the surrounding neighborhood regarding concerns and complaints, etc., and is able to meet City requirements for insurance, liability, etc.; and

WHEREAS, Mountain View City Code Section 19.67 prohibits obstruction from free use of any City-owned or controlled street or parking lot or any adjacent sidewalk; and

WHEREAS, Sunday home games of the San Francisco 49ers football team at Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara will result in the temporary relocation of the farmers’ market on game days to maximize the opportunity for public utilization of Santa Clara Valley Transp ortation Authority light rail transit to attend the games, including, but not limited to, the following dates for Fiscal Year 2026-27:

• September 20, 2026
• September 27, 2026
• October 4, 2026
• November 8, 2026
• November 29, 2026
• December 13, 2026

There is the potential for additional Sunday home games if the team advances to the postseason; and

WHEREAS, City -owned Lot Nos. 4 and 8, in the block bounded by Villa Street and West Evelyn Avenue and connected by Hope Street, is a suitable temporary location for the Sunday California Farmers’ Market; now, therefore, be it
188
-2-

RESOLVED: by the City Council of the City of Mountain View that, pursuant to Mountain View City Code Section 19.92, Lot Nos. 4 and 8 are hereby temporarily closed from 7:30 a.m. through 2:30 p.m. on select Sundays, occurring between September 20, 2026 and February 7, 2027, as set forth in the recitals above and as may be amended and/or scheduled, to enable the California Farmers’ Market Association use of Lot Nos. 4 and 8 for a farmers’ market; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that the California Farmers’ Market Association is responsible for posting appropriate signage to notice the temporary closure of Lot Nos. 4 and 8 and provide notification of select Sunday closure dates between September 20, 2026 and February 7, 2027; and be it

FURTHER RESOLVED: that City staff shall post corresponding notice of the closures on the City’s website.

– – – – – – – – – – –

CDD/AR-09-08-26r

189
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206273, Version: 1
SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41-Construction Acceptance

1. Acting as the City Council, authorize the City Manager or designee to accept SB-1 Streets, Project 23- 03, and authorize the final contract payment.

2. Acting in its capacity as Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community, authorize the Community Manager or designee to accept Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23- 41, and authorize the final contract payment.

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
190

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

Public Works

TITLE: SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and Shoreline
PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement,
Project 23-41—Construction Acceptance

RECOMMENDATION

1. Acting as the City Council, authorize the City Manager or designee to a ccept SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and authorize the final contract payment.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS

“Acceptance” of a construction contract is a legal event recognized by s tate law when the City verifies the contractor has satisfactorily completed a public project. Once accepted, the work on the public project is complete , and other actions occur, such as final payment to the contractor and the release of bonds obtained by the contractor that ensure completion of the project.

Following acceptance, the City becomes responsible for the maintenance of the public project.

SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03

On April 8, 2025, Council took the following actions on the project:

1. Found that, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, SB -1 Streets, Project 23 -03, is categorically exempt as Class 1, Existing Facilities, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301.

2. Transferred and appropriate d $225,000 from the SB -1 Gas Tax Fund to SB -1 Streets, Project 23-03.

191
SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and Shoreline
PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41—
Construction Acceptance
September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

3. Approved plans and specifications for SB -1 Streets, Project 23 -03, and authorized staff to advertise the project for bidding.

4. Authorized the City Manager or designee to award a construction contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder if the bid was within the available project budget of $4,950,000.

The project was awarded to McKim Corporation of Gilroy , California, at the low bid price of $2,700,000. The project scope include d repairing localized roadway failures and applying slurry seal or pavement resurfacing treatments. The project also provide d active transportation improvements, including upgrading existing curb ramps to meet Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards and upgrading crosswalks with high-visibility striping.

The final construction cost of $2,358,59 7 is within the construction contract amount of $2,700,000 and included two contract change orders for the total amount of $57,452 and a final quantity adjustment change order, resulting in contract savings of $ 341,403. All construction work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41

On April 8, 2025, the Board took the following actions on the project:

1. Found that in accordance with CEQA requirements, Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23 -41, is categorically exempt as Class 1, Existing Facilities, and Class 2, Replacement or Reconstruction, under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15302.

2. Approved plans and specifications for Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41, and authorized staff to advertise the project for bidding.

3. Authorized the Community Manager or designee to award a construction contract to the lowest responsive responsible bidder if the bid was within the project budget of $2,460,000.

The project was awarded to ETIC of Pleasant Hill, California, at the low bid price of $427,888. The project included the replacement of a portion of the aging methane gas collection piping system in the landfill used to mitigate gas emissions, with approximately 600 feet of 6” pipe. This project also included the installation of other landfill infrastructure piping and appurtenances.

The final construction cost of $ 381,713 is within the construction contract amount of $ 427,888 and included three contract change orders for the total amount of $ 48,693 and a final quantity 192
SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and Shoreline
PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41—
Construction Acceptance
September 8, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

adjustment change order, resulting in contract savings of $46,175. All construction work has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications.

FISCAL IMPACT

SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03

SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, is funded as follows:

Table 1: Project 23-03 Funding Sources

Funding Source Amount
SB-1 Gas Tax Fund $3,750,000
CIP Reserve Fund 700,000
Construction Tax Fund 500,000
Total $4,950,000

Total project expenditures, including design, construction, inspection, project administration, and other costs, are estimated to be $3,430,000 and are within the project budget. Any remaining funds will be returned to the SB-1 Gas Tax Fund, CIP Reserve Fund, and Construction Tax Fund in proportion to the project’s use of these funding sources upon completion and closeout of the project.

Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41

Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23 -41, is funded with $2,460,000 from the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund.

Total project expenditures, including design, construction, inspection, project administration, and other costs, are estimated to be $ 780,000 and are within the project budget. The lower project costs are the result of adjustments in project scope and scheduling around wildlife impacts, minimum environmental mitigation requirements, a low construction bid , and the use of City staff to do some of the work. Any remaining funds will be returned to the Shoreline Regional Park Community Fund upon completion and closeout of the project.

193
SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and Shoreline
PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41—
Construction Acceptance
September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

LEVINE ACT

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ Competitively bid contract

ALTERNATIVES

1. Determine that SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, has not been completed in conformance with City standards and decline to accept the improvements until they are completed to the satisfaction of the City Council.

2. Determine that Shoreline PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23 -41, has not been completed in conformance with City standards and decline to accept the improvements until they are completed to the satisfaction of the Board of Directors of the Shoreline Regional Park Community.

3. Provide other direction.

194
SB-1 Streets, Project 23-03, and Shoreline
PVC Landfill Gas Header Replacement, Project 23-41—
Construction Acceptance
September 8, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Vincent Chang
Senior Civil Engineer

Obaidullah Sharifi
Assistant Engineer

Reviewed by:

Ashraf Shah
Principal Civil Engineer

Edward Arango
Assistant Public Works Director/
City Engineer

Lisa Au
Assistant Public Works Director

Approved by:

Jennifer Ng
Public Works Director

Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager

PWK/EA/VC-09-08-26CR

cc: APWD—Arango, APWD—Au, PCE—Shah, PCE—Tseng, SCE—Chang, AE—Giang, AE—
Sharma, AE—Sharifi, SMA—Truong, SMA —Nuñez, [email protected], Files (23-03, 23-41)

195
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206029, Version: 1
2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate and Resolution

1. Designate Councilmember Kamei as the voting delegate and Mayor Ramos as the voting alternate for the General Assembly meeting at the 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference.

2. Adopt a recommended position regarding the Cal Cities Annual Conference Resolution for 2026.

3. Authorize the City's voting delegate or alternate to cast a vote at the Cal Cities Annual Conference to reflect the position adopted by the City Council.

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
196

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

City Clerk’s Office
City Manager’s Office

TITLE: 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference Voting
Delegate and Alternate and Resolution

RECOMMENDATION

1. Designate Councilmember Kamei as the voting delegate and Mayor Ramos as the voting alternate for the General Assembly meeting at the 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference.

2. Adopt a recommended position regarding the Cal Cities Annual Conference Resolution for 2026.

3. Authorize the City’s voting delegate or alternate to cast a vote at the Cal Cities Annual Conference to reflect the position adopted by the City Council.

BACKGROUND

The League of California Cities (“League” or “Cal Cities”) holds an annual conference of its membership. The 2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference is scheduled to take place September 23-25 in Anaheim, C alifornia. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly), which will be held on September 25. Each member city has the right to cast one vote at the Annual Business Meeting on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy. To vote, one voting delegate and up to two voting alternate (s) must be designated by action of the City Council and be present at the Business Meeting. The delegate and alternate(s) must be registered to attend the conference , obtain a voting card, and register with the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. The voting card may be transferred only between the voting delegate and the alternate(s).

This year, one policy resolution has been introduced and will be considered by the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee, which will meet on September 17 via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. The Resolutions Committee consists of one representative from each of Cal Cities ’ caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President.

197
2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate and Resolution September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

ANALYSIS

Below is a summary of the resolution under consideration for 2026, with detailed League information in Attachment 2. It is important to note that the City’s vote on this resolution represents its comments on League policy and not an action on behalf of the City of Mountain View. Impacts may be applicable to Mountain View if the policy matter described in the resolution is ultimately enacted. Staff’s r ecommendation is summarized below. The voting delegate/alternate may gain new information at the conference that may help inform their vote.

League Resolution No. 1: A Resolution of the General Assembly of the League of California Cities Calling for a Working Group to Consider a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Form of Initiative to Ensure Final Local Authority Over Housing and Land Use Decisions.

Summary of
Resolution,
Source, and
League
Referral
Summary: Resolution No. 1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:

1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot -
based strategy that
restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.

Pursuant to the resolution, the strategy should preserve the state’s authority to set broad, statewide housing goals and enforce civil rights, fair housing, building safety, and environmental standards while protecting local control by preventing the state from compelling the approval of developments that conflict with local requirements, override local zoning or density standards, or overturn local land use decisions where a city has planned for and maintained sufficient capacity to meet housing obligations.

2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot -based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

The resolution states: “conducting legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time period.” 198
2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate and Resolution September 8, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

Source: League of California Cities

Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development

Impact to
Mountain View, if
Any1
There is potential for cities like Mountain View to gain greater local control over housing development regulations and review from this resolution.

Recommendation2 Support.
______________________________
1 League Resolutions are not actions on behalf of the City of Mountain View. Rather, they are reflective of the League and its member cities.

2 League actions that may be taken can include: Approve, Disapprove, No Action, Refer to Appropriate Policy Committee for Study, Amend, Approve as Amended, Approve with Additional Amendment(s), Amend and Refer as Amended to Appropriate Policy Committee for Study, Additional Amendments and Refer, Amend (for Clarity or Brevity) and Disapprove, Amend (for Clarity or Brevity) and Take No Action, and Withdrawn by Sponsor (see Attachment 2).

The concept of local control over land use decision- making has been the subject of much discussion as the state has grappled with the housing crisis. The Legislature has diminished local control over housing approvals in recent years in an effort to increase the rate of housing project approvals. However, the resolution states that California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving local control to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved.

Importantly, the resolution also acknowledges that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy stemming from this effort should preserve the state’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing r equirements, building and life-safety standards, and generally applicable environmental protections. This is an important balancing provision, given that some communities have used local control in the past to obstruct and limit housing development. Given how the resolution seeks to combine the restoration of local control of land use decision -making with recognition that the state has an important role to address housing policy at the regional and statewide levels, it appropriately recognizes that local control can help to achieve statewide housing goals in ways that are appropriate to the local context, while absent sufficient guardrails, local control can undermine broader state housing goals.

199
2026 Cal Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Alternate and Resolution September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with this recommendation for the League of California Cities Annual Conference resolution . Supporting the resolution does not commit the City to specific programs or expenditures.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide different direction to the voting delegate/alternate(s) on the League resolution.

2. Decline to appoint a voting delegate or alternate.

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Heather Glaser
City Clerk

Christina Gilmore
Intergovernmental Relations Manager

Approved by:

Audrey Seymour
Assistant City Manager

Attachments: 1. Voting Guidelines

2. League Annual Conference Resolution Packet for 2026

200
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Design
ating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Regist
ering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signin
g Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting
. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting
Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolv
ing Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

Attachment 1
201
2025-2026

CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Gabe Quinto
Mayor
El Cerrito
First Vice President
Teresa Acosta
Council Member
Carlsbad
Second Vice President
David Cohen
Council Member
San Jose
Immediate Past President
Lynne B. Kennedy
Mayor Pro Tem,
Rancho Cucamonga
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 10, 2026
TO: Cal
Cities Members
RE: Cal
Cities 2026 Resolution Packet
Six
ty days before the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Cal Cities members may submit resolutions on issues of importance to cities. This year, Cal Cities received one resolution by the July 25 deadline.

Th
e attached packet contains the proposed resolution, background information, supporting letters from cities and city officials, and an analysis of the resolution by Cal Cities. The packet includes detailed information on the resolution process and the next steps for the resolution.

We
encourage each city council to consider the resolution and determine a position so your voting delegate can represent your city’s position on the resolution.

Vot
ing Delegates: City councils must appoint a voting delegate to vote during the General Assembly. Each city may also appoint up to two alternate delegates. If your city has not already done so, please appoint your voting delegate by Tuesday, Sept. 1, 2026. The voting delegate packet contains more information.

The 2
026 General Assembly will be held Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. in the Anaheim Convention Center during the Annual Conference and Expo.

For
questions about resolutions, voting delegates, or the General Assembly, please contact Zach Seals.

Attachment 2
202

2026
Resolution
Packet
203
2026 Resolution Packet
Information on 2026 Resolutions Process
Consideration by Policy Committee (pre-conference)
Per the Cal Cities bylaws, Cal Cities President Gabe Quinto has referred the submitted resolution to the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee. The committee will meet on Thursday, Sept. 17, at 10 a.m. via Zoom to review the resolution and make a recommendation that will be sent to the Resolutions Committee. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Register for the meeting here.

A list of recommendations the policy committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by Resolutions Committee (during conference) On Thursday, Sept. 24, at 1:00 p.m. the Resolutions Committee will meet to review the resolution and the recommendation of the policy committee.

The Resolutions Committee consist of one representative from each of Cal Cities caucuses, departments, divisions, and policy committees, as well as up to ten additional appointments made by the Cal Cities President. A public comment period will be held during the meeting. Refer to the onsite conference program for the location.

A list of recommendations the Resolutions Committee may make during its meeting is on page two of this packet.

Consideration by the General Assembly (during conference) The General Assembly will convene on Friday, Sept. 25, at 8:30 a.m. to consider any resolutions the Resolutions Committee has forwarded. To vote during the General Assembly, voting delegates must have checked in at the voting delegate booth.

Conference attendees will receive materials for the General Assembly on the evening of Thursday, Sept. 24. For more information on voting and discussion procedures during the General Assembly, see page three of this packet.

Petitioned Resolutions (during conference)
The petitioned resolution is an alternate method to introduce policy proposals during the annual conference. To initiate a petitioned resolution, voting delegates from 10% of member cities must sign the petition. The resolution and signatures are due at least 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Voting delegates who have checked in at the voting delegate booth can receive more information on petitioned resolutions at the booth onsite. 1 204

2026 Resolution Packet

Policy Committee and Resolutions Committee Actions

The submitted resolution will be heard by the policy committee to which it was assigned, and the Resolutions Committee. The table below shows what recommendations these bodies may make on the resolution.

Policy Committee Actions Resolutions Committee Actions
Approve Approve
Disapprove* Disapprove*
No Action No Action
Amend and approve

Amend and approve

Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Approve as amended
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Refer to appropriate policy committee
for further study*
Refer as amended to appropriate
policy committee for further study*
Approve with additional
amendment(s)

Additional amendments and refer to
appropriate policy committee for
further study*

*If a resolution is disapproved or referred for further study by all policy committees to which it is assigned and the Resolutions Committee, it will not proceed to the General Assembly.

