City Council and Authorities Concurrent
September 1, 2026

Hybrid Meeting
City Hall Council Chambers/Virtual
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
5:30 PMTuesday, September 1, 2026

City of Santa Clara
Meeting Agenda
Call and Notice of Special Meeting of the
City Council
Councilmember Chahal will be participating remotely from the following location:
627 Sector 11 Panchkula (HR) India
The City of Santa Clara is conducting City Council meetings in a hybrid manner (in-person and continues to have methods for the public to participate remotely). • Via Zoom:
o https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306
Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306
o Phone 1(669) 900-6833
How to Submit Written Public Comment Before City Council Meeting:

Agendas, Staff Reports and some associated documents for City Council items may be viewed on the Internet at https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx All public records relating to an open session item on this agenda, which are not exempt from disclosure pursuant to the California Public Records Act, that are distributed to a majority of the legislative body will be available for public inspection at the Office of the City Clerk at Santa Clara City Hall, 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95050 at the same time that the public records are distributed or made available to the legislative body. Any draft contracts, ordinances and resolutions posted on the Internet site or distributed in advance of the Council meeting may not be the final documents approved by the City Council. For the final document, you may contact the Office of the City Clerk at (408) 615-2220 or [email protected].

1. Use the eComment tab located on the City Council Agenda page (https://santaclara.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx). eComments are directly sent to the iLegislate application used by City Council and staff, and become part of the public record. eComment closes 15 minutes before the start of a meeting.

2. B
y email to [email protected] by 12 p.m. the day of the meeting. Those emails will be forwarded to the Council and will be uploaded to the City Council Agenda as supplemental meeting material. Emails received after the 12 p.m. cutoff time up through the end of the meeting will form part of the meeting record. Please identify the Agenda Item Number in the subject line of your email.

NOTE: Please note eComments and Emails received as public comment will not be read aloud during the meeting.

Meeting Agenda September 1, 2026
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code §54956 (“The Brown Act”) and Section 708 of the Santa Clara City Charter, the Mayor calls for a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Clara, to commence and convene on September 1, 2026, at 5:30 p.m. to be held virtually and in the City Hall Council Chambers located in the East Wing of City Hall at 1500 Warburton Avenue, Santa Clara, California, to consider the following matter(s) and to potentially take action with respect to them.
5:30 PM PLANNING COMMISSION INTERVIEWS
Call to Order in the Council Chambers
Confirmation of Quorum

1. Action to Accept a Resignation and Conduct Applicant Interviews
and Appoint One Applicant to the Planning
Commission to Serve One Partial Term ending June 30, 2030. 26-904
Appoint One Applicant to the Planning Commission,
to serve One Partial Term Ending June 30, 2030 and
Establish an Eligibility List for six months should a
vacancy occur.

Recommendation:
7:00 PM SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Call to Order in the Council Chambers
Roll Call

PUBLIC HEARING/GENERAL BUSINESS

Call and Notice of Special Meeting
of the City Council
Meeting Agenda September 1, 2026

2. Action on the City Council's Response to the Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "VTA’s Management
and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" (DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 25, 2026)
26-936

1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil
Grand Jury Report entitled "VTA’s Management
and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II"
and direct the City Attorney to prepare the formal
response consistent with City Council direction;
and

2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the City’s
response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form
approved, subject only to finalization of response
language, as directed, and any technical,
conforming, non-substantive modifications
approved by the City Attorney, to the Honorable
Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than
September 15, 2026.

Recommendation:

ADJOURNMENT
The next regular scheduled meeting is on Tuesday, September 15, 2026 in the City Hall Council Chambers.

Call and Notice of Special Meeting
of the City Council
Meeting Agenda September 1, 2026

MEETING DISCLOSURES
The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. If a person wishes to challenge the nature of the above section in court, they may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Clara, at or prior to the meeting. In addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.

