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”).
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 15, 2026.
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.
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026
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.
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 Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026
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.
Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026
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 Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report— VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II September 8, 2026
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