2 205

2026 Resolution Packet

General Assembly Voting and Discussion Procedures
Discussion Procedures:

Discussion procedures during the General Assembly are guided by two calendars:
the Consent Calendar and the Regular Calendar. As seen below, resolutions are calendared by the recommendations they receive from policy committees and the Resolutions Committee.

For General Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation
Resolutions Committee
Recommendation Calendar
Approve Approve Consent Calendar
Approve Disapprove or refer Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or refer Disapprove or refer Does not proceed to General Assembly

For Petitioned Resolutions:

Policy Committee
Recommendation Resolutions Committee Action Calendar
N/A
Approve Regular Calendar
Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar
Disqualified Does not proceed to General
Assembly

Items on the Consent Calendar will be presented as one motion during the General Assembly from the Resolutions Committee chair. Unless an item on the Consent Calendar is set aside by the majority of the General Assembly, a vote will be taken on the whole calendar. If an item is set aside, it will be opened for discussion, followed by a vote.

Items on the Regular Calendar will be presented individually by the Resolutions Committee chair. After a recommendation is presented by the Resolutions Committee chair, the resolution will be opened for discussion by the General Assembly. A vote will take place following discussion.

Voting Procedures:

Per Cal Cities Bylaws Article XII, Sec. 2, all votes will be conducted by voice vote first. If the presiding official cannot determine the outcome, a vote will be taken by an alternative method, typically a raise of voting cards by voting delegates. A roll call vote may be called for by delegates of ten percent or more of the General Assembly.

3 206
2026 Resolution Packet
2026 Resolution

1. Resolution No. 1 submitted by City of Murrieta
• Letters of concurrence submitted by:
i. City of Banning;
ii. City of Calimesa;
iii. City of Canyon Lake;
iv. City of Moreno Valley;
v. City of Norco;
vi. City of Torrance;
vii. Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto;
viii. Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
• Referred to Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee
• Policy Committee Recommendation:
• Resolutions Committee Recommendation:
4 207

2026 Resolution Packet

Resolution No. 1
Submitted by City of Murietta

5 208
2026 Resolution Packet

1. A RESOLUTION OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

CALLING FOR A WORKING GROUP TO CONSIDER A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL

AMENDMENT OR OTHER FORM OF INITIATIVE TO ENSURE FINAL LOCAL AUTHORITY OVER

HOUSING AND LAND USE DECISIONS
Source: City of Murrieta
Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials
Cities/city officials: City of Banning; City of Calimesa; City of Canyon Lake; City of Moreno Valley; City of Norco; City of Torrance; Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto; Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
Referred to: Housing, Community, and Economic Development Policy Committee WHEREAS, California cities have historically been responsible for adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing housing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the streets, water, wastewater, public safety, parks, transportation, and other infrastructure and services necessary to support responsible, environmentally sound, and well-planned residential growth; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities is dedicated to protecting and expanding local control for municipalities across the state to ensure their orderly growth and development; and
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities recognizes that local zoning is a primary function of cities and an essential component of home rule, and that a city’s general plan should guide its land use planning and strategic decision-making free from pre-emption by the state; and
WHEREAS, increasingly prescriptive statewide housing mandates and development approval requirements can override locally adopted plans, zoning standards, and public review procedures without adequately accounting for differences that exist in each unique jurisdict ion in infrastructure capacity, water availability, wildfire and evacuation risks, environmental constraints, fiscal impacts, public service needs, and community priorities; and
WHEREAS, California’s housing goals can be more effectively advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships that support housing production while preserving the authority of locally elected officials to determine how and where housing is best planned and approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities, assembled during the Annual Conference in Anaheim, California, on September 25, 2026, that the League of California Cities support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amend ment or other legislative, policy, or ballot- based strategies that restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters within municipal boundaries, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications; and
6 209

2026 Resolution Packet

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that any constitutional amendment or alternative strategy should preserve the State’s authority to establish broad statewide housing goals and enforce constitutional and civil rights, fair housing requirements, building and life -safety standards, and gen erally applicable environmental protections, while protecting cities from state actions that compel, through funding conditions or state law, the approval of housing developments that are inconsistent with locally adopted requirements; override local zonin g or density standards; or invalidate locally adopted housing or land use decisions when a city has planned in good faith to accommodate its regional housing needs allocation and maintains adequate capacity for housing at all income levels; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the League of California Cities consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters including but limited to: conducting appropriate legal, fiscal, and policy analyses; engaging cities and other stakeholders; and building a statewide coalition of proponent supporters in preparation for; the November 2030 General Election, or within another reasonable time frame as determined by the working group.

7 210

2026 Resolution Packet

Resolution No. 1: Background
Information

8 211

2026 Resolution Packet

Background Information for Resolution

Source: City of Murrieta

Background:

California cities are responsible for planning residential growth, adopting general plans and zoning regulations, reviewing development proposals, and providing or coordinating the infrastructure and public services necessary to support new housing. Since 2010, the State has enacted more than 500 housing-related laws that have increasingly shifted housing and land use authority away from local governments. These laws have expanded by-right development, limited locally adopted standards and review processes, and established enforcement mechanisms, including the builder’s remedy, that may override local plans and zoning. Although these measures are frequently presented as solutions to housing affordability, many increase development capacity or restrict local review without delivering the meaningful production of housing needed to address the housing crisis.

At the same time, the State has continued to prioritize increased development capacity without adequately accounting for the infrastructure, public services, economic realities, and safety measures necessary to support housing growth.

State mandates often fail to reflect local conditions, including roadway and utility capacity, water availability, wildfire exposure, environmental limitations, fiscal impacts, and the availability of essential services. Cities are consequently required to accommodate additional housing while receiving no funding or assistance to address the resulting infrastructure and service demands.

Local elected officials are directly accountable to the residents who experience the effects of development decisions and are responsible for balancing housing production with infrastructure capacity, public safety, environmental protection, fiscal sustainability, and community needs. Cities of all types in California have been grappling with this dynamic, ranging from urban to rural, coastal to inland, small to large, northern to southern, voicing concerns to legislative representatives with minimal responsiveness. This is an issue of statewide concern that needs the strength and diversity of the League of California Cities to pursue a long-term solution.

The proposed resolution directs the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions. The working group would be tasked with developing a more balanced framework that preserves the State’s role in establishing broad housing goals and enforcing constitutional, civil rights, fair housing, building, life-safety, and environmental requirements, while restoring meaningful local authority to allow cities to determine how statewide housing 9 212

2026 Resolution Packet
objectives should be implemented in a manner that reflects local conditions and community priorities while continuing to support responsible housing production.

As the primary statewide organization representing California cities, the League is uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Its established policy, legal, legislative, communications, and advocacy networks enable it to convene municipalities, evaluate potential strategies, conduct legal and fiscal analyses, build consensus, engage stakeholders, and coordinate with statewide decision-makers. League leadership would help ensure that any recommendation reflects the collective interests of California municipalities and would provide the credibility, organizational capacity, and statewide reach necessary to advance a viable strategy.

10 213

2026 Resolution Packet

Resolution No. 1: Letters of
Concurrence

11 214
12 215
13 216

July 23, 2026

President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority

Dear President Quinto,

The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot -based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and

25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Can yon Lake, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,

Arron Brown
City Manager
City of Canyon Lake
14 217
July 23, 2026

President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority

Dear President Quinto,

The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches to address increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of Moreno Valley, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,

Brian Mohan
City Manager
City of Moreno Valley

15 218

July 22, 2026

President Gabe Quinto
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Support for a Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority

Dear President Quinto,

The City of Murrieta is sponsoring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities to establish a statewide working group to evaluate a constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use decisions.

The proposed resolution, together with the required background materials, will be submitted to Cal Cities for consideration at the 2026 Annual Conference in Orange County on September 24 and 25. The resolution would direct the League to convene a working group to evaluate potential approaches for addressing the increasingly broad and prescriptive state mandates affecting local housing, zoning, development standards, and project approval authority.

On behalf of the City of the Norco, this letter confirms our support for the City of Murrieta’s submission of the proposed resolution and its consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly at the 2026 Annual Conference.

Sincerely,

Kevin Bash
City Council Member
(951) 768-8981
16 219
17 220
18 221
19 222
20 223

July 23, 2026

Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
1400 K Street, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814

Subject: Support for the City of Murrieta's Resolution Establishing a Working Group to Evaluate a State Constitutional Amendment or Other Initiative to Restore Local Housing and Land Use Authority

Dear President Quinto:

I am writing in my individual capacity as Mayor of the City of Temecula to express my strong support for the City of Murrieta's proposed resolution for consideration by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities at the 2026 Annual Conference.

The proposed resolution presents an important opportunity to thoughtfully evaluate the appropriate balance between California's statewide housing objectives and the constitutional principle of local governance. Establishing a statewide working group to examine a potential constitutional amendment, legislative reforms, or other policy initiatives will provide a meaningful forum to assess how local authority over housing and land use decisions can be strengthened while continuing to address the State's housing challenges.

Cities are uniquely positioned to understand the needs, opportunities, and constraints of their communities. Local elected officials are accountable to the residents they serve and are best equipped to make land use decisions that reflect a community's character, infrastructure capacity, economic development goals, environmental stewardship, and long-term vision. Equally important, local governments bear the primary responsibility for protecting public safety. Decisions regarding housing density, transportation, emergency access, wildfire preparedness, evacuation routes, police and fire service capacity, water availability, and critical infrastructure are inherently local matters that require the knowledge and judgment of those who serve their communities every day.

While the State has an important role in addressing California's housing needs, a collaborative approach that respects local expertise and preserves meaningful local discretion will produce stronger, safer, and more sustainable communities. The proposed working group offers an opportunity to evaluate policies that achieve these shared objectives while restoring an appropriate balance between state direction and local authority.

21 224

Mr. Gabe Quinto, President
League of California Cities
July 23, 2026

Page 2 ends

Although this letter reflects my personal position and is not an official action or policy of the City of Temecula or the Temecula City Council, I respectfully endorse the City of Murrieta's submission of this resolution and encourage its favorable consideration by the League of California Cities General Assembly.

Thank you for your leadership and your thoughtful consideration of this important issue.

Respectfully,

Jessica Alexander
Mayor, City of Temecula
Signing in her individual capacity
and not on behalf of the City of Temecula
or the Temecula City Council.

22 225

2026 Resolution Packet

Resolution No. 1: Staff Analysis

23 226
League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1

Staff: Brady Guertin, Legislative Advocate
Committee: Housing, Community, and Economic Development

Summary:

Resolution No.1 states that the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) will:

1. Support the development and advancement of a state constitutional amendment or legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategy that restores and strengthens local authority over housing and land use matters, including general plans, housing elements, zoning, density, design and development standards, project siting, and the approval or denial of housing development applications.

2. Consider establishing a statewide working group or other appropriate committee(s) to evaluate and develop a proposed constitutional amendment or other legislative, policy, or ballot-based strategies to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

Background:

As provided in the background information, the city of Murrieta is sponsoring this resolution in response to concerns over state laws that have increasingly reduced city discretion over housing and land use decisions, including legislation that requires ministerial or by-right approvals for housing projects, limits the application of local development standards, and strengthens state enforcement mechanisms against local governments.

Additionally, the city of Murrieta, in its background information, maintains that these legislative efforts have not resulted in sufficient housing production to address California's housing shortage and have not adequately accounted for 24 227
local infrastructure, public service needs, public safety, market, and fiscal considerations.

The resolution states that California’s housing goals are better advanced through state funding, streamlined environmental requirements, and voluntary partnerships, while preserving local authority over how and where housing is best planned and approved.

Consideration of the resolution may be informed by a brief examination of how the California Constitution allocates authority between the state and cities with respect to land use decisions.

The constitution grants cities the power to adopt local laws to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare. This grant is called the “police power,” which is the basis for local land use regulation. The constitution grants charter cities the additional power to adopt local laws affecting “municipal affairs.” This power, commonly referred to as “home rule,” is based on the principle that a city, rather than the state, is in the best position to identify and satisfy the needs of the local community.

The constitution’s broad grant of police power contains a significant limitation.

Local law adopted under the police power is not valid if it “conflicts” with state law. A local law “conflicts” with state law when it regulates the same “field” in which the Legislature has stated its intent to occupy. In that case, state law is said to “preempt” the local law and it cannot be enforced.

An ordinance adopted by a charter city under the municipal affairs power cannot be enforced if it affects a “matter of statewide concern.” The subjects that have been identified as “matters of statewide concern” have changed over the years due to economic, social, and political circumstances.

Since the 1960s, the state has enacted numerous laws that limit or preempt aspects of local land use and zoning authority. These laws include the Fair Employment and Housing Act, Housing Element Law, Housing Accountability Act, Density Bonus Law, Permit Streamlining Act, accessory dwelling unit laws, California Environmental Quality Act, and others. In recent years, the state has enacted several laws that Cal Cities was the leading opposition force against, as many of the proposals pre-empted local land use authority, limited public review, and constrained local flexibility. In support of its housing and land use legislation, the Legislature has cited a statewide housing crisis and the need for increased housing production at all income levels while asserting that a uniform approach to local land use decision-making is required.

25 228
Discussion:

The resolution does not prescribe a specific policy mechanism. The eight letters in support recommend creating a working group or committee to evaluate potential approaches, including legislative proposals, constitutional amendments, or ballot initiatives to strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters.

A discussion of a strategy to restore and strengthen local authority over housing and land use matters will need to consider the California Constitution’s framework for both preemption of police power enactments and municipal affairs, discussed above. It will also need to determine whether changes to the California Constitution will be proposed, and whether they constitute an amendment or a revision, which require different processes.

A constitutional revision is a multistep process blending legislative consensus, voter support, and on occasion, a constitutional convention. It requires significant public engagement.

A constitutional amendment would require a ballot initiative, which includes gathering enough valid signatures to qualify for the ballot, building large coalitions to support election efforts, and campaigning to voters to support the initiative. This process can involve significant costs. In the last major election for ballot initiatives in 2024, proponents spent $8-$18 million to qualify for the ballot and spent nearly $700 million for the full election cycle, averaging out to about $100 million per ballot initiative.

Cal Cities has been engaged in ballot advocacy for over 20 years. In the early 2000s, Cal Cities developed a ballot advocacy infrastructure that included forming an issue political action committee, fundraising, establishing a network of regional managers, and building a coalition with other organizations to ultimately advocate on a ballot measure. Ballot advocacy requires the approval of the Board of Directors with a supermajority vote.

In the Legislature, Cal Cities plays an active and influential role to ensure that local flexibility and autonomy in the land use and housing space is maintained by engaging on dozens of bills every legislative session to ensure that cities' voices are heard at the state Capitol. Below, you will find Cal Cities “Existing Policy” on local control, housing, and land use policies.

Fiscal Impact
The resolution itself would not have a significant direct fiscal impact. However, depending on what actions follow, the fiscal costs could be significant.

26 229
Existing Cal Cities Policy
Vision
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities.

Mission Statement
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.

We Believe
• Local self-governance is the cornerstone of democracy. • Our strength lies in the unity of our diverse communities of interest. • In the involvement of all stakeholders in establishing goals and in solving problems.
• In conducting the business of government with transparency, openness, respect, and civility.
• The spirit of honest public service is what builds communities. • Open decision-making that is of the highest ethical standards honors the public trust.
• Cities are vital to the strength of the California economy. • The vitality of cities is dependent upon their fiscal stability and local autonomy.
• The active participation of all city officials increases the League's effectiveness.
• Partnerships and collaborations are essential elements of focused advocacy and lobbying.
• Ethical and well-informed city officials are essential for responsive, visionary leadership and effective and efficient city operations.