California Government Code Section 84308, most recently amended by SB 1243, commonly referred to as the "Levine Act," prohibits a local elected official or quasi-judicial appointed official from participating in any action related to a contributor’s contract, license, permit, or use entitlement if he/she/it receives any campaign contributions totaling more than $500 within the previous twelve months, and for twelve months following the date a final decision has been made, from the party, participants, or agents in the proceeding. Parties, Participants or Agents for a proceeding involving a license, permit, or other use entitlement pending before the City Council or a City quasi-judicial body must complete the California Levine Act Disclosure Statement prior to their proceeding.

STREAMING SERVICES: As always, the public may view the meetings on SantaClaraCA.gov, Santa Clara City Television (Comcast cable channel 15), or the livestream on the City’s YouTube channel or Facebook page.

Note: The public cannot participate in the meeting through these livestreaming methods; livestreaming capabilities may be disrupted at times, viewers may always view and participate in meetings in-person and via Zoom as noted on the agenda.

AB23 ANNOUNCEMENT: Members of the Santa Clara Stadium Authority, Sports and Open Space Authority and Housing Authority are entitled to receive $30 for each attended meeting.

Note: The City Council and its associated Authorities meet as separate agencies but in a concurrent manner. Actions taken should be considered actions of only the identified policy body.

LEGEND: City Council (CC); Stadium Authority (SA); Sports and Open Space Authority (SOSA); Housing Authority (HA); Successor Agency to the City of Santa Clara Redevelopment Agency (SARDA); Bayshore North Project Enhancement Authority (BNPEA); Public Facilities Financing Corporation (PFFC) Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

If a member of the public submits a speaker card for any agenda items, their name will appear in the Minutes. If no speaker card is submitted, the Minutes will reflect "Public Speaker." In accordance with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), the City of Santa Clara will not discriminate against qualified individuals with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities, and will ensure that all existing facilities will be made accessible to the maximum extent feasible. The City of Santa Clara will generally, upon request, provide appropriate aids and services leading to effective communication for qualified persons with disabilities including those with speech, hearing, or vision impairments so they can participate equally in the City’s programs, services, and activities. The City of Santa Clara will make all reasonable modifications to policies and programs to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal opportunity to enjoy all of its programs, services, and activities. Individuals who require an auxiliary aid or service for effective communication, or any other disability-related modification of policies or procedures, or other accommodation, in order to participate in a program, service, or activity of the City of Santa Clara, should contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 408-615-3000 as soon as possible but no later than 48 hours before the scheduled event.

Call and Notice of Special Meeting
of the City Council
City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-904 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action to Accept a Resignation and Conduct Applicant Interviews and Appoint One Applicant to the Planning Commission to Serve One Partial Term ending June 30, 2030.

BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2026, the City Clerk’s Office received a resignation email from Planning Commissioner Nancy Biagini (Attachment 2).

Advertising of the vacancy was done via the City’s website, social media outlets. The City Clerk’s Office also emailed vacancy notification to all parties listed on the email vacancy interest list.

DISCUSSION
The City Clerk’s Office held a recruitment between July 22, 2026, and August 18, 2026, and received six (6) applications by the August 18, 2026, 5:00 p.m. deadline. One applicant withdrew from the process leaving a total of five (5) applicants.

Based on past practice upon appointment to fill a vacancy, the City Council may choose to establish an eligibility list with an applicant(s) of their choice for six months should a vacancy arise.

The City Clerk’s Office proceeds with the recruitment/interview process with the following candidates:

1. Najmul Hai

2. Jonathan Marinaro

3. Jeffrey “Jeff” Poddraza

4. Nicholas Repetto

5. Shawn Williams
Each applicant met the requirement of being a qualified elector of the City verified by the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office, and a resident of the City of Santa Clara and have each submitted proof of residency.

