City Council
Staff Report
From: City Attorney
Report Type: CONSENT CALENDAR
Lead Department: City Attorney
Meeting Date: September 9, 2026
Report #:2606-6489
TITLE
Approval of Response to Civil Grand Jury Report “VTA‘s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”; CEQA Status: Not a Project
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the following response to the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report entitled, “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”.
BACKGROUND
On June 17, 2026, the Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report entitled “VTA‘s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”(“BSVII”). The 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 for this report.
The only findings and recommendations relevant to the City of Palo Alto relate to the process for appointing VTA Board members. VTA Board members are appointed to two-year terms by appointing agencies, organized into six groups. Appointing agency groups are established and defined by the VTA Administrative Code. The Administrative Code encourages, but does not require, the agency groups 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, § 2-14.) The City of Palo Alto is a member of Appointing Agency Group 2, along with the cities of Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, and Mountain View. The Group 2 Bylaws (Attachment B, Exhibit 1) define the process for appointing the Group 2 representative to the VTA Board and incorporate the requirements of VTA Administrative Code section 2-14 into the appointment process, including (1) minimum requirements for transportation-related experience and (2) a requirement that any eligible sitting Board Member or alternate be appointed to a second term after serving their first term.
A copy of the Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
The City’s detailed response to the Grand Jury Report findings and recommendations are included in Attachment B. There are two findings that apply to City of Palo Alto. Out of the two findings, the City agrees with one and disagrees with one. The findings and the City’s responses are summarized below.
Summary of Findings and City Response:
Civil Grand Jury Finding 6: VTA Administrative Code
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code (Section 2-14) admonitions to “appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation” and to “reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.” City of Palo Alto Response to Finding 6:
The City of Palo Alto disagrees with Finding 6, to the extent this finding applies to the City of Palo Alto and VTA Board Group 2. Group 2 Cities Working Group Resolution No. 2022-01 (enclosed herewith) governs the appointment of the Group 2 representative to the VTA Board.
The Resolution incorporates the requirements of VTA Administrative Code section 2-14 into the appointment process, including (1) requirements for transportation-related experience and (2) a requirement that any eligible sitting Board Member or alternate be appointed to a second term after serving their first term. The Resolution also requires that appointment of the Board Member and alternate shall take place at a noticed meeting open to the public.
The last two Group 2 representatives (a Palo Alto Councilmember and Los Altos Councilmember) have both had relevant transportation experience, including local and regional experience with transportation issues and/or service on the VTA Policy Advisory Committee.
The Palo Alto Councilmember continues to serve as an ex officio member of the VTA Board by virtue of his role as the Cities Association of Santa Clara County City Selection Committee representative to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. In addition, both recent Group 2 appointees either served two terms on the VTA Board or are expected to do so, consistent with Resolution No. 2022-01.
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.
City of Palo Alto Response to Recommendation 6:
The City of Palo Alto has already implemented this recommendation to the extent it applies to the City and other Group 2 cities. Group 2 Cities Working Group Resolution No. 2022-01 complies with VTA Administrative Code section 2-14. Information regarding the two most recent Group 2 appointees to the VTA Board is provided in the City’s response to Finding No. 6.
No further report to the VTA Board is required.
Civil Grand Jury Finding 7: Board Appointments
VTA Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 have different processes for making Board appointments.
City of Palo Alto Response to Finding 7:
The City of Palo Alto agrees with this finding. The VTA Administrative Code allows members of VTA Board Groups 2 through 5 to determine the process for appointing their respective Board members. The Administrative Code allows each group to have a different process. While Palo Alto lacks first-hand knowledge of the appointment processes for Groups 3 through 5, publicly available sources indicate that not all of the groups use the same process that Palo Alto and other Group 2 cities use to appoint their VTA Board members.
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.
City of Palo Alto Response to Recommendation 7:
This recommendation will not be implemented by the City of Palo Alto, because Palo Alto does not have authority over the VTA or other VTA members. However, Palo Alto and other Group 2 cities currently comply with VTA Administrative Code section 2-14. The City of Palo Alto remains open to discussing a uniform process for making Board appointments, consistent with the VTA Administrative Code.
FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact resulting from this report.
STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
The City Attorney’s Office worked with City Manager’s Office to discuss an appropriate response.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This response to the Civil Grand Jury Report is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Civil Grand Jury Report
Attachment B: City of Palo Alto Civil Grand Jury Response Draft APPROVED BY:
Christopher Jensen, City Attorney