Zoning
Cal Cities believes local zoning is a primary function of cities and is an essential component of home rule. The process of adoption, implementation and enforcement of zoning ordinances should be open and fair to the public and enhance the responsiveness of local decision-makers. State policy should leave local siting and use decisions to the city and not interfere with local prerogative beyond providing a constitutionally valid procedure for adopting local regulations. State agency siting of facilities, including campuses and office buildings, should be subject to local notice and hearing requirements in order to meet concerns of the local community. Cal Cities opposes legislation that seeks to limit local authority over parking requirements.

Housing Element
Housing issues should be addressed in the general plan as other planning issues are. The housing element should be prepared for the benefit of local 27 230
governments and should have equal status with the other elements of the general plan.

Encourage Full Community Participation
Foster an open and inclusive community dialogue and promote alliances and partnerships to meet community needs.

Well-Planned New Growth
Recognize and preserve open space, watersheds, environmental habitats, and agricultural lands, while accommodating new growth in compact forms, in a manner that:
• De-emphasizes automobile dependency;
• Integrates the new growth into existing communities;
• Creates a diversity of affordable housing near employment centers; • Provides job opportunities for people of all ages and income levels.

Support:

The following letters of concurrence were received:

City of Banning
City of Calimesa
City of Canyon Lake
City of Moreno Valley
City of Norco
City of Torrance
Crystal Ruiz, Mayor, City of San Jacinto
Jessica Alexander, Mayor, City of Temecula
28 231
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206230, Version: 2
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Board, Commission, and Committee Work Plans Approve the recommended board, commission, and committee work plans for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
232

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

City Manager’s Office

TITLE: Fiscal Year 2026-27 Board, Commission,
and Committee Work Plans

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the recommended board, commission, and committee work plans for Fiscal Year 2026-27.

BACKGROUND

Adopted by the City Council on November 20, 2012, Council Policy A -23, “Work Item Referral Process for Council Advisory Bodies and Councilmember Committees,” requires all boards, commissions, and committees to annually prepare work plans for Council review and approval (Attachment 1). There are currently 10 Council-appointed boards, commissions, or committees:

• Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
• Board of Library Trustees (BL)
• Downtown Committee (DTC)
• Environmental Planning Commission (EPC)
• Human Relations Committee (HRC)
• Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC)
• Performing Arts Committee (PAC)
• Senior Advisory Committee (SAC)
• Visual Arts Committee (VAC)
• Youth Advisory Committee (YAC)

ANALYSIS

Every board, commission, or committee except the Youth Advisory Committee (YAC) ha s submitted a work plan for Fiscal Year 2026-27 (FY 26-27) (Attachment 2). The YAC’s work plan is typically submitted later to better align with the school year calendar. The YAC is expected to send its work plan to the Council Youth Services Committee in late fall 2026.

233
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Board, Commission, and Committee Work Plans September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

Staff liaisons provided summaries of each board, commission, or committee’s major focus areas below.

1. Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee: The primary focus areas for this year’s BPAC work plan are reviewing and providing input into the Rengstorff Complete Streets Study, Evelyn Avenue Complete Streets Project, and implementation of Active Transportation Plan Policies and Programs. The BPAC will also review and comment on various capital projects at the early design phase, continue coordination with other jurisdictions BPAC’s and participate in various bicycle and pedestrian engagement and encouragement activities.

2. Board of Library Trustees : The Board of Library Trustees advises the City Council and staff on Library matters. The Board’s general functions include adopting rules and regulations necessary for the administration and protection of the Mountain View Public Library , assisting in the planning of Library services for the community, and accepting money, personal property, or real estate donated to the Library. Major focus areas for the coming year include reviewing current trends and topics in public libraries as well as statistics and performance measures.

3. Downtown Committee : The DTC focuses on reviewing and providing input on policies, projects, and economic vitality initiatives in Downtown Mountain View. Over the past year, the DTC contributed feedback on the continued implementation of the Downtown Mountain View Pedestrian Mall, the Economic Vitality Strategy, the Outdoor Patio Program, and Downtown Mountain View activations such as social zones and community programming. The committee also received updates and provided input on topics including retail vacancy, Downtown Mountain View events, and the Downtown Entertainment Zone Pilot Program. In Fiscal Year 2 6-27, the DTC will continue to support efforts that enhance the vibrancy and vitality of Downtown Mountain View, including implementation of the Downtown Mountain View Parking Strategy and activation of vacant properties.

The DTC requested that Item F of the proposed work plan (continued implementation and activation of the Interim Castro Street Pedestrian Mall) include mention of a public restroom as a potential improvement to the Pedestrian Mall. Staff is aware of community interest in a Downtown public restroom facility and is exploring this option. The addition of a restroom Downtown involve s staff from multiple departments, capital project planning, and funding for construction and maintenance. Given the complexity of a project such as this, it is best initiated and managed at the staff level. Similar to other capital projects with high community interest, staff would seek input from the Downtown Committee and other Council advisory bodies as appropriate.

4. Environmental Planning Commission : The EPC is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the City Council on matters related to the physical development of the City, including the General Plan, Precise Plans, Zoning Ordinance, subdivisions, 234
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Board, Commission, and Committee Work Plans September 8, 2026

Page 3 of 5 ends

environmental planning, and other planning and land use policies. Over the next year, the EPC will continue its role in reviewing development applications with Zoning and General Plan Amendments and Bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) projects. Aside from that, the EPC’s work plan is determined by the Council Strategic Priorities and Work Plan. The EPC will continue to have a key role in recommending policy direction on major City initiatives, including the R3 Zoning update, Dark Sky Ordinance, Historic Preservation Ordinance , and Housing Element Program implementation items. Some other Council work plan items not shown in the EPC’s work plan may necessitate ad hoc EPC input.

5. Human Relations Committee: The HRC will continue to advise Council on, serve as a forum for the public discussion of, and act as a liaison between the City government and the public regarding the various economic, political, educational, and social issues facing the community. For FY 26-27, the HRC’s work plan includes three continuing items and three new items. The continuing projects are: (1) attend community meetings to solicit input on civic participation to inform recommendations for public outreach and engagement , (2) explore hosting know-your-rights workshops, and (3) table at Mountain View Pride to get feedback on potential outreach activities serving the LGBTQ community. The new projects are (1) developing a community event calendar and outreach toolkit, (2) partner ing with the Dignity Index to hold a civil discourse workshop, and (3) organizing an event celebrating women.

6. Parks and Recreation Commission : The PRC will provide input and recommendations on various capital projects, including the Rengstorff Grade Separation Tree Mitigation and Thompson Mini Park Conceptual Design and Name Recommendation. The PRC will receive updates on various department -wide operations, including a review of the Recreation Financial Assistance Program and summaries of annual accomplishments from Canopy and various Friends of Organizations. The PRC will also continue to review and make recommendations on Heritage tree appeals on an as-needed basis.

The PRC recommended adding a Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan update to the Financial Assistance Program Update work plan item anticipated in May 2027 . Staff recommends maintaining the work plan as proposed and addressing the Strategic Plan update separately to preserve the focus on the Financial Assistance Program review. Verbal Strategic Plan updates will be provided throughout the year, and the annual Strategic Plan update is anticipated in September 2027.

7. Performing Arts Committee : The PAC looks forward to implementing the SecondStage Vitality program, contingent upon City Council approval, as part of its ongoing effort to further diversify programming at the Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts (MVCPA). As part of its ongoing efforts, the PAC is committed to:

• Enhancing community outreach to increase engagement and awareness 235
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Board, Commission, and Committee Work Plans September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

• Co-hosting, in collaboration with the Visual Arts and Downtown Committees, two additional artists’ receptions at the MVCPA this year.

• Supporting staff with the 35th Anniversary of the MVCPA in January.

8. Senior Advisory Committee : The SAC FY 26 -27 key initiatives include developing a senior- focused survey to identify the needs of residents age 55 and older, benchmarking s enior centers and senior advisory committees throughout Santa Clara County, promoting Mountain View senior resources through neighborhood association outreach, and participating annually in the Mountain View Senior Resource Fair.

9. Visual Arts Committee : The VAC work plan for FY 26- 27 outlines work items to support visual arts in Mountain View. The VAC’s overall purpose is to enrich the City through public art and related community programs and advise the City Council on the selection of art and artists fo r City -funded public art acquisitions. The VAC recommends visual art to be displayed within the MVCPA and qualifying capital improvement projects, and collaborates with organizations on visual arts opportunities. Major work items for FY 26 -27 focus on completing and adopting a Public Art Strategy, supporting art selections for anticipated CIP projects, collaborating with the Downtown and Performing Arts Committees to support opportunities for Visual and Performing Arts in Downtown Mountain View, and increasing outreach to the arts community for Call for Artists opportunities. Following Council's adoption of the Public Art Strategy, the VAC will also identify opportunities to announce and promote its adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT

None.

LEVINE ACT

California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $250 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in the proceeding within the last 12 months. A city official is similarly prohibited from accepting, soliciting, or directing a campaign contribution exceeding $250 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant to any proceeding involving a license, permit, or other entitlement for us e for 12 months after a final decision is rendered in said proceeding.

236
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Board, Commission, and Committee Work Plans September 8, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

Please refer to the “X” in the checklist below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions

For more information about the Levine Act, please see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Revise any particular work plan.

2. Refer a work plan back to a board, commission, or committee for further development based on Council direction.

3. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING

Council’s agenda is advertised on Channel 26, and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.

Prepared by:

Laurel James
Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by:

Audrey D. Seymour
Assistant City Manager
Attachments: 1. Fiscal Year 2026 -27 Recommended Board, Commission , and Committee Work Plans

2. Council Policy A -23: Work Item Referral Process for Council Advisory Bodies and Councilmember Committees 237

Page 1 of 25 ends

BICYCLE/PEDESTRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27
T
itle and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. Review, prioritize, and recommend bicycle and pedestrian projects for the annual TDA Article 3 funding application cycle Preliminary review of
potential projects
April 2027
VTA call for projects Q2 2027
B. Provide input into the development and review of
comprehensive bicycle/pedestrian facility plans and
regulations (e.g., General Plan Mobility Chapter, Precise Plans, City Code revisions, and Zoning Ordinance bicycle parking requirements)
As required/requested As required/
requested
C. Review the City roadway system and bikeway/pedestrian facilities for bicycle and pedestrian suitability and recommend improvements
Ongoing Ongoing
D. Make recommendations for the incorporation of
bicycle/pedestrian facilities on capital improvement projects Annual Capital
Improvement Program
(CIP) development and
approval process
2027
E. Review public projects to ensure adequate consideration of the needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and people with
disabilities
Regular review of current
active transportation
projects
Ongoing
F. Promote bicycle and pedestrian safety via the City website and programs
Ongoing Ongoing
Attachment 1
238

Page 2 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
G. Coordinate with City departments and advisory bodies, other jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, and transportation- related agencies (e.g., VTA, Caltrans) on pedestrian and bicycling matters
City representatives
attend monthly VTA BPAC
meetings

Participate in Association
of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals webinars
offered through the VTA

Pursue coordination
activities as opportunities
are identified (example:
joint BPAC meetings,
communications with
other Mountain View
commission members)

Ongoing

H. Review Active Transportation Plan/Local Road Safety Plan performance measures, trends, and targets to assess progress in improving the City’s pedestrian and bicycle environment Receive/review Police
data on
pedestrian/vehicle,
bicycle/vehicle, and
pedestrian/bicycle
collisions and near misses

Quarterly
I. Monitor performance measures, trends, and targets to assess progress in improving the number of students walking or bicycling to school

Implement SRTS program
with schools

Ongoing
239

Page 3 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
J. Promote and participate in events to encourage bicycling and walking (subject to BPAC members’ availability)
Bike MV Bike Rides

Biannual
SVBC 2026 Bike Summit

August 2026
Monster Bash

Walk to School Day

October 2026
Earth Day April 2027
Bike to Wherever Days May 2027
K. Annual Review of Active Transportation Plan BPAC agenda item

Q2 2027

L. Legislative Review and Update BPAC agenda item

Ongoing
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Review progress on Vision Zero Policy and implementation of Vision Zero Action Plan
Implement Local Road
Safety Plan

Annual

2. Rengstorﬀ Avenue Complete Streets Study Existing Conditions and Draft concepts

Preferred Alternatives
Concepts

Q3 2026

Q1 2027

3. Shared Micromobility Pilot Program Staff Update

Q3 2026
240

Page 4 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes

4. Evelyn Avenue Complete Streets Project Staﬀ Update

Q1 2027

5. Stevens Creek Trail Extension Staﬀ Update

Q1 2027

6. California Complete Street Post-Study

Q3 2026

7. Moﬀett Precise Plan

Q2 2027

8. Updated City Standard Details

Q2 2027

9. Update BPAC on Implementation of Active Transportation Plan Policies and Programs

Annually

241

Page 5 of 25 ends

BOARD OF LIBRARY TRUSTEES WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. Accept donations Accept money and
property donated to the
City for Library purposes

Ongoing
B. Review and revise policies as needed Adopt and revise policies for the administration and
protection of the Library

Ongoing
C. Review Library usage performance/workload measures
biannually
Regularly review Library
performance/workload
measures to evaluate
usage patterns and trends

Biannually To be discussed twice a year
in conjunction with City
Performance Measures
D. Annual work plan Prepare annual work plan
to be approved by the City
Council

June
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Annual meeting with Friends of the Mountain View Library Board
Hold annual joint meeting
with Friends of the
Mountain View Library
Board to share how each
group is supporting Library
services for the City

Fall 2025
242

Page 6 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes

2. One to two discussions of “hot topics” in public libraries Keep up-to-date with current trends in public
libraries

To be
scheduled as
needed

243

Page 7 of 25 ends

DOWNTOWN COMMITTEE WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Est. Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. Review, comment, and recommend programs, projects, and policies to implement the vision for downtown

Receive updates on
downtown development
projects and new
businesses

Ongoing Monthly updates from
Planning staff
Projects and policies which
are tangentially connected
to downtown

Ongoing
Review policy
considerations and
recommendations that
support greater activation
and utilization of
downtown (e.g., including
additional live
entertainment and active
uses)

Ongoing
B.