Attached are the voting guidelines (Attachment 3) for the appointment of Boards and Commissions members, which outline the process for conducting interviews. The City Attorney’s Office has provided a Conflict Review (Attachment 4) for each applicant.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
26-904 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no additional cost to the City other than administrative staff time and expense.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION
Appoint One Applicant to the Planning Commission, to serve One Partial Term Ending June 30, 2030 and Establish an Eligibility List for six months should a vacancy occur.

Reviewed by: Nora Pimentel, Assistant City Clerk
Approved by: Jovan D. Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Applications

2. Resignation

3. Voting Guidelines

4. Conflict Review
City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Board/ Conrrission / Comrittee ~ng for:*
--- --Planning Conmission -----
Name*
Najrnul Hai_
/1,e )OU a registered voter and resident the City of Santa Clara?* (tv\Jst be a registered voter at time of application)
r- Yes
Address*
Street Address
Address Line 2
r No
--~--- - -----
City State / Province / Region
----
Santa Clara
Postal / Zip Code
95051-5834
ERIIII*
Prinwy Phone Nurmer*
Secondary Phone Nurri>er
--------- >
Provide two forms of Proof of Residency in the City of Santa Clara (MJst be a resident of the city of santa clara at time of appHcation) Altac:hrrent 1 *
NHDi\eflic072726.pdf
Attachmmt 2*
NHSaJtililies.l)(f
Present E~r*
.0..

Country
USA
143.29KB

99.54KB
------------- · I Verint Systems
Job Title* ----
Director of En9ineerin~
Have )OU attended a rraetlng of this Board/Cormission?* r Yes r. No
Previous Govemrrent Bodies/ Elective Offices Applicant has served Govemrrant Bodies/ ElecliVe Offices Position/ Office Held: Date Civic or Charitable Organizations to which Applicant has belonged:

Civic or Charitable Organizations Position(s) Held:
,- --------· .. , ... --- - ·--·--------- - -- - --,
I Indian Muslim Relief & Charities -·-·---- · I BOT-
1 Special Interests, Hobbies or Talents
~ ove to play football, baseball, reading books, play chess, and traveling College, Professional, Vocational Schools Attend
High Sdtool, College, Professional, Vocational School Major Subject UIUC I Computer ScienZe
Special awards or reCClgnition received:

Date
,---·----- ----- .
-!_ /27 /2026 ------- --··
Date
5/29/1987
Please state reasons 'A41y }OU want to become a merri>er of this Board/Cormission/Corrrrittee, including what spedfic objeetlves }OU would be \IIOri<ing toward as a merri>er of this advisory board: - I want to serve our cornmurnty. I have been Santa Clara resident for over 26 years. I have been active on my charity board as a BOT member who over sought our investment including properly. ____ _ _ _ hly other Information which }OU feel would be useful to the City Council in reviewing }OUr application:
ke )'OU associated v.ith any Organization! Eff1>1o:,rrent that night be deemed a conflict of interest in perforning )OUr duties if appointed to this position?*
r Yes r: No
City policy directs all advisory body members not to vote on rmtters v.Alere there exists a potential conflict of Interest. 'l.buld )'OU be willing to abstain from voting If such a conflict arises?*
r Yes
Signature
Date
7/27/2026
r. No
Board / Cornrission I Comrittee Appl}<ing for:*
Planning Commission
Jonathan i\!1arinaro
//lte you a registered voter and resident the City of Santa Clara?* (M.Jst be a registered voter at time of application)
r. Yes
Jlddress"
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Santa Clara
Postal I Zip Code
95050
Enait"
PrineryPhone Nwmer*
--Secondary Phone Nuni>er
r No
Provide t'M) fonns of Proof of Residency in the City of Santa Clara (lvt.Jsl oe a re.sirfent oi the city of santa clara at time of applicai~in) Machment 1*
.IMDLpdf
Attachnent 2*
cocumenl.pcf
Present Enl>lo~r•
Celer'i.;m
Job Title*
Director of Technical Sales
Have you attended a meeting d this Board/Cormission? *
r. Yes r No
State I Province / Region
CA
Country
US;\
154 8t'K6
974KB
Previous Government Bodies/ Elective Offices Applicant has se,ved Govemment Bodies/ Elective Offices
Santa Clara Bicycle & Pedestriar, .A,h:sory
Co1T11rWee
Position/ Office Held: Date
AUG 172026
City Clerk' s Office
City of Santa Clara
3i17 2026
Cultural Commission
2 Chair
Civic or Charitable Organizations to which Applicant has belonged:

Civic or Charitable Organizations Positlon{sl Held:

Spedal Interests, Hobbies or Talents
7i31 12025
Date
Civic. Organization & Planning, Electronic Assembly ~ Reoa1r. Games of <111 types, Miniatures & V\./arga111ing. i\1lusic (Cello & Piano) JD Printing. Transit, Bicycling. Reacling & Wrl:ng College, Professional, Vocational Schools Attend
High Scnool, College, Professional, Vocational School
San Jose State University
Wayzata High School
Special awards or recognition received:

Major Subject
Journalism + min. Business
Orchestra Computing, Rl1qby
Date
6130/2015
6,38,2005
City l1f Santa Clc1ra Certificate of Mayoral Recognition, Multiple State & National Av:.1ard5 for C::,lleqiate Jcurna11srn State ~~~~~ -
Please state reasons v.ttyyou want to become a merrber of this Board/Connission/COIITrittee, including what specific objectives you would be wooong t0Vu1rd as a rnentler of this advisory board:

J "ave wanted lo b:;. en :he Planning Co111m1ss1on s11,c,-e I :::nuse tQ oa1tic1oate beyo11cJ tl-ie 10, mal c1tr~nry Ir tn s C;l'/ ha•11rg n"ginally appl1etl e1qn: yaw-; '3tJt' an:I •MlS pa~sed l.JD :I .,e :o lack or eicper en:;e 1n City af"airs I'm returning after thi:lt 11me r-a•(ll1;J cor'.ple!e~ \·N • st nt.s on lhe Cultural ~.-;r··w,s,on 111cluc1n£, as ~t·a1r =is 'NPII as i'I ; 0 ::ir on .J•e 3PAC neI0Irg t ·a,~s111on 11 're,.,., a~ ac"'loc Ccrnrrlltt:1:! Intc a :ull Cvrrrr1s~1on 11,a, ~ al~o grc,,,r ,v ti this ~1·.1 havir.g co,.gnt µ1·ooerty a11d 3ott1r1g (:c•v" de,,e1)er roots which has 911,er •ne far •Jeeper understancling ,n now zon1n9 1s paramount lo ·re ralalionsl11p bel•veer tre gov~'"!lrrent and bctr 1:s ceoplt' .-J'ld businesses here If el:::ctec I ,,,,nt ta prsv:c!e i:l ·1~;1sur~d but 'orward-lool, ng 1•-::•npo1n. on t.he PbN11r 8 c~ r11n11ssi,"n ine •t:at wa;; c:,arril'l()ner: oy the al"'l'!2ngf~Jw,;cJt1 ,,1,os0 ,bees I •.voulc ,•ave t0 fill That mch;ces 1. na1;rs,,1ml111g tl'e S,a:i?'s croo,,.g and cnargin;; 'T'a1'da,es for 3""' 1-0ner,ed Develo,;,,·en -iou::;1n;;: Dcn,;i\y 3rd Hc1•1t2l'.}ssnt'JS lo,:al neecs for bus,,.,ess~s to 1 )'le , -ariaqean~ £1n,1 .' Ol'king easere"l;; ::ire excep11on,, tha• 3llr>"1 :he"1 ln rim just fum:ilQr ou· i1ov 1sh !lere and last but ~ost paramount our citizenry's neecls to :11an.1ge gr('•\th in.et1,9e1· •1y sn t 'ines r'IOI nv~rhhP.I., nw· services. We are in a unique position here in the SF Bay Area and the Planning Commss1on 1s tne best .~ay to nd•11se our Council and !vlayor of 110 w to promote growth
Pnyother infonnation which you feel would be useful to the City Council in reviewing your application:

I :i1ank !Ile Council am1 Mayor tor their support over the years -:in other co111rniss1ons ar'd look fo1v1t1rd to cor.t;nuir:g io advise in !he coming ones as well1
Pre you associated -Mth any Organization/ El!l>loyrrent that rright be deermd a conflict of interest in perforrring your duties If appointed to this position?*
<" Yes r- No
City policy directs all advisory bodyrrent>ers not to vQte on rmtters where there exists a potential conflict of interest. W:>uld you be willing to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises?*
r. Yes
Signature
Date
3/ !7!2026
<" No
Board/ Comrission I Connittee Appl)1ng for:*
Name*
Jeffrey "Jeff" Poddraza
ke )OU a registered voter and resident the City of Santa Clara?* (MJst be a registered voter al tine of application)
r- Yes
Address*
Street Address
Address Line 2
r No
City Stale / Province / Region
Santa Clara
Postal / Zip Code
95051
Email*
Primary Phone Nurmer"
Secondary Phone Nurmer
Provide two forms of Proof of Residency in the City of Santa Clara (Mist be a resident of the city of santa clara al time of application) Machment 1 *
PGE Bill.pcW
Machment2*
IMG_0464.jpg.pdl'
Present Enl>l~r•
eXp Realty
Job Tide*
Have )OU attended a 1111eting af this Board.'Comrission?* r- Yes r No
lcA
Country
I usA
Previous Government Bodies/ Elective Offices Applicant has served Govem1111nt Bodes/ Bective Offices
:None
Posltlonf Office Held:
402.52KB
353MB
Date
Civic or Charitable Organizations to which Applicant has belonged:

Civic OT Charitable Organizations Position(s) Held:
-Santa Clara County Realtor Foundallon I Board of Director _(Current) __
:_~l!i~_h_ael J Ki~;;h· Fou~d; ~i?~~ (Cu;-~~0. __ • __ [ Preside~! 2 Special Interests, Hobbies or Talents
Date
1/1/2026
2/10/2020 ----'
I
. Love all things aviation, including trying to travel on different aircraft. While at home, I love watching lndyCar, Travel YouTube channels, and Ocean life, especially Orcas. -----· -- --- --·-·--·-·--·- ---··-- College, Professional, Vocational Schools Attend
High School, College, Professional, Vocational School Major Subject Mission College, Santa Clara (Didn't
~raduate)
_§enbard West High School (Glen Ellyn, IL)
Spedal awards or recognition received:
- --
Nothing civic duty-rel~ted.

I Business Related Subjects _
1 General Education
Date
5/1/2019
1/24i 1986
Please state reasons 'MIY you want to become a merrber d this Board/Cormission/Cormittee, including what specific objectives you would be v.orking toward as a merrber of this advisory board:

I've called Santa Clara home for a combined 35 years, and In that time I've watched this city grow and change In so ~ny ways, some good, some that have made me pause and wonder what we're trading away. As a real estate agent working throughout Santa Clara County, I see firsthand how planning decisions ripple lhrol1gh neighborhoods - how z.ornng, density, 8J1d development chrnces affect nor just property values, but the everyday experience of the people who live here. That perspective ,s exactly why I want ro serve on the Planning Commission. I want to help balance lhe growth and opportunity that keep Santa Cfara economically vibrant with the neighborhood charactt'lr and quality ot life that made me want to put down roots here in the first place. My work has given me a ground-level view of how residents, buyers, and longtime farrilies experience change in this city. not just how il looks on paper. I think that hands-on, practical understanding of housing and land use would be of value on the commission. This isn't abstract to me; it's personal and professional, and I'd we!come the chance to help shape Santa Clara's next chapter lh~L1)htfully. /Jny other information which you feel would be useful to the City Council in reviewing your application:

I I moved to Santa when I w;s 21 , and over the years here, I married m>/ wife, who has now been in the 95051 Killarney t Fanns area for a combined 60 years, raising my family here. I have grown to love it here and hope that l can be a value ! to the commission, the city, and citizen of the amazing city. ke >OU associated with any Organization/ Enplo~nt that night be de erred a conflict of Interest in perfoming }()Ur duties if appointed to this position?*
• Yes r- No
Citypoli,;;ydirec:ts all advisorybodymerrbers not to vote on natters v.tiere there exists a potential conflict of interest. V'«>uld >OU be 'Nilling to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises?'"
r- Yes
Signature
Jeff /6/Allh
Date
7/27/2026
r- No
Board/ Comrission / Connittee .e.,pl)1ng for:.­
Planni11g Commission
Nicholas Repelto
he )'OU a registered voter and resident the City of Santa Clara?* (M.lst be a registered voter at time of application)
r- Yes
.Address*
Street Address
Address Line 2
City
Santa Clara
Postal / Zip Code
95051
PrimeryPhone Nurmer*
Secondary Phone Nuni>er
<" No
Provide two fonns of Proof of Residency In the City of Santa Clru-a (MJst be a resident ot the city of santa clara at time of application} Mactlrrent 1 *
CCC 1.pof
Machment2*
0\-x:2 pdf
Present Elll'lo)'er*
Ea11t1 Electric
Job Tide*
Installer
Have )'OU attended a rreeting of this Board/Comrission?* r- Yes <" No
State/ Province/ Region
CA
Country
USA
JG 75KB

33.65KB
Previous Government Bodies/ Elective Offices Applicant has se1ved Government Bodies/ Elective Offices Position/ Office Held:
none
Date
D
AUG 1 4 2026
City Clerk's Office
City of Santa Clara
Civic or Charitable Organizations to which Applicant has belonged:

Civic or Charitable Organizations
none
Special Interests, Hobbies or Talents
Position(s) Held:
gardening. collecting rare books, language learning. and memory training College, Professional, Vocational Schools Attend
High School, College, Professional, Vocational School Major Subject San Jose State University (college) (2020-
2022)
Saint Lawrence Aca~emy (high school)
WECA, Rancho Cordova (current)
De Anza ( community college) (20'18-2020)
Wilson High School (20 17)
Special awards or recognition received:
: Geography
• Electrical Studies
General Studies

4.00 at SJSU, 11,lagna Cum Laude at SJSU, scl1olarship upon graduat ion Date
Date
Please state reasons why you want to become a merrber of this Board/COlTlllission/Cormittee, including what specific objectives you would be \Wl'king toward as a merrber of this advisory board:

I have lived in Santa Clara my entire life and am very familar with rnost of the city's neighborhoods. I look forvvard to working with the cormiu nity and the board to sl1ape the future of 11,e city. . /lny other lnfonretion IMlich )<OU feel would be useful to the City Council in reviewing your application:

I am very interested in the city planning process, and would take the responsibility seriously. ke you associated with any Organization/ E01>lo)ff"ent that night be deemed a conflict of interest in perfonning )OUr duties if appointed to this position?*
r Yes r, No
City policy directs all advisory body melri>ers not to vote on llliltters 'Mlere there exists a potential conflict of interest. llllould you be \\4lling to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises?*
r. Yes
Signature
Date
8/13/2026
r No
Board f Cormission f Cormittee App~ng for:*
Shawn Williams -------
ke }OU a registered voter and resident the City of Santa Clara?* (M.tst be a registered voter at time of application)
r- Yes
Address*
Street Address
.Address Line 2
r No
- ~--------
City
Santa Clara
Postal / Zip Code
95051
State / Province / Region
CA
Prinary Phone Nurri>er*
Secondary Phone Nurri>er
Provide lVt'o forms of Proof of Residency in the City of Santa Clara (Mist be a resident of the city of santa clara at time of application) .llttachment 1*