Support City economic vitality initiatives in downtown

Discuss opportunities that
support and retain a
diverse mix of downtown
businesses

Ongoing Monthly updates on Economic
Development initiatives
244

Page 8 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Est. Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
C. Promote a variety of business outreach services and
activities to create a viable downtown
Collaborate with the
Chamber of Commerce
and Downtown Business
Association (DBA) on
supporting downtown
activations

Ongoing Committee to provide input
on activations and business
collaborations in the
downtown, to build on the
success of World Cup/Super
Bowl 2026 activations

Downtown/Visual Arts/
Performing Arts Committees
joint ad hoc committee
established to collaborate to
discuss opportunities to
promote downtown events
and create stronger
connections between the
Center for Performing Arts and
Pedestrian Mall

Continue ad hoc
committee to discuss
opportunities to promote
downtown locally and
regionally, including
additional events

Ongoing
D. Make recommendations on the development and
maintenance of downtown public parking facilities
Continued implementation
of downtown parking
programs

Ongoing
245

Page 9 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Est. Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Review downtown parking
occupancy data, including
parking permit information

Ongoing
E. Support the implementation of the Economic Vitality
Strategy (EVS)
Review and discuss
relevant initiatives and
implementation strategies
specific to the downtown
that are identified in the
Strategy

Ongoing

F. Support the continued implementation and activation of the Interim Castro Street Pedestrian Mall
Discuss the midterm
improvements (including
public restrooms), changes
for Castro Street closure,
and engage businesses in
the process

Ongoing

Receive monthly updates on
Castro Street and Pedestrian
Mall implementation actions
G. Collaborate with the Visual Arts Committee (VAC) on
downtown public art opportunities
Support the development
of the VAC Public Art
Strategy

Summer/Fall
2026

246

Page 10 of 25 ends

H. Receive updates from City departments on downtown
events, programs, and initiatives
Receive updates on
transportation initiatives
from the Public Works
Department

Receive updates on
Downtown events and
programming from the
Community Services
Department

Receive updates from the
Police Department on
various topics related to
downtown efforts

Ongoing

Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Provide the City Council with recommendations on the assessment districts (the Business Improvement Areas (BIA) and Parking Maintenance Assessment District)
Review BIA annual renewal

Fall 2026
Downtown Parking
Maintenance Assessment
District annual renewal

Spring 2027

247

Page 11 of 25 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. General Plan and Housing Element Annual Reports

Review reports Q1
(Due Annually to
HCD in April)

B. General Plan, Precise Plan, and Zoning Map Amendments (Gatekeepers)

As needed
C. Master Plans; Bonus Floor Area Ratio (FAR) projects

As needed
D. Minor Clean-up Amendments of Codes and Precise Plans (including some minor Housing Element implementation
actions)

As needed
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Register Update (Council Work Plan Item)
Recommendation to
Council

Q3 2026

2. R3 Zoning District Update Ordinance, including standards that consider form-based zoning, incentivize stacked flats, and update rowhouse guidelines (Council Work Plan Item)

Recommendation to
Council
Q4 2026

3. Dark Sky Ordinance (Council Work Plan Item) Recommendation to Council

Q4 2026
248

Page 12 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes

4. Objective Design Standards for Residential and Mixed-Use Projects (Council Work Plan Item)
Council Study Session

Outreach

EPC/ Council public
hearings for some
standards

Recommendation to
Council

Q1 2027

Q3 2027

Q4 2027

Q4 2028

5. Comprehensive Updates to the Downtown Precise Plan
(Council Work Plan Item)

Coordinate with SB 79
Work

Study Sessions or New
Business Items to review
policy

Draft Precise Plan and
Environmental Review

Recommendation to
Council

Q4 2026 - Q2 2027

TBD

6. Develop a Moffett Boulevard Precise Plan (Council Work Plan Item)

Coordinate with SB 79
Work

Draft Precise Plan and
Environmental Review

Recommendation to
Council
Q4 2026 - Q2 2027

TBD

249

Page 13 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes

7. AB 130 Housing Projects Ministerial Approval Ordinance Recommendation to Council

Q3 2027

8. SB 79 Historic Property Exemptions Ordinance Recommendation to Council

Q3 2026

9. Housing Element Program 1.4 and 2.6 (Affordable Housing Incentives on Church and Other Sites South of ECR)
Recommendation to
Council

Q4 2027

10. SB 79 Implementation Standards Ordinance Study Sessions or New Business Items to review
policy

Recommendation to
Council

Q2- Q3 2027

Q1 2028

250

Page 14 of 25 ends

HUMAN RELATIONS COMMITTEE WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone)
Ongoing Work Items
A. Participate in and provide recommendations to the City Council regarding Fiscal Year 2026-27 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME
Investment Partnerships Program funding requests

CDBG/HOME process review

HRC hearing on CDBG/HOME requests

Council hearing on CDBG/HOME
recommendations

Fall 2026

February/March 2027

Spring 2027
B. Respond to City Council referrals and/or inquiries from other City Advisory Bodies regarding topics of mutual
interest

C. Attend, participate in, and observe the Council
Neighborhoods Committee meetings

Monta Loma/Farley/Rock Street

Mobile Home Parks

Spring 2027 meetings
September 10, 2026

October 15, 2026

As scheduled

D. Participate in the 2026 Multicultural Festival

Spring 2026
E. Receive an informational update from the Multicultural Engagement Program

Fall 2026
F. Receive the Mountain View Police Department Annual
Report

June 2027
251

Page 15 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone)
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Attend community meetings to solicit input on civic
participation to inform recommendations for public
outreach and engagement (Carryforward)

Compile and present recommendations

Fall 2026

2. Explore hosting Know-Your-Rights Workshops
(Carryfoward)

Host events August – October 2026

3. Table at Mountain View Pride to get feedback on
potential outreach activities (Carryforward)

Attend event

Plan outreach
June 2026

By June 2027

4. Develop a community event calendar and outreach
toolkit for HRC members to attend more events

Develop calendar and toolkit By June 2027

5. Partner with The Dignity Index to hold a civil discourse workshop to create pathways for community members
to have connecting conversations

Host event By June 2027

6. Organize an event celebrating women

Plan and host event Beginning after the
completion of a carryforward
project

252

Page 16 of 25 ends

PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND URBAN FOREST BOARD WORK PLAN Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. Naming of Parks

As needed
B. Recognize Youth Sports Organizations

As needed
C. Review Heritage Tree Appeals

As needed
D. Review/Provide Input on Public Works Capital Projects Related to Parks and Trails

As needed
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Heritage Tree Appeal – 961 Eichler

September
2026

2. Park Design Evaluation Program

Sept/Oct 2026 Annual

3. 2027 Meeting Schedule

November 2026 Annual

4. Thompson Mini Park Conceptual Design and Name
Recommendation

December 2026

5. Visual Arts Committee Update

Dec 2026/Jan
2027

6. Election of Officers

Jan 2027 Annual

7. Acknowledge Annual Report – Friends of Deer Hollow Farm

Feb 2027 Annual
253

Page 17 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes

8. Acknowledge Annual Report – Mountain View Tennis

Feb 2027 Annual

9. Acknowledge Annual Report – Friends of R-House

March 2027 Annual

10. Acknowledge Annual Report – Friends of Stevens Creek Trail

March 2027 Annual

11. Fiscal Year 2027-28 Park Land Fund Update and Capital Improvement Project Commitments

April 2027 Annual

12. Rengstorff Grade Separation Tree Mitigation

April/May 2027

13. Review of Recreation Financial Assistance Program

May 2027

14. Fiscal Year 2027-28 Operating Budget Updates

June 2027 Annual

15. Canopy Presentation

June 2027 Annual

16. Annual Work Plan

June 2027 Annual

17. Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan Implementation Progress Update

June 2027 Annual

254

Page 18 of 25 ends

PERFORMING ARTS COMMITTEE WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. In support of Council priorities of Livability & Quality of Life and Economic Vitality, discuss options to diversify and increase use of the Mountain View Center for the
Performing Arts
Host seasonal gallery
receptions with artists on
display in the Mountain
View Center for the
Performing Arts lobby
Wed, November
4, 2026

Wed, January
27, 2027

The Visual Arts, Downtown,
and Performing Arts
committees plan to host two
additional Gallery Receptions
this fiscal year

B. Annual Resident Company presentations Resident Companies present an annual review
and answer questions
provided by the PAC

Upstage

TheatreWorks Silicon
Valley

Peninsula Youth Theatre

September 2026

October 2026

November 2026

Resident Companies' annual
presentation to the PAC

Resident Companies submit
their annual report to the
Committee for the previous
season and provide answers
to the PAC’s questions

255

Page 19 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
C. Quarterly Impact Report Review MVCPA Client
Usage, patron
attendance, new client
impact, and resulting
ancillary spending in
Mountain View

July 2026– July
2027
Ongoing
D. National Arts & Humanities Month Proclamation Provide a proclamation to the City Council for the
City of Mountain View's
support and participation
in National Arts &
Humanities Month

October 2026 Prepare proclamation for
presentation at City Council
meeting
256

Page 20 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Fiscal Year 2025-26 Work Items

1. The SecondStage Vitality Program is presented to the City Council for review and approval

Staff will submit the final
draft for City Council
review

Roll out the program
implementation timeline
to coincide with Primary
reservations at the
MVCPA

Provide marketing for the
new program and
advertise workshops to
introduce it to the
creative community

Completed by
November/
December 2026

January 2027

Spring/Summer
2027
Dependent upon City Council
calendar availability

2. Increase community connections Participate in Council Neighborhood
Connection meetings to
answer questions of the
greater community
regarding the Mountain
View Center for the
Performing Arts

Ongoing

Receive the schedule of
upcoming planned meetings
and schedule PAC members
to attend.

257

Page 21 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes

3. Review of Mountain Views Art & Wine Festival on Castro Street
Observations for the PAC
on how it could best
participate in the
upcoming years

Schedule Ad-Hoc
committee meetings to
discuss participation in
the festival for future
years

Sat., September
12 and Sun.,
September 13,
2026

October 2026
An ad hoc committee was
created

4. Review of Make Music Day 2027 Observe other
communities of similar
size and how they started
their program

January Create an ad hoc committee

5. 35th Anniversary Celebration Bring updates to the
Committee on a regular
basis
August,
September,
October,
November

Ad hoc Committee ongoing
meetings until January 2027

258

Page 22 of 25 ends

SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. Provide enhanced awareness of senior issues within a diverse community, increase outreach, and ensure the
greatest quality of service possible by the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC)

The overarching mission of
the SAC.

Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Develop a senior-focused survey to identify areas of senior needs.

Distribute by the end of
January 2027.

2. Benchmark Senior Centers and Senior Advisory Committees in Santa Clara County
Completed before the
end of November 2026.

3. Promote Mountain View senior resources while engaging at neighborhood association events

4. Participate annually in Senior Resource Fair

259

Page 23 of 25 ends

VISUAL ARTS COMMITTEE WORK PLAN
Fiscal Year 2026-27

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Ongoing Work Items
A. Recommend visual art for the Center for the Performing Arts (CPA) Visual Arts exhibition

Promote the CPA visual arts exhibit to the community

Issue a Call for Artists

Review applications and
select exhibitions

Promote art exhibitions

December 2026

February 2027

Ongoing

Exhibits promoted on City’s
Public Art webpage

Economic Development social
media

Call for Artists to be released
Fall 2026

B. Provide the City Council with recommendations on the selection of art and artists for qualifying capital
improvement projects under Council Policy K-5
Continue to receive
progress updates on in-
progress CIP projects

Coordinate grand
opening and art unveiling
for K-5 projects as
needed

Recommend public art
for Public Safety Building
CIP Project with input
from Artist Selection
Panel

Ongoing

Spring 2027

Current projects: Rengstorff
Park Maintenance & Tennis
Buildings, Villa-Chiquita Park,
Evelyn Park, Shoreline
Boathouse

Coordinate public art grand
openings and unveilings with
the appropriate departments

An Artist Selection Panel will
be engaged to provide input
on the selection of public
artworks; panel to include
Police and Fire
representatives and other
relevant community
stakeholders
260

Page 24 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Recommend public art
for Thompson Mini Park
CIP project
Spring 2027
C. Continue to collaborate with advisory bodies and other entities on visual arts opportunities

Collaborate with other
advisory bodies, such as
the Downtown
Committee, Parks and
Recreation Committee,
and Performing Arts
Committee to support
the promotion and
display of visual arts

Partner with regional arts
organizations to support
and expand outreach for
Calls for Artists

Coordinate with the
Chamber of Commerce
and Downtown Business
Association (DBA) on
public and private art
activations

Ongoing Utilizes existing networks and
joint committees to increase
visibility and support for the
City's arts programming
D. Annual Work Plan Prepare annual work plan
to be approved by City
Council

June 2027
261

Page 25 of 25 ends

Title and Description Key Milestones Date
(per milestone) Current Status/Notes
Fiscal Year 2026-27 Work Items

1. Finalize and initiate implementation of a Public Art Strategy
Recommend final
Strategy for City Council
adoption

After City Council
adoption, receive
periodic updates on the
Strategy’s integrated
implementation plan

Identify initial
opportunities to mark the
Strategy’s completion

July 8, 2026

Ongoing

TBD

Consultant-led draft
development is underway;
specific implementation
actions will be defined
following adoption

To follow Strategy adoption
by Council

262

CITYCOUNCILPOLICY
SUBJECT: WORKITEMREFERRALPROCESSFORCOUNCIL NO.: A-23

ADVISORYBODIESAND COUNCILMEMBER

COMMITTEES
PURPOSE:

To establisha policy governingtheprocessfor how Counciladvisorybodiesand Councilmembercommitteesareauthorizedtoworkonitems.

POLICY:

All work itemsof CounciladvisorybodiesandCouncilmembercommitteesareto be authorizedbytheCityCouncilor, in someinstances, bytheMayorandViceMayor, as describedbelow.

1. CouncilAdvisoryBodiesWorkItemReferralProcess:
a. All Counciladvisorybodiesarerequiredtoannuallyprepareworkplansthat aresubmitted to the City Council for review and approval. This will generallyoccurin thelatespring/earlysummerin ordertointegratewith the Council'spriorities. In someinstances, asdeterminedbytheCityManagerin consultationwith advisorybodystaff, work planapprovallessfrequently thaneveryyearmay bepermitted if theadvisorybody'swork itemsare multi-yearitems.
b. During thecourseof theyearfollowing work plan approval, if a topic is raisedthatis within theadvisorybody'spurviewbutisnotontheapproved work plan, andreceivesmajoritysupportfromtheadvisorybodymembers thattheadvisorybodywishestoreviewthetopic, andit isdeterminedbythe City Managerin consultationwith advisorybodystaffthatpreparationfor suchreview would havea minimal staff resourcesimpact, then, after consultation, theMayorandViceMayorcanjointly authorizetheworkitem fortheadvisorybody.
c. If theMayorandViceMayordonotjointly authorizetheworkitem, thenthe advisorybodycanrequestauthorizationfromthefull CityCouncil.

Page1 of 3
Attachment 2
263

CITYCOUNCILPOLICY
SUBJECT: WORKITEMREFERRALPROCESSFORCOUNCIL NO.: A-23

ADVISORYBODIESAND COUNCILMEMBER

COMMITTEES
d. Any topic that is not on the approved work plan that would havea significantstaffimpactin preparingfor theadvisorybody'sreviewshall requireauthorizationfromthefull CityCouncil.
e. Advisory body membersare to remain mindful of the City Council's prioritiesandthelimitedstaffresourcesthatareavailablefor newworkitems throughouttheyear.

2. CouncilmemberCommitteesWorkItemReferralProcess:
a. Councilmembercommitteesarenot required to haveformal work plans approvedbytheCityCouncil.
b. Generally, work itemswill bespecificand direct referralsfrom theCity Council.
c. However, committeechairpersonscanagendizeanewtopicthatis within thatcommittee'spurviewif, in consultationwith committeestaffandtheCity Manager, it is determinedthatpreparationfor suchreview would havea minimalstaffresourcesimpact.
d. Additionally, anycommitteemembercanrequestatacommitteemeetinga new topic that is within that committee'spurview for review at a future committeemeeting. Subsequenttotherequestandif supportedbyamajority of thecommittee, thetopicwill beagendizedfor afuturecommitteemeeting if it isdeterminedby theCity Managerin consultationwith committeestaff that preparation for suchreview would havea minimalstaffresources impact.
e. Any topic thatwould havea significantstaffimpactin preparingfor the committee'sreview, asdeterminedbytheCityManagerin consultationwith committeestaff, shallrequireauthorizationfromthefull CityCouncil.

Page2 of 3
264

CITYCOUNCILPOLICY
SUBJECT: WORKITEMREFERRALPROCESSFORCOUNCIL NO.: A-23

ADVISORYBODIESAND COUNCILMEMBER

COMMITTEES
f. Committeemembersareto remainmindful of theCity Council'spriorities and the limited staff resourcesthat are available for new work items throughouttheyear.