1.pdf
.llttachment 2*
2 pdf
Present Eff1>1o)er*
Country
!U~ --
----------
800 GOT JUNK - SELF EMPLOYED
Job Title*
Have }OU attended a mteting of this BoardfCormission?*
r- Yes r No
Previous Governme nt Bodies/ Elective Offices Applicant has served GovemlTl!nt Bodies/ Elective Offices
i ~lann ing Co.!:flrnsion
Posltlonf Office Held:
393.31KB
323.8KB
D
JU~ ,? 7 2026 :

C:ity Clerk's Office
City of Santa Cl.ara
Date
4/1 8/2018
Civic or Charitable Organizations to which Applicant has belonged:

Civic or Charita:lle Organizations Posltlon(s) Held:

I serve on the edmc and the global Relations i
_Committee for the City of Santa Clara
Special Interests, Hobbies or Talents
I - -
I Volunteer and host/me
-
Date
-----,
6/21/2026
I am the vice president of Music Inc Studios and rehearsal Studio a venue a tattoo parlor and a drum School in the city :
1 of San Jose I'm also the hostess MC for many events surrounding the Bay Area including two for the City of Santa Clara :
the Lunar New Year event and the celebrate Santa Clara event held at Levi Stadium.

College, Professional, Vocational Schools Attend
High Schoo~ College, Professional, Vocational School
WilcoxH.S.

Special awards or recognition received: - - ------
Major Subject
Gen Ed.

Date
7/1/1992
1 won the best new Ta lent award for acting at the high school I was also nominated for homecoming and was a member of ma~t_ clubs including the debate Club ____________ _ Please state reasons \Mlyycu want to become a meni>er of this Boanf/Comrisslon/Comrittee, including what specific objectives you would be W011dng toward as a merrber of this advisory board:
11 want to be on this City Plannfng Commission because I feel that Santa Clara I deseNes lo be on the worid stage the only way to do that is to have fresh ideas new ideas that will bnng people lo the City of Santa CJa,-a boosting our ' economy and boosting our reputation. Were one of the largest tech cities in the world And I want lo help steer our community in the ri911I direction Not just bringin~_people to our city but keeping people here as well. kiy other Information ¥Atleh you feel would be useful to the City Council In reviev.1ng l,'l)Ur application:
f I used lo be on the City Planning Commission and through personal reasons was had to walk away but I am completely I
able and ~v\lling and super eage~ to _be back on the Planning Commission so that I can make a mark on the city and make our crti/ a memorable destinatro0_: ___ _
ke you associated with anyOrganizatlonf E,q,lo)'lllent that night be deened a conflict of interest in perfoming your duties if appointed to this position? "
r Yes r. No
City policy direc;ts all advisory body rnerri:>ers not to vote on rratters ~re there exists a potential conflict of Interest. Vlbuld you be IMlling to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises?"
r. Yes
Signature
Date
7/27/2026
r No
From:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Date:

Nancy Biagini
Nora Pimentel
Elizabeth Elliott
Planning Commission Resignation
Tuesday, July 21, 2026 12:26 :52 PM
Dear Nora, I must regrettably resign as a Planning Commissioner. Health reasons prevent me from continuing.

Take care and see you on YouTube ,
Nancy Biagini
Rev 2026 Page 1 of 2

CITY OF SANTA CLARA

VOTING GUIDELINES FOR THE APPOINTMENT
OF AP

PLICANTS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
1) Council is given a copy of the applications in their weekly packet to review and consider applicant qualifications.
2) Council interviews applicant. Interviews are held in the City Council Chambers.

A) Each applicant is given three (3) minutes for an opening statement. The applicant may respond to questions from the Council. The applicant has one (1) minute for a closing statement.
3) Council votes for applicants:

A) If there are four (4) or fewer applicants the Council will cast one vote each for their
desired appointee.