EffectiveDate: November20, 2012, ResolutionNo. 17733
KW/7/CNLPOL
A23-610CP-E
Page3 of 3
265
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206276, Version: 1
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report - Improving Pothole Claims Process Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report,Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
266

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

City Attorney’s Office

TITLE: Response to Santa Clara County Civil
Grand Jury Report—Improving Pothole
Claims Process

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

BACKGROUND

The City received a copy of Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury’s final report, entitled “ Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” on June 12, 2026 (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Grand Jury Report” or the “Report”).

California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires that the governing body of a public agency which has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the report’s findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. The deadline for the City to submit its response to the above-referenced report is September 10, 2026.

The Civil Grand Jury Report focuses governmental tort claims for damages related to potholes that were filed with the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County and the County of Santa Clara.

The Grand Jury analyzed pothole damage claims filed in each of these jurisdictions between 2020 and 2025. The report indicates the local government agencies rejected 92% of these claims. The Grand Jury concluded it can be confusing for a claimant to determine the jurisdiction responsible for the roadway where the pothole is located. As a result, it is difficult for claimants to determine where a claim should be filed. The Grand Jury also reviewed the correspondence sent by the local government agencies regarding the claims process. The Report makes recommendations regarding the rejection notices sent by agencies.

In addition, the Grand Jury examined the websites of each of the local government agencies with respect to the claim filing process. The Grand Jury made several recommendations to improve the claims process for claimants, such as providing information to assist claimants in determining 267
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Response—Pothole Claims September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 7 ends

the proper jurisdiction for filing the claim, making claims forms easier to find and providing clearer instructions for filing claims.

The Grand Jury recommended the public agencies incorporate useable software on their websites to translate claim forms into multiple languages or provide claim forms in multiple languages based on the demographics served by the agency.

ANALYSIS
The City is required to respond to each of the Grand Jury’s findings and indicate whether the City agrees with the finding or disagrees, in whole or in part, with the finding, specifying any disputed portion and providing an explanation. The City must also respond to the recommendations by selecting and reporting one of the following four responses: (i) the recommendation has been implemented, with a summary of the implementation action; (ii) the recommendation will be implemented in the future, with a time frame for implementation; (iii) the recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation of the scope and time frame; or (iv) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is unwarranted or unreasonable, with an explanation.

Jurisdiction over roadways can be confusing. Several state and county roadways run through the City of Mountain View, such as U.S. 101, Highway 237 and State Route 82, known as El Camino Real. The majority of the recommendations of the Grand Jury can be implemented and will provide more information to claimants. It may also reduce the staff time necessary to investigate and process these claims. Accordingly, Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed responses which are found in Attachment 2 to the Council report.

Table 1: Summary of City Responses
to Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations

Finding/
Recommendation Summary
City
Response
Response
Summary
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.

Agree. Acknowledges the City of
Mountain View rejected
some claims on this basis.
268
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Response—Pothole Claims September 8, 2026

Page 3 of 7 ends

Finding/
Recommendation Summary
City
Response
Response
Summary
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.

Agree. The City of Mountain View
agrees the website could
provide additional
information about how to
determine if a road is owned
and maintained by the City
of Mountain View.

Recommendation 2a.

All jurisdictions within Santa
Clara County should include
a link to a map or list or
roads they maintain on their
claims website.

This recommendation will be
implemented by December
15, 2026
Interactive map to be added
to the City’s website to
provide information
regarding ownership and
maintenance of roads.

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.

This recommendation will be
implemented by December
15, 2026.

Interactive map to be added
to website to provide
information regarding
ownership and maintenance
of roads.

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 Jose, Santa
Clara, and Saratoga – have
websites with deficiencies
Agree. The City is updating its
website to provide more
information about the claims
process to make it easier to
file a claim.
269
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Response—Pothole Claims September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 7 ends

Finding/
Recommendation Summary
City
Response
Response
Summary
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 Jose,
and Saratoga – should
update their website to
provide clear instructions
and information about how
to file a claim in addition to
a link to the claim form.

This recommendation has
not yet been implemented
but will be implemented by
December 15, 2026.

The City is updating its
website to provide more
information about the claims
process and make it easier
to file a claim and a link to a
claim form.

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 Jose, 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.

This recommendation
requires further analysis.

The claims form is a legal
document. In order to
translate this form would
require the translation to
meet legal standards. To
respond to this
recommendation, the City is
updating its website to
provide instructions regarding
the claims process and
guidance regarding the claim
form in multiple languages
based on the demographics it
serves. This update will be
implemented by December
15, 2026.
270
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Response—Pothole Claims September 8, 2026

Page 5 of 7 ends

Finding/
Recommendation Summary
City
Response
Response
Summary
Finding 4.

When pothole claims are
rejected, claimants filing
claims against the County,
Los Altos, Los Gatos,
Mountain View, Palo Alto
and San Jose 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.

Agrees partially with this
finding.

Rejection notices for pothole
claims will include
Information regarding basis
of the rejection.

Recommendation 4.

The County, Los Altos, Los
Gatos, Mountain View, Palo
Alto, and San Jose should
update their rejection letters
to specify whether the
decision was due to lack of
timeliness, incorrect
jurisdiction, lack of prior
notice, or other reason and
to provide a specific contact
to call or email if the
claimant has further
questions about the reason
for the rejection.

This recommendation has
been implemented.

Rejection letters now
include information
explaining why claim was
rejected and contact
information for further
questions about the claim.

Upon approval by Council, the City’s detailed response will be transmitted to the Presiding Judge on or before September 10, 2026.

271
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Response—Pothole Claims September 8, 2026

Page 6 of 7 ends

FISCAL IMPACT

Council’s approval of the City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury report will have no fiscal impact.

LEVINE ACT

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions

CONCLUSION

Jurisdiction over roadways can be confusing. The recommendations of the Grand Jury can be implemented and will provide more information to claimants. It may also reduce the staff time necessary to investigate and process these claims.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide other input regarding the City’s response to the Report’s findings and recommendations.

2. Do not approve City’s response to the Report’s finding and recommendations.

3. Provide other direction.

272
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Response—Pothole Claims September 8, 2026

Page 7 of 7 ends

PUBLIC NOTICING

Agenda posting.

Prepared by:

Jannie L. Quinn
Interim City Attorney

Approved by:

Kimbra McCarthy
City Manager

33958v1

Attachments: 1. Response to Civil Grand Jury Report

2. Civil Grand Jury Report

273
City Manager’s Office
DAT
E:

TO:

FR
OM:

SUBJECT:

September 9, 2026
The Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Response to 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” Th
e City of Mountain View hereby respectfully submits its response to the 2025 -2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05.

Civ
il Grand Jury Finding 1:

Juri
sdictions 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.

Cit
y of Mountain View Response to Finding 1:

This res
ponse is limited to the claims filed with the City of Mountain View. The City of Mountain View agrees that it has rejected such claims because the alleged pothole was not located in the City of Mountain View, that the claim form submitted by claimant did not provide adequate information for the City to evaluate the claim, and the claim did not comply with the Government Tort Claims Act including the statutory timelines for filing a claim. It is important to note that each claim requires an analysis of compliance with the Government Tor t Act, whether the City has sufficient information to evaluate the claim, and whether the city is liab le for the alleged damages. The liability analysis includes a determination wh ether the roadway is owned or maintained by the city, whether the public property constituted a dangerous condition, and if so whether the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the type of injury that occurred, whether the city had actual or constructive notice of the condition and whether the alleged damages were caused by the pothole. In addition, the analysis of pothole claims requires an investigation whether a third party, such as a contractor, is liable.

Attachment 1
274
City of Mountain View Response to 2026
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
September 9, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

Civil Grand Jury Finding 2:

Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.

City of Mountain View Response to Finding 2:

The City of Mountain View response is limited to the claims filed with the City. During the time period examined by the Grand Jury, t he City of Mountain View received a number of claims for incidents that occurred on US 101 and 237, state highways under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation. In addition, the City received claims for incidents that occurred on El Camino Real which is also known as State Route 82 and is also within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation. The City of Mountain View agrees the website could provide additional information about how to determine if a road is owned and maintained by the City of Mountain View.

Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 2a:

All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list or roads they maintain on their claims website.

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 2a:

The City of Mountain View is in the process of implementing this recommendation and will make an interactive map available on its website to assist claimants in determining whether they should file a claim with the City of Mountain View. This recommendation will be implemented by December 15, 2026.

Civil Grand Jury 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.

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 2b:

275
City of Mountain View Response to 2026
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
September 9, 2026

Page 3 of 4 ends

Civil Grand Jury Finding 3:

City of Mountain View Response to Finding 3:

The City of Mountain View ’s response is limited to its website. The City of Mountain View disagrees partially with this finding. It recently added a fillable form to the website to facilitate the filing of government tort claims . However, the City of Mountain View agree s improvements can be made to the website to make it easier for claimants to understand the process and file claims.

Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 3a:

Eleven jurisdictions – the County, Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, and Saratoga – have websites with deficiencies that make it difficult to file a claim.

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 3a:

The City of Mountain View’s response is limited to its website. The City is updating its website to provide more information about the claims process. This recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented by December 15, 2026.

Civil Grand Jury 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 Jose, 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.

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 3b:

This recommendation requires further analysis. Claim forms are legal documents and require specialized translation services that will meet legal standards. In response to this recommendation, the city will update its website to include instructions and general guidance on the claims process in multiple languages based on the demographics served by the City on or before December 15, 2026. In addition, the City of Mountain View will continue to explore methods to expand language access to claimants , as well providing greater translation services City-wide for all City services.

276
City of Mountain View Response to 2026
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
September 9, 2026

Page 4 of 4 ends

Civil Grand Jury Finding 4:

When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto and San Jose 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.

City of Mountain View Response to Finding 4:

The City of Mountain View can only respond to the claims filed with the city. The City of Mountain View agrees partially with this finding. It has provided this information in some rejection notices.

The City will include the reason for the rejection in the future.

Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 4:

The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San Jose should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for the rejection.

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 4:

This recommendation has been implemented.

277
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Pothole Damage:

Improving claims processes within Santa
Clara County
June 12, 2026
Attachment 2
278

Page 1 of 20 ends

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............................................................................................................................ 18 279

Page 2 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

SUMMARY
If you hit a pothole within Santa Clara County and damage your vehicle, chances are th at your local government will decline to reimburse you for repairs. According to data analyzed by the 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury), 92% of pothole claims filed with the County of Santa Clara (County) and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County from 2020 to 2025 were rejected.

People who file claims may find this high rejection rate disappointing. They may also be frustrated by the state law that establishes the claims process, which can often be complex and opaque.

For example, in some jurisdictions, it’s not easy to figure out how to file a claim. Also, while the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto) and the City of Saratoga (Saratoga) offer e-filing options, claims filed in other jurisdictions must be mailed in or returned in person. And when a claim is denied, the rejection notice often provides little or no explanation.

The County, cities, and towns can and should do better. Specifically, they should:
• Make online claim forms available or easier to find, and include clearer instructions and timelines;
• Provide forms in multiple languages that reflect their specific demographics; • Make it easier for claimants to determine which jurisdiction is responsible for a given roadway;
• Update their rejection letters to specify why claims were denied.

Implementing these changes would make the claims process simpler and more accessible. It would also minimize at least one source of frustration for residents who are already burdened by unexpected repair costs.

280

Page 3 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

BACKGROUND
For the purposes of this report, a pothole is defined as a depression or hole in the road that forms when pavement breaks apart due to traffic stress and weather conditions.

Potholes can cause severe damage to tires and the underside of vehicle s, with a particular risk to two-wheeled vehicles. If drivers believe the local government is responsible for their damage, they can file a claim seeking reimbursement.

According to local media reports , Bay Area drivers in 2022 filed more than 1,000 claims for potholes and other road damages . According to data that the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) provided to CBS News, it rejected more than 95% of Bay Area cla ims (Feingold and Manthey, 2024; Manthey and Watts, 2024).

Who Is Responsible for Pothole Damage
Claims for road -related damag e must be filed with the state, county, or city agency that has jurisdiction over the road where the damage occurred.

For example:
• Caltrans is generally responsible for major freeways and highways, such as US-101, I-280, and State Route 87.
• The County is responsible for expressways and county roads, such as Capitol and Lawrence Expressways.
• Cities and towns are generally responsible for local streets within their boundaries, including residential neighborhoods.

Why So Many Claims Are Rejected
The Civil Grand Jury request ed and received claims data from the County and the 15 cities and towns in Santa Clara County covering the period from 2020 to 2025. The Civil Grand Jury’s analysis of that data revealed that only 9% of pothole claims across Santa Clara County were settled.

Under the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.), local agencies have wide discretion to reject a pothole claim for reasons including but not limited to:
• The claim form was incomplete or not filed by the required deadline; 281

Page 4 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• It was filed in the wrong jurisdiction;
• The responsible county, city, or town either was not aware of the pothole or was aware but had not had sufficient time to repair it.

These laws make it difficult for a claimant to dispute a denial. For example, if an agency rejects a claim on the grounds that it was not aware of the pothole , the law does not require it to provide evidence to back up its assertion.

In addition, because different agencies can have jurisdiction over different sections of the same road, it can be difficult for a claimant to determine whi ch agency is responsible for the specific location where the damage occurred. If the person files with the wrong jurisdiction, the agency can reject the claim with no obligation to specify the reason or redirect the claimant to the correct jurisdiction.

If a claim is rejected, the claimant can pursue legal action according to the California Government Claims Act.

The California Government Claims Act
The California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 810 et seq.) establishes timelines and procedures for filing lawsuits seeking money or damages from a public entity.

In general, the Government Claims Act specifies that a claim must be filed no later than six months from the date of the incident. The claim must include what happened, what harm occurred, and the amount of compensation requested.

Once the public entity receives the claim, it has 45 days to review, investigate, and decide whether to settle or reject it. If a claim is rejected, the claimant has six months to file a lawsuit.

Why the Civil Grand Jury Conducted This Investigation
The Civil Grand Jury believes that claims process es should be consistent, accessible, and transparent. It also believes the public interest is served by highlighting when processes fall short of that standard.

The Civil Grand Jury conducted this investigation to:
• Examine how local government agencies manage pothole claims; • Understand why so many claims are denied;
282

Page 5 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Recommend how jurisdictions can make it easier for potential claimants to engage in the process.

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury requested data from all 16 jurisdictions responsible for road maintenance within Santa Clara County. The data excluded s tate routes and interstate highways because Caltrans, a state agency , is not subject to Civil Grand Jury review . Jurisdictions provided dat a about all claims filed against them for road-related damages between 2020 and 2025. Information provided included the number of pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution, and the reason for rejection. Three jurisdictions provided response letters sent to claimants.

The Civil Grand Jury reviewed the websites of the following 16 agencies to analyze what content was included and how clearly it was presented:
• County of Santa Clara (County)
• City of Campbell (Campbell)
• City of Cupertino (Cupertino)
• City of Gilroy (Gilroy)
• City of Los Altos (Los Altos)
• Town of Los Altos Hills (Los Altos Hills)
• Town of Los Gatos (Los Gatos)
• City of Milpitas (Milpitas)
• City of Monte Sereno (Monte Sereno)
• City of Morgan Hill (Morgan Hill)
• City of Mountain View (Mountain View)
• City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto)
• City of San José (San José)
• City of Santa Clara (Santa Clara)
• City of Saratoga (Saratoga)
• City of Sunnyvale (Sunnyvale)
The Civil Grand Jury also interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions that together account for about two-thirds of the roads in Santa Clara County. These interviews provided further insight into the agencies’ processes and decision‑making practices. 283

Page 6 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

INVESTIGATION
There are over 10,000 miles of locally maintained lanes in Santa Clara County (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026) . Between 2020 and 2025, the agencies received exactly 400 claims specifically due to potholes.

Of the pothole claims, the Civil Grand Jury determined that the jurisdictions collectively settled 34 claims, or 8.5%. The percentage of settlements for damages varied among the individual entities. The data showed that during that five-year period:
• Gilroy and Saratoga e ach settled 50% of claims filed (however, they eac h averaged 1-2 claims per year, among the smallest sample sizes in Santa Clara County). • Four jurisdictions paid at least 10% of claims: Morgan Hill (17%), the County (11%), Santa Clara (11%), and Milpitas (10%).
• The remaining jurisdictions paid 9% of claims or fewer.

The Civil Grand Jury acknowledges that the significance of this data is limited; if an entity received a high volume of claims filed in the wrong jurisdiction, it will not settle those claims.

How Jurisdictions Investigate Claims
Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County generally follow a similar process for receiving and evaluating a claim.

First, the claim gets submitted to a city clerk, city manager, or equivalent official, who logs it along with any accompanying documents. Next, the official notifies the local public works department so it can investigate the incident site as needed.

In the meantime, the official assigns the claim to an investigator , usually in the city attorney’s or county counsel’s office. The investigator verifies whether the agency has jurisdiction, ensures the form was filled out correctly, and reviews any photographs and receipts that were submitted.

If the jurisdiction agrees to pay out the claim, it will often mail a check. But if the claim involves injuries or death, or the claimant is seeking tens of thousands of dollars , the settlement may need approval from the respective city council or the County Board of Supervisors.

If the jurisdiction rejects the claim, it will inform the claimant via a form letter or email. T he California Government Claims Act does not require jurisdictions to specify the reason for denial.

284

Page 7 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Two Common Reasons for Rejection
According to the data provided to the Civil Grand Jury, c laims are frequently denied for one of two reasons: The claim was out of the entity’s jurisdiction, or the County, city, or town had no prior notice of the pothole.

Out of Jurisdiction
A claim must be filed with the agency that has jurisdiction over the specific location where the incident occurred. According to interviews conducted by the Civil Grand Jury, claims that are filed with the wrong jurisdiction will almost certainly be rejected as outside of jurisdiction.

A road’s location within a n agency’s boundaries does not necessarily mean that agency is responsible for receiving or resolving related claims. Jurisdiction over road maintenance can shift multiple times as roads cross between state, county, and municipal boundaries. This patchwork of responsibility can be confusing, making it hard for claimants to figure out which agency has jurisdiction over the specific location of their incident.

Agencies typically verify their jurisdiction by consulting their local public works, utilities, or roads departments.

No Prior Notice
The Government Claims Act also establishes limits to the public entities’ liability for the condition of its roadways. One of those limitations is the issue of notice to the public entity. The Civil Grand Jury found this was one of the two most common reasons pothole claims are rejected.

Notice typically requires evidence that at least one of four circumstances exists:

1. The public entity created the condition;

2. The pothole had been reported prior to an incident in which a vehicle was damaged;

3. An agency’s employee observed the pothole and reported it;

4. The pothole existed long enough that the jurisdiction should have known about it through regular inspections.

If none of these circumstances applies, the agency can declare it had no prior notice and deny the claim.

When an agency receives notice of a pothole, state law allows for a reasonable period to address the hazard. It does not specify what constitutes a reasonable timeframe. 285

Page 8 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Drivers can help ensure that a jurisdiction receives prior notice by promptly reporting any potholes.

All jurisdictions have a mechanism for reporting potholes and other issues (see Appendix A).

Rejection Notices are Often Vague
As noted above, it is not unusual for an agency to withhold its reason for rejecting a claim. A rejection notice would contain this language , in part , which is required by the California Government Claims Act (Cal. Gov. Code § 913):

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM
Dear Claimant,
Notice is hereby given that the claim you presented to ( insert title of board or officer) on (date) was rejected on (date).

WARNING
Subject to certain exceptions, you have only six (6) months from the date this notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail to file a court action on this claim.

See Government Code Section 945.6.

You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you desire to consult an attorney, you should do so immediately.

Agencies may provide further information, such as the reason for rejection. A notice of denial can be aggravating enough, but when it is written in minimal legalistic terms, claimants may feel even more frustrated. The Civil Grand Jury learned about rejection letters from the County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José and found that some but not all rejection letters provide a reason for rejection. Rejection letters from other jur isdictions may follow this same approach.

In Civil Grand Jury interviews, one agency official suggested that people who receive a letter like this contact the agency and see if it will shar e the reason for rejection . Although the reason f or rejection is recorded by the agency, t here is no legal obligation to provide this inform ation, and agencies may limit this information.
286

Page 9 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Filing a Claim: Determining which Jurisdiction is Responsible Caltrans Jurisdiction
If a pothole is located on a state route or interstate highway, the claim would generally fall under Caltrans’s jurisdiction. These routes, which, according to Caltrans, cover about 250 miles throughout Santa Clara County (California Department of Transportation, 2025) include:
• U.S. Route 101 (US-101)
• Interstate 280 (I-280)
• Interstate 680 (I-680)
• Interstate 880 (I-880)
• State Route 17 (SR-17)
• State Route 35 (SR-35)
• State Route 82 (SR-82), which includes El Camino Real • State Route 85 (SR-85)
• State Route 87 (SR-87)
• State Route 130 (SR-130), which includes part of Alum Rock Road and Mount Hamilton Road
• State Route 152 (SR-152)
• State Route 237 (SR-237)
Residents may not realize that some common local routes fall under Caltrans jurisdiction. These include SR-82, a large part of which includes El Camino Real ; Mount Hamilton Road; and SR - 130, which is part of Alum Rock Avenue.

When a local road crosses or overlaps a s tate route or interstate, that portion is generally under Caltrans jurisdiction.

County Jurisdiction
Expressways and many county roads are maintained by the County Roads and Airport s Department.

Major roads include:
• Almaden Expressway
• Capitol Expressway
• Central Expressway
• Foothill Expressway
• Lawrence Expressway
287

Page 10 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
• Montague Expressway
• Oregon Expressway
• San Tomas Expressway
• Southwest Expressway
Complicated Exceptions
Further complicating efforts to determine which agency has jurisdiction over a particular area, cities, Caltrans, the County, and even the federal government ( such as near Moffett Federal Airfield) have maintenance agreements that specify which agency is responsible for certain roadway segments – such as onramps, offramps, and other defined areas (City of Mountain View, 2019). It is not always easy to determine which agency is responsible for which segments.

Complicated Maps
Some jurisdictions have no public maps indicating which roads they are responsible for. Th e County and some cities, including San José, Campbell, and Mountain View, do post searchable maps online that can help the public narrow down which jurisdiction is responsible for a particular road. However, the maps often use complicated interfaces rather than a simple image or printout, and many maps are not specific to just the roads maintained by the jurisdictions.

San José, which maintains more than 4,000 miles of locally maintained lanes within its borders, has its own mapping website (Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2026; City of San José, 2020). It shows whether a particular street within its boundaries is maintained by San José, the County, a private entity, or another agency. The website provides a large amount of information, although it is complicated for the average user to navigate.

An alternative source of information is pavement management plans that some agencies make available. These plans may list all roads maintained by the jurisdiction and can be used as a reference. As an example, Morgan Hill has a link to its latest 2024 Pavement Management Report with a list of streets at the end. However, there is no direct link from the claim forms webpage, so claimants would not be aware of this reference (AMS Consulting, 2025).

Filing a Claim: Obtaining and Submitting a Claim Form
Once a person has found the proper jurisdiction, the next step is to download the claim form from the local agency’s website.

Of the 16 jurisdictions, the Civil Grand Jury found that only Gilroy, Los Gatos, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale provide adequate claims process information on their webpages or on the claim form itself.
288

Page 11 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
Most jurisdictions provide forms only in English. This is an omission that could potentially disenfranchise community members who have limited proficiency in English.

The Civil Grand Jury identified three cities that took the helpful step of providing additional language options:
• Morgan Hill provides a PDF of its claim form in English and Spanish. • Sunnyvale has a translation feature that allows claimant s to translate the form into one of 200+ languages. Users can either fill out the translated form online and print a copy or print out a blank translated form and fill it out by hand.
• Saratoga’s website uses a third-party widget to translate its website in addition to an online form to many other languages.

The Civil Grand Jury als o investigated how easy it is to find claim forms on each jurisdiction’s website by searching for the term “claim form.”
The Civil Grand Jury could not find any information about submitting a pothole claim in four entities: Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Monte Sereno.

Cupertino provides a claim form, but users must use the website’s search function to find it.

Gilroy does not link directly to a claim form, although it does provide instructions on how to request a form by email or in person.
289

Page 12 of 20 ends

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. 290

Page 13 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

CONCLUSION
Even though state law sets strict rules for filing and reviewing claims, local government agencies retain significant discretion over their processes. By offering clearer online information, improving access to claim forms, expanding language options, and providing more detailed explanations when claims are denied , jurisdictions can significantly improve public trust, reduce frustration , and increase fairness.

Implementing the recommended updates is not only feasible , but it also aligns with the spirit of responsive and transparent public service. The Civil Grand Jury urges all jurisdictions to adopt these improvements by the recommended deadlines to ensure that the claims process is fairer, more consistent, and easier for the public to navigate.
291

Page 14 of 20 ends

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 – s hould update their websites to provide clear instructions and information about how to file a claim in addition to a link to the claim form.

Th
e jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026. 292

Page 15 of 20 ends

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.

T
he jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

Finding 4
When pothole claims are rejected, claimants filing claims against t he County, Los Altos, Los Gatos,
Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José receive a notice that provides little or sometimes no explanation for the rejection. Although jurisdictions within Santa Clara County are not legally obligated to provide a reason for rejection, the lack of clarity in the decisions made on the claims can add to a claimant’s frustration.

Recommendation 4
The County, Los Altos, Los Gatos, Mountain View, Palo Alto, and San José should update their rejection letters to specify whether the decision was due to lack of timeliness, incorrect jurisdiction, lack of prior notice, or other reason and to provide a specific contact to call or email if the claimant has further questions about the reason for rejection.

T
he jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.

293

Page 16 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code section 933(a) et seq. and California Penal Code section 933.05, the 2025-2026 Santa Clara Count y Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing body:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Campbell 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Cupertino 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Gilroy 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Los Altos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
Town of Los Altos Hills 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
Town of Los Gatos 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of Milpitas 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Monte Sereno 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Morgan Hill 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b
City of Mountain View 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Palo Alto 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3b, 4
City of San José 1, 2, 3, 4 2a, 2b, 3a, 3b, 4
City of Santa Clara 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3b
City of Saratoga 1, 2, 3 2a, 2b, 3a
City of Sunnyvale 1, 2 2a, 2b

294

Page 17 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
APPENDIX A: Reporting a Pothole
Residents who see a pothole can report it so the jurisdiction can repair it in a timely manner.

Based on a Civil Grand Jury review, here is a list of contacts (as of April 15, 2026) where potholes or other needed street repairs can be reported:

Jurisdiction Website to report a pothole
Caltrans https://csr.dot.ca.gov/index.php/Msrsubmit
County of Santa Clara https://roads.santaclaracounty.gov/services/service-requests Campbell https://www.campbellca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Cupertino https://cupertinoca.citysourced.com/servicerequests/create Gilroy https://seeclickfix.com/gilroy
Los Altos https://www.losaltosca.gov/FormCenter/Public-Works-6/ Maintenance-Service-Request-46
Los Altos Hills https://www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/requesttracker.aspx Los Gatos https://www.losgatosca.gov/FormCenter/PPW-15/Report-a- Parks-Public-Works-Concern-87
Milpitas https://seeclickfix.com/web_portal/
chZ2d7WdKoe4V2BriJxUCFqd/report/category
Monte Sereno https://www.montesereno.org/forms.aspx?FID=80 Morgan Hill https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/509/Maintenance Mountain View https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/departments/public- works/roads-and-transportation/street-maintenance
Palo Alto https://www.paloalto.gov/Residents/Services/Report-an-Issue San José https://311.sanjoseca.gov/
Santa Clara https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/government/mayor-and- council/contact-city-council
Saratoga https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/Report-a-Concern- 6/Fix-It-Form-45
Sunnyvale https://sunnyvale.dynamics365portals.us/neighborhood- complaints/
295

Page 18 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE

REFERENCES
Bibliography
AMS Consulting. “Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program (P-TAP) Round 25, 2024/2025 Pavement Management Report.” March 21, 2025.
(https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/53950/Updated-Morgan-Hill- PTAP-25-Rev01-for-Web). Accessed April 16, 2026.

Cal. Gov. Code § 810 et seq.

Cal. Gov. Code § 913 et seq.

California Department of Transportation. “California Road Data 2024.” November 2025. (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-innovation-system- information/documents/hpms/hpms-2024-prd-a11y.pdf). Accessed April 28, 2026.

California Department of Transportation. “Submit Damage Claim.” n.d. (https://dot.ca.gov/ online-services/submit-damage-claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Cupertino. “Claim Form.” September 2022.
(https://cupertinoca.prelive.opencities.com/files/assets/city/v/1/your- city/documents/claim-form-rev-102523.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026.

City of Gilroy. “How to File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.cityofgilroy.org/966/How-to-File-a- Claim). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Milpitas. “Helpful Links.” n.d. (https://www.milpitas.gov/188/Helpful-Links). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Morgan Hill. “Claim for Damages Form.” n.d. (https://www.morganhill.ca.gov/1411/ Claim-for-Damages-Form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Mountain View. “Claim Form.” n.d. (https://www.mountainview.gov/our-city/ departments/city-attorneys-office/claim-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Mountain View. “GIS/Mapping Portal, Map Road Centerline” July 18, 2019. (https://data-mountainview.opendata.arcgis.com/search?q=roads). Accessed April 28, 2026.
296

Page 19 of 20 ends

POTHOLE DAMAGE
City of Palo Alto. “Submit a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.paloalto.gov/ Departments/City-Attorney/Submit-a-Claim-Against-the-City). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of San José. “File Claim Against City Form.” n.d. (https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/appointees/city-clerk/forms-filings/file-claim-against-city-form). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of San José. “Streets.” August 27, 2020. (https://gisdata- csj.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/CSJ::streets/about). Accessed April 16, 2026.

City of Santa Clara. “Frequently Asked Questions.” July 23, 2015. (https://www.santaclaraca.gov/our-city/departments-a-f/city-attorney-s-office/frequently- asked-questions). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Saratoga. “Claims Against Saratoga.” n.d. (https://www.saratoga.ca.us/FormCenter/ Claims-Form-37/Claims-Against-Saratoga-102). Accessed April 15, 2026.

City of Sunnyvale. “File a Claim Against the City.” n.d. (https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/your- government/city-clerk/file-a-claim-against-the-city). Accessed April 15, 2026.

County of Santa Clara. “File a claim of loss against the County.” n.d. (https://cob.santaclaracounty.gov/services/file-claim-loss-against-county). Accessed April 15, 2026.

Feingold, Lindsey and Manthey, Grace. “Less than 4% of Bay Area Caltrans pothole, other damage claims approved in recent years: data.” KGO-TV. January 25, 2024. (https:// abc7news.com/post/bay-area-potholes-caltrans-claims-car-damages/14359988/).

Accessed April 14, 2026.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Pavement Conditions of Bay Area Jurisdictions 2024.” January 5, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/digital-library/5099739-pavement-condition- bay-area-jurisdictions-2024). Accessed April 15, 2026.

Town of Los Gatos. “File a Claim.” n.d. (https://www.losgatosca.gov/2422/File-a-Claim).

Accessed April 15, 2026.

Watts, Julie and Manthey, Grace. “California freeways with the most potholes and car damage claims.” CBS News California. May 23, 2024.
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/california-freeways-most-potholes-damage-claims/).

Accessed April 14, 2026.
297

Page 20 of 20 ends

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
298
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206277, Version: 1
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report - VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II
Approve the City's response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report: VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II (Attachment 1 to Council Report).

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
299

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

City Attorney’s Office

TITLE: Response to Santa Clara County Civil
Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management
and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley
Phase II

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II. (Attachment 1 to the Council report).

BACKGROUND

The City received a copy of Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury’s final report, entitled “ VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.” on June 1 7, 202 6 (hereinafter referred to as the “Civil Grand Jury Report” or the “Report”).

The focus of the Civil Grand Jury Report is the San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“BART”) and Valley Transportation Authority (“VTA”) joint project to extend BART into downtown San Jose (“BART Silicon Valley Phase II”). The Civil Grand Jury investigated the role of the VTA Board, its Oversight Committee, its staff and officials in the management and oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.

In the Report, the Grand Jury identified financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues it determined the VTA should address. The investigation included a review of prior audits of VTA’s governance structure. The Grand Jury highlighted concerns abo ut the level of knowledge and decision-making ability of the full VTA board. The City has been asked to respond to findings and recommendations regarding adherence to the VTA Administrative Code in the selection of VTA Board members and the selection process.

300
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 5 ends

Per the VTA Administrative Code, appointing agencies appoint VTA Board members to two -year terms by appointing agencies. The appointing agencies are divided into six groups.

The Grand Jury also focuses on the composition and continuity of the VTA Board. Mountain View is part of Appointing Authority Group 2, together with Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto.

VTA Appointing Authority Groups:

Group 1 (City of San Jose) San Jose
Group 2 (Northern Cities) Mountain View, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Palo Alto
Group 3 (West Valley Cities) Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga
Group 4 (South County & Northeast Cities) Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, and unincorporated San Martin
Group 5 (County Board) Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors

The report concludes that Groups 2 through 5 often fail to follow VTA Administrative Code guidance encouraging appointment of individuals with transportation expertise and reappointment of directors to consecutive terms. It also criticizes the differing ap pointment processes used by these groups, connecting short tenures and inconsistent selection practices to a broader lack of Board expertise and institutional continuity. The grand Jury also raised the issue of transparency regarding the selection process.

Mountain View is required to respond only to Findings and Recommendations 6 and 7, rather than to the Grand Jury’s broader criticisms of the project. Recommendation 6 asks Groups 2 through 5 to certify that they will follow the Administrative Code guidance concerning transportation expertise and consecutive terms. Recommendation 7 asks the cities in Groups 2 through 5 to agree upon a uniform process for making VTA Board appointments; both recommendations contemplate implementation by December 31, 2026.

Page 3 of 5 ends

unwarranted or unreasonable, with an explanation.

Table 1: Summary of City Responses
to Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations

Finding/
Recommendation Summary
City
Response
Response
Summary
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”.

Disagree. The Cities of Group 2
adopted bylaws in 2021
governing the appointment
of their VTA Board
Representative to ensure
that representatives possess
transportation knowledge
and experience. Group 2
Cities representatives are
chosen based recent VTA
experience, attendance
record, transportation policy
credentials, and/or working
knowledge of the VTA.

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.

Implemented Since 2021 Cities of Group 2
have appointed VTA Board
Representatives to ensure
that representatives possess
transportation knowledge
and experience. Group 2
Cities representatives are
chosen based on recent VTA
experience, attendance
record, transportation policy
credentials, and/or working
knowledge of the VTA. The
current Group 2
Representative has prior
VTA Board experience.
302
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026

Page 4 of 5 ends

Finding 7.

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

Agree. Group 2 Cities, including
Mountain View, remain
committed to improving VTA
efficiency and services and
will consider ways the
bylaws can be amended to
improve VTA service.

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.

This recommendation
requires further analysis.

Group 2 Cities have adopted
bylaws consistent with the
VTA Administrative Code
that govern the process for
making appointments. The
City of Mountain View is
willing to meet with the
other Appointing Authority
Groups to consider an
uniform process for making
Board appointments by
December 31, 2026.

However, at this juncture it
is not known whether a
uniform process can be
crafted for all of the
Appointing Authority Groups
or be accomplished within
the designated time frame.

Upon approval by Council, the City’s detailed response will be transmitted to the Presiding Judge on or before September 15, 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT

Council’s approval of the City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury report will have no fiscal impact.

LEVINE ACT

California Government Code Section 84308 (also known as the Levine Act) prohibits city officials from participating in any proceeding involving a “license, permit, or other entitlement for use” if the official has received a campaign contribution exceeding $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant within the last 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent 303
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026

Page 5 of 5 ends

financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to- play-limits-and-prohibitions.html

Please see below for information about whether the recommended action for this agenda item is subject to or exempt from the Levine Act.

EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
☒ General policy and legislative actions

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide other input regarding the City’s response to the Report’s findings and recommendations.

2. Do not approve City’s response to the Report’s finding and recommendations.

3. Provide other direction.

PUBLIC NOTICING—Agenda posting

Prepared by:

Jannie L. Quinn
Interim City Attorney

Mitesh Bhakta
Senior Assistant City Attorney

Approved by:

Kimbra McCarthy
City Manager

35249v2

Attachments: 1. Response to Civil Grand Jury Report

2. Civil Grand Jury Report

3. Group 2 Bylaws

304
City Manager’s Office
DAT
E: September 9, 2026
TO:

The Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
FR
OM: Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
SUB
JECT: Response to 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” The City of Mountain View hereby respectfully submits its response to the Response to 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled “ VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” pursuant to California Penal Code §§ 933 and 933.05.

Civ
il Grand Jury Finding 6:

VT
A 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”.

Cit
y of Mountain View Response to Finding 6:

Th
e Cities of Group 2 share the Grand Jury’s concerns regarding the BART project , however can only respond to Findings and Recommendations 6 and 7. The Cities of Group 2 disagree with the Grand Jury’s findings. Group 2 Cities have adopted bylaws governing the appointment of the VTA Group 2 Board Representative, and strive to select representatives with transportation experience and knowledge by selecting individuals who have two or more of the following qualifications: (1) at least one year’s service on the VTA Board within the last 4 years; (2) at least one year’s service on a policy advisory body that reports directly to the VTA Board (Policy Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Board, the Citizens Advisory Committee) and has a minimum 80% attendance record; (3) any other transportation policy credential deemed relevant by the majority of the Working Group as meeting the intent of the experience requirement within the last 4 years; and (4) demonstrates working knowledge of the VTA.

Attachment 1
305
City of Mountain View Response to 2026
Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report
September 9, 2026

Page 2 of 2 ends

Civil Grand Jury 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.

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 6:

Civil Grand Jury Finding 7:

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

City of Mountain View Response to Finding 7:

The Cities of Group 2 agree with this Finding.

Civil Grand Jury Recommendation 7:

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

City of Mountain View Response to Recommendation 7:

This recommendation requires further analysis. Group 2 Cities have adopted bylaws consistent with the VTA Administrative Code governing the process for making appointments. The City of Mountain View is willing to meet with the other Appointing Authority Groups to consider a uniform process for making Board appointments by December 31, 2026. However, at this juncture it is not known whether a uniform process can be crafted for all of the Appointing Authority Groups or be accomplished within the designated time frame.

306
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, S AN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795

G R A N D J U R Y

S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
J
une 17, 2026
C
ity of Mountain View
c/o Ms. Heather Glaser, City Clerk
500 Castro Street, 3rd Floor
Mountain View, California 94041
Se
nt via email: [email protected]
D
ear Ms. Glaser,
T
he 2025-26 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II.

California Penal Code section 933(c) requires that a governing body of the particular public agency or department that has been the subject of a Grand Jury final report shall respond within 90 days to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on the findings and recommendations pertaining to matters under the control of the governing body. California Penal Code section 933.05 contains guidelines for responses to Grand Jury findings and recommendations and is attached to this transmission.

Please note:

1. As stated in Penal Code section 933.05(a), attached, you are required to "Agree" or "Disagree" with each applicable Finding: 6 and 7. If you disagree, in whole or part, you must include an explanation of the reasons you disagree.

2. A
s stated in Penal Code section 933.05(b), attached, you are required to respond with one of four possible actions to each applicable Recommendation: 6 and 7.

Your comments are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, 191 North First Street, San José, CA 95113, no later than Tuesday, September 15, 2026. You may transmit these via email to [email protected]. Copies of all responses shall be placed on file with the Clerk of the Court.

If you have any questions, please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].

S
incerely,
D
inesh Ramde
Foreperson
2025-2026 Civil Grand Jury
E
nclosures
cc: Kimbra McCarthy, City Manager
Kavita Narayan, Chief Assistant County Counsel, County of Santa Clara Attachment 2
307
State of California

PENAL CODE
Section 933.05
933.05. (a)  For purposes of subdi vision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury finding, the responding person or entity shall indicate one of the following:
(1)  The respondent agrees with the finding.
(2)  The respondent disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response shall specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and shall include an explanation of the reasons therefor.
(b)  For purposes of subdi vision (b) of Section 933, as to each grand jury recommendation, the responding person or entity shall report one of the follo wing actions:
(1)  The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary re garding the implemented action.
(2)  The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation.
(3)  The recommendation requires further analysis, with an e xplanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study , and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the officer or head of the agenc y or department being investigated or reviewed, including the go verning body of the public agenc y when applicable. This timeframe shall not exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.
(4)  The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not w arranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.
(c)  However, if a finding or recommendation of the grand jury addresses budgetary or personnel matters of a county agency or department headed by an elected officer, both the agenc y or department head and the board of supervisors shall respond if requested by the grand jury, but the response of the board of supervisors shall address only those budgetary or personnel matters o ver which it has some decisionmaking authority. The response of the elected agenc y or department head shall address all aspects of the findings or recommendations affecting his or her agency or department. (d)  A grand jury may request a subject person or entity to come before the grand jury for the purpose of reading and discussing the findings of the grand jury report that relates to that person or entity in order to verify the accuracy of the findings prior to their release.
(e)  During an in vestigation, the grand jury shall meet with the subject of that investigation re garding the in vestigation, unless the court, either on its o wn determination or upon request of the foreperson of the grand jury , determines that such a meeting would be detrimental.
308
(f)  A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department, or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report.
(Amended by Stats. 1997, Ch. 443, Sec. 5. Effective January 1, 1998.) 309
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026
310

Page 1 of 40 ends

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................... 3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................... 7 INVESTIGATION........................................................................................................................ 8 Financial Risks .......................................................................................................................... 8 Oversight Concerns ................................................................................................................ 13 Coordination with BART ....................................................................................................... 21 Board Experience and Continuity......................................................................................... 22 Public Communication ........................................................................................................... 25 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 27 REQUIRED RESPONSES......................................................................................................... 31 APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter ............................................................................. 32 CONFLICTS ............................................................................................................................... 34 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................ 34 311

Page 2 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

This report identifies financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues that VTA must address to earn the public’s trust in delivering the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon Valley and to secure support for future sales tax measures.

312

Page 3 of 40 ends

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

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

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

By contract with BART, VTA is solely responsible for paying the capital and net operating costs of extending commuter rail service into Santa Clara County ( BART and VTA, Comprehensive Agreement, 2001). Although the County was not included in the legislation establishing BART , voters of Santa Clara County supported three sales tax measures which provided funds to plan, build, and operate the extension of BART to Santa Clara County. Today, 1.625% of sales tax collected in Santa Clara County supports VTA and other local jurisdictions (see Table 1). If a currently proposed measure qualifies for the ballot, in November 2026, voters will decide whether to approve an additional 0.5% sales tax to fund local transit , which would increase the County’s base sales tax rate from the current 9.75% to 10.25%.
313

Page 4 of 40 ends

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

Page 3 ends

Financial-Report-ACRF-FY-2024.pdf).

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

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

The second phase consists of a six-mile, four-station extension from Berryessa through downtown San José to the City of Santa Clara. For this phase, VTA is targeting completion by 2037. As a condition of federal funding, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) has appointed a Project Management Oversight Consultant (PMOC). The PMOC uses a more conservative schedule and forecasts completion in 2039 (AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC, 2026). 314

Page 5 of 40 ends

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

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

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

VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summe r 2025). To reduce project costs , VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;
315

Page 6 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a 2001 Agreement, VTA and BART agreed to cooperate in the project’s planning, design, and construction. They established a series of interagency committees, the latest of which is the Joint VTA/BART Working Committee , which depending on the availability of its members , is scheduled to meet quarterly . BART staff members have been assigned to co- locate with VTA engineers to participate in the preparation and review of BSV II designs in accordance with the agreed Project Design Criteria Manual . According to the BART Inspector General, VTA has reimbursed BART $19.2 million through 2025 for the cost of the assigned employees (BART, December 19, 2025). In August 2025, the BART assistant general manager, operations, rejected some of VTA’s proposed design changes and scope reductions and complained about inadequate coordination (see Appendix A). The BART inspector general issued a report in December 2025 that also raised concerns about inadequate coordination and criticized VTA’s communication with BART officials (Id.).
316

Page 7 of 40 ends

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

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

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury conducted 17 interviews of officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California. The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section, as well as document s requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
317

Page 8 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Risk of Increased Costs of Labor and Materials
The FTA fiscal year 2025 New Starts Financial Assessment report for BSVII stated the VTA inflation estimate was optimistic. If labor and material costs were to rise above those estimated in VTA’s budget, it could lead to funding shortfalls (FTA, 2024). 318

Page 9 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

To close current and potential future funding gaps, VTA could issue bonds to be repaid fro m Measure B sales tax revenue. However, this would reduce the revenue available for other voter- approved projects. Every dollar spent on debt service for BSVII is a dollar that cannot be spent on 319

Page 10 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

In February 2026, the California legislature appropriated $590 million from the same TIRCP account to provide a 12 -year loan to MTC. These loan proceeds will be made available to San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, AC Transit, BART , and Caltrain to help address a greater need for public transit subsidies. The agencies are required to repay the loan over 12 years (MTC, 2026).
320

Page 11 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil Grand Jury also reviewed the forecasts for the first phase of the project, which included the new Milpitas and Berryessa stations. For January 2026, ridership was 86% below estimates (see Table 2).
321

Page 12 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VTA staff is evaluating different approaches to contracting the construction work. Alternatives are being evaluated for the following reasons : 1) to identify segments of work that could be bid out separately to accelerate the overall schedule; and 2) to identify segments for which there is a greater likelihood of strong competitive bids. Fo r each contract, the cash outflows will be specified and must be carefully matched with the cash inflows.
322

Page 13 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

At its meeting on January 15, 2026, the Oversight Committee adopted what it called a revised charter intended to clarify the lines of communication and relationships among the auditor general, SME, VTA staff, and Oversight Committee (VTA, January 15, 2026). Members of the Oversight Committee had expressed concern about a perceived lack of coordination between VTA staff and the SME. Nonetheless, the question remains: Is the role of an SME to provide the Board with an independent review of VTA staff recommendations as originally intended, or is it to help VTA staff improve their recommendations? Notably, in the following excerpt, the Charter requires the 323

Page 14 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the Oversight Committee often fails to provide guidance on issues critical to future strategic direction.
324

Page 15 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Civil Grand Jury identified three examples of policy issues for which guidance was needed but delivered inadequately. One of the examples, the single-bore versus twin-bore issue, illustrates both the failure of the committee to make recommendations and the VTA staff’s failure to follow through on committee requests in a timely manner.
325

Page 16 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

BART initially opposed the single-bore tunnel approach because it differed from its existing, smaller twin -bore tunnels. However, the BART inspector general reported that in the spirit of 326

Page 17 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the O versight C ommittee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. O n 327

Page 18 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More importantly, neither the auditor g eneral nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:
328

Page 19 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Since the Oversight C ommittee meeting on October 9, 2025, committe e members have stressed the need for an alternative strategy in the event the federal government delays or denies the FFGA 329

Page 20 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

At the June 2025 public Board meeting, the auditor general stated that he sometimes feels like a referee among the analyses provided by VTA staff, the SME, the public, and the PMOC. However, the VTA Board is the final arbiter, not the auditor general. 330

Page 21 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus t win-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept eval uated in the f inal environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies:

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

In August 2025, the lack of communication and cooperation was publicly exposed when a BART official wrote a letter to VTA (Appendix A) specifically objecting to the consideration of reducing 331

Page 22 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups as detailed in Table 3. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by VTA Administrative Code , which states “Appointing A uthorities are strongly encouraged, where possible, to: (1) appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation; (2) ensure that there is sufficient remaining time in the elected official’ s term of office to allow full completion of their term as a Director; and (3) reappoint representatives to consecutive terms” (VTA Administrative Code § 2-13).
332

Page 23 of 40 ends

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

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

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

More recently, a critical 2024 report from the State Auditor regarding VTA’s project management and financial oversight noted the following weaknesses:
333

Page 24 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

Lengthening terms would require a change to VTA’s enabling legislation. The findings of the State and VTA’s own auditors’ governance reform recommendations remain unchanged. 334

Page 25 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

In addition, the Civil Grand Jury found the site’s search function inadequate for locating specific details or addressing questions not covered in the FAQ, and it often returned results for irrelevant materials. The website would be more user-friendly if VTA incorporated a more robust search engine.
335

Page 26 of 40 ends

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

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

Based on its investigation, the Civil Grand Jury concludes:
• There is no realistic plan to deal with foreseeable financial risks, including significant uncertainty about BSVII’s construction and operating costs , reliance on expiring voter - approved sales tax measures , uncertain federal government support, cash flow, and declining ridership.
• When considering major scope and design decisions, the Oversight Committee and the VTA Board do not take into account the ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will be borne by VTA and will require voter approval of subsequent sales tax measures. • The Oversight Committee exercises its oversight responsibility by requiring monthly progress reports and by questioning VT A project staff , but when it declines to make recommendations to the VTA Board, it fails in its responsibility to provide guidance on critical policy issues.
• The Oversight Committee receives valuable input from multiple sources but does not share this information with the VTA Board in the form of helpful reports that synthesize the different perspectives of VTA staff, the Subject Matter Expert, the auditor general, the Project Management Oversight Consultant, and the public. • The VTA Board and the Oversight Committee have failed to hold VTA staff accountable for missing deadlines to provide analysis and information requested by members of the Oversight Committee.
• There is a lack of meaningful communication and cooperation between BART and VTA officials, which undermines public confidence.
• VTA’s failure to adopt governance reform recommendations from prior Civil Grand Jury reports and independent audits has led to a lack of Board member continuity and expertise, weakening the Board’s ability to successfully oversee the BSVII project. 336

Page 27 of 40 ends

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 4
Project management does not consistently report the operating and maintenance cost implications of design and construction decisions to the Oversight Committee or the Board. 337

Page 28 of 40 ends

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 7
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
338

Page 29 of 40 ends

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

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

Recommendation 9
VTA should formally adopt a revised Charter for the Oversight Committee , setting the Board’s expectations on the following issues:
• Defining the role of the auditor general to no longer require him to supervise the presentations by VTA staff to the Oversight Committee;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to report regularly to the Board on the independent analyses of costs, risks , and schedule by the PMOC and any SMEs; and to provide the Oversight Committee’s synthesis of those analyses with recommendations to resolve conflicts when necessary;
• The responsibility of the Oversight Committee to consider and present its recommendations before the Board considers major decisions such as scope of the project, contracting, risk management, budgeting, and funding strategy; 339

Page 30 of 40 ends

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.
340

Page 31 of 40 ends

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

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

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
VTA Board of Directors 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10 County of Santa Clara, Board of Supervisors 6 6
The City of Campbell, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Cupertino, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Gilroy, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Los Altos, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Altos Hills, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The Town of Los Gatos, Town Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Milpitas, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Monte Sereno, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Morgan Hill, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Mountain View, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Palo Alto, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of San José, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Santa Clara, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Saratoga, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
The City of Sunnyvale, City Council 6, 7 6, 7
341

Page 32 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II APPENDIX A: BART Management Letter
342

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

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

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

BART SILICON VALLEY

PHASE II (BSV I)
BART remai ns fully committed to the successful del ivery of this critical regional investment.

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

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

Page 33 of 40 ends

343

Page 34 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

AtkinsRéalis USA Holdings LLC. “Project Monitoring Report.” March 9, 2026. (https://vtabart.org/transparency-commitment/#docaccess- 8dd20a14312d4f35dd29658c7e4d5f55). Accessed May 1, 2026.

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

California State Transportation Agency. “Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program.” n.d. (https://calsta.ca.gov/subject-areas/transit-intercity-rail-capital-prog). Accessed May 12, 2026.
344

Page 35 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 22, 2026.

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

Metropolitan Transportation Commission. “Agreement Reached on Loan for Bay Area Transit Agencies.” January 30, 2026. (https://mtc.ca.gov/news/agreement-reached-loan-bay-area- transit-
agencies#:~:text=Because%20many%20transit%20capital%20projects,funds%20remaine d%20in%20state%20accounts.). Accessed April 28, 2026
Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara. “County Counsel’s Impartial Analysis of Measure B.” 2016. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2025- 08/2016%20Measure%20B%20Ballot.pdf). Accessed April 29, 2026. 345

Page 36 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.
346

Page 37 of 40 ends

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 23, 2026.

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

6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

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

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.
347

Page 38 of 40 ends

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

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

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

Accessed May 13, 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancels- funding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026. 348

Page 39 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transit- project-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026. 349

Page 40 of 40 ends

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson
350
Resolution No 2022-01
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE GROUP 2 CITIES WORKING GROUP OF THE VTA POLICY

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ADOPTING REVISED BY-LAWS
WHEREAS, the members of the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group created a set of by-laws to govern itself and selection of its VTA Board representative on November 18, 2011; and WHEREAS, on November 3, 2015, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group adopted Resolution No. 2015-01 amending the by-laws; and
WHEREAS, on October 30, 2018, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group adopted Resolution No. 2018-01 amending the by-laws; and
WHEREAS, in December 2021, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group reviewed said by-laws as revised in 2018 and determined amendments were needed in order for the Group 2 to be best represented at the VTA Board; and
WHEREAS, the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group as a majority, has agreed with the recommended changes and deems the amended by-laws are in the best interest of each of the Cities they represent; and
WHEREAS, the Working Group representatives of Group 2 Cities have ratified the Working Group’s recommended changes;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Group 2 Cities Working Group does hereby adopt the revised by-laws shown in Exhibit A on December 15, 2021 North County Cities Group” (aka Group 2 Cities)
Procedure for Appointment of Board Member Representation and Expectations of the Board Member
Background: The VTA Board of Directors sets VTA policy. The Board has 18 members and ex- officio members, all of whom are elected officials appointed to serve on the Board by the jurisdictions they represent. Fifteen Directors are city council members and three are County Supervisors. Twelve Directors serve as voting members and there are six Directors who serve as alternates. Group 2 Cities (aka North County Cities) has one voting member of the Board and one alternate.
351

Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A

The purpose of this document is to define the procedures for appointing the Group 2 Cities Board Member and Alternate and to provide expectation of the appointees as it relates to Group 2.

Membership: The Group 2 Cities Working Group is composed of the VTA Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) members and their alternates who represent the cities of Mountain View, Palo Alto, Los Altos, and Los Altos Hills, as well as the Group 2 VTA board member and Group 2 VTA Board alternate. Should the PAC position for any of these cities be vacant at the time of election, that city council may appoint a councilmember to participate in the Working Group.

Voting Membership: PAC members who represent the Group 2 cities shall be the voting members of the working group. Should the PAC member for any city be unavailable at the time of the election, but the PAC Alternate is available, the Alternate may vote on behalf of their city.

Should the PAC and Alternate position for any of these cities be vacant at the time of the election, that city council may appoint a councilmember to participate in the election.

Appointment of VTA Board Member

VTA Board member’s term is a for two years with a maximum of two consecutive terms in Group

2. The appointment of the Group 2 VTA Board member is made through an election process that takes place in December of even years or the following January or when needed due to a vacancy, and is guided by a nomination rotation that gives opportunity to the next city in the rotation.

City Rotation: Nominations may rotate in the prescribed order rotation so as to give each city an opportunity to have a representative serve at the VTA Board level or unless voted on by the Working Group voting members to amend rotation. If a city is skipped over in the rotation, that city’s City Council must request or approve the change in the rotation. The order shall be:

Mountain View
Los Altos Hills
Palo Alto
Los Altos and so on.

Qualification and Consideration of the Nominees: Nominees must be incumbent city councilmembers who will not face a term limit1 before the end of the VTA Board term under consideration.

1 Term limit refers to the statutory limit on the number of years of consecutive terms an official may serve in their elected capacity.
352

Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A

In order to satisfy the enabling legislation’s requirement that “the appointing powers shall appoint individuals who have expertise, experience, or knowledge to transportation issues,” each nominee must meet at least 2 of the following criteria:

1. At least one year’s service on the VTA Board within the last 4 years.

2. At least one year’s service on a policy advisory body that reports directly to the VTA Board (Policy Advisory Committee, Policy Advisory Board, the Citizens Advisory Committee) and has a minimum 80% attendance record.

3. Any other transportation policy credential deemed relevant by the majority of the Working Group as meeting the intent of the experience requirement within the last 4 years.

4. Demonstrate working knowledge of VTA.

A VTA Board member may not serve simultaneously on the PAC in any capacity, but an Alternate member may simultaneously serve on the PAC.

Re-election: By November of the election year, the current Board member or Alternate Board member shall notify the working group of whether they intend to seek a second 2-year term. If the member or alternate eligible to complete the upcoming board term, then that person will be considered the nominee. If the sitting Board member or Alternate is not eligible or does not wish to seek a second term, then the nominees shall be provided as described below.

Board Member Nomination Process: The City Council of the PAC member whose turn it is to nominate (“nominating city”) may nominate up to two of its qualified councilmembers for the VTA Board. The nominees can be put forth simultaneously or serially (in the event that the first nominee is not elected). A nominating city with no qualified councilmember may not make a nomination. The nominating city also has the option of declining to nominate any of its councilmembers. In the case of no eligible candidates or the nominating city declines to make a nomination, the option to nominate shall pass to the next city in the rotation. The nominating city shall notify the group of whether it intends to nominate a candidate by November 1 of the election year. The choice of who to nominate will be at the discretion of the nominating city.

Nominees must be affirmed by a majority of the nominating city’s Council. Each city will have the opportunity to put forth two nominees for consideration. If neither succeeds, then the nomination process shall pass to the next city in order.

Alternate Board Member Nomination Process: Alternate Board members may be put forth by any city provided the person meets the qualifications noted above and the Alternate Board member does not come from the same city as the Board Member.

The Working Group shall give consideration to selecting someone from the city next in the rotation. It is desirable that in addition to the qualifications above that the Alternate be eligible to become the Board Member at a future election.
353

Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A

Meeting of the Working Group for Purpose of Election: A meeting of the Group 2 membership shall be convened for the purpose of electing/re-electing the VTA Board member and Alternate.

This shall be a noticed meeting open to the public.

Quorum: Representatives from at least three of the Group 2 cities must be present in order for an election to proceed.

Presentations: Nominees will be given equal opportunities to present arguments for their election during the meeting and before the election is held. The length of time per nominee will be three minutes.

Election Process: Election to the Board shall be accomplished by a show of hands of the voting members. Each city will have one vote. A majority vote constitutes a successful election.

The group will first vote on any member seeking a second term. If re-election is successful, then the group shall move on to selecting an Alternate. If unsuccessful, the group shall consider the nominees from the nominating city. Voting shall continue on each proposed nominee until a Board member and Alternate are selected.

Vacancies: Should the Board member resign or cease to be a city councilmember, that seat shall be declared vacant. The seat shall remain with the current city and be filled by a selection of the current city council. That person will serve the remainder of the existing term.

Expectations of the VTA Board Member

The VTA Board member shall keep the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group apprised of items coming before the VTA Board, facilitate communications with the Working Group, and help build consensus with respect to policy matters the Working Group determines to be relevant to the Member Agency or VTA. The VTA Board member is the Chairperson of Group 2 Cities.

Amendments

This document may be amended by a resolution approved by a majority of the VTA Group 2 Cities Working Group. A meeting of the North County Board and PAC members shall be convened as necessary in order to evaluate the fairness of the selection process and the quality of the Board members.

AMENDED December 15, 2021 by:

Lynette Lee Eng, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos 354

Resolution No 2022-01 Exhibit A

George Tyson, Los Altos Hills City Councilmember representing Los Altos Hills Ellen Kamei, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Lydia Kou, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto

AMENDED October 30, 2018 by:

Lynette Eng, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos Lenny Siegel, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Liz Kniss, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto

AMENDED November 3, 2015 by:

Mary Prochnow, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos John Harpootlian, Los Altos Hills City Councilmember representing Los Altos Hills John McAlister, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Liz Kniss, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto

ADOPTED November 28, 2011 by:

Megan Satterlee, Los Altos City Councilmember representing Los Altos Rich Larsen, Los Altos Hills City Councilmember representing Los Altos Hills John Inks, Mountain View City Councilmember representing Mountain View Gail Price, Palo Alto City Councilmember representing Palo Alto

355
City of Mountain View
Legislation Text

CITY HALL
500 CASTRO STREET
File #: 206279, Version: 1
Authorize Professional Services Agreement for Community Engagement and Tree Planting Services Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a professional services agreement with Canopy, a California nonprofit organization (Entity No. 2373157), for community engagement and tree planting services, in an amount not to exceed $508,700.

City of Mountain View Printed on 9/3/2026Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™
356

DATE:

September 8, 2026
CATEGORY:

Consent
DEPT.:

Community Services Department

TITLE: Authorize Professional Services
Agreement for Community Engagement
and Tree Planting Services

RECOMMENDATION

Authorize the City Manager or designee to execute a professional services agreement with Canopy, a California nonprofit organization (Entity No. 2373157), for community engagement and tree planting services, in an amount not to exceed $508,700.

BACKGROUND

The City has contracted with Canopy, a nonprofit urban forestry organization, since Fiscal Year 2019-20 to provide community -based tree planting, education, volunteer engagement, staff training, and outreach that supports the preservation and enhancement of Mountain View’s urban forest.

On September 9, 2025 , the Council authorized the City Manager or designee to execute a tree mitigation agreement with Google LLC to support additional urban forestry efforts throughout the City. Funding received from Google was deposited into the Tree Mitigation Fund, which funds tree planting and canopy enhancement. On November 18, 2025, the additional funding from Google was appropriated in the Tree Mitigation Fund, and subsequently used to amend Canopy’s agreement to include additional community tree planting events in FY25 -26. Throughout FY25- 26, Canopy planted a total of 203 trees across 23 public parks and spaces.

On June 23, 2026, the Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2026 -27 City Budget, which included $125,000 from the General Operating Fund and $200,000 from the Tree Mitigation Fund to continue and expand Canopy’s tree planting services.

ANALYSIS

For Fiscal Year 2026-27, the City wishes to enter into a new annual agreement with Canopy. The proposed agreement expands upon Canopy’s ongoing community engagement, education, and tree planting services to increase tree planting and stewardship activities throughout the City.

The expanded scope will support the City’s goals for enhancing and diversifying the urban forest, 357
Authorize Professional Services Agreement for
Community Engagement and Tree Planting Services
September 8, 2026

Page 2 of 4 ends

Mountain View City CouncilSeptember 8, 2026

Mountain View City Council
September 8, 2026