B) If there are five (5) or more applicants, the Council will cast one vote each for their two desired appointees. Only one vote per applicant is allowed. A Councilmember may choose to vote for only one applicant but will relinquish the other vote.
4) The votes are tallied:

A) If there are four (4) or fewer applicants the Clerk will announce the winner.
i. If there is a tie, there will be 3 re-votes for the Council to reconsider the applicants. The Council has the opportunity to deliberate between each
round of re-voting.
ii. If there is still a tie and there is not a full Council present, the Council will defer the decision until a full Council is present, and re-interview the top two applicants.
iii. If
there is a full Council present, the Members will draw straws, with the person drawing the long straw abstaining from voting at the next round. The Council has the opportunity to deliberate. iv. The Council votes, with the applicant receiving the highest number of votes being the winner. The
City Clerk will announce the
winner.

B) If there are five (5) or more applicants, the Clerk will announce the two applicants who received the highest number of votes. The Council then has an opportunity to deliberate regarding the remaining two applicants.

Rev 2004 P
age 2 of 2
The Council will then cast one vote each for their desired appointee. The City Clerk will announce the winner.
i. If there is a tie, there will be 3 re -votes for the Council to reconsider the applicants. The Council has the opportunity to deliberate between each round of re-voting.
ii. If there is still a tie and there is not a full Council present, the Council will defer the decision until a full Council is present, and re-interview the top two applicants.
iii. If there is a full Council present, the Members will draw straws, with the person drawing the long straw abstaining from voting at the next round. The Council has the opportunity to deliberate. iv. The Council votes, with the applicant receiving the highest number of votes being the winner. The City Clerk will announce the winner.
5) A fter determining the applicant who received the highest number of votes, the Council moves to appoint an applicant(s) to the Board, Commission, or Committee.

A majority vote of those Councilmembers present is required (at a minimum) for appointment.

City Attorney’s Office
Memorandum
Date: August 27, 2026
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Subject: Conflicts Review – Planning Commission Applicants

Background

The City Attorney’s Office has been asked to review applications to City Boards and Commissions regarding potential conflicts of interest. The applications generally do not provide complete information necessary to identify every potential conflict; however, they occasionally disclose financial interests, employment relationships, or other positions that warrant further review. The purpose of this memorandum is to highlight potential issues disclosed by the applications, taking into account the duties of the Planning Commission. This review is limited to the information provided in the applications and readily available public information is not intended to be a comprehensive investigation of potential conflicts involving the applicants.

Commission Duties

Pursuant to the City Charter and the City Code, the Planning Commission is responsible for recommending the adoption, amendment, or repeal of the General Plan and Specific Plans; the application of the zoning and land use regulations of the City and recommending revisions and amendments; the processing of subdivision maps and property development applications; and provid ing input on the capital improvement program.

Legal Conflicts that May Preclude Vote or Participation

Certain financial interests or relationships may require a commissioner to refrain from participating in a Planning Commission decision. While this list is not exhaustive, potential disqualification issues generally arise in one or more of the following situations:

 An applicant has an interest in real property that could be materially affected by a decision coming before the Commission;
 An applicant has received income of $500 or more within the 12 months preceding a governmental decision from an entity that could be financially affected by the decision, making that entity a source of income under the Political Reform Act;  An applicant is an officer or employee of an entity that could be financially affected by a matter coming before the Commission; or
 An applicant has a business or professional interest that could experience a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect from a Commission decision that is distinguishable from the public generally.

City of
Santa Clara
The Center of What 's Possible
Conflicts Review – Planning Commission Applicants
August 27, 2026

Appearance of Bias

Even when no statutory financial conflict requires disqualification, an applicant’s relationships, prior involvement, or other circumstances may raise concerns regarding impartiality. The Code of Ethics and Values requires Commissioners to “make impartial decisions, free of . . . financial and other personal interests that impair [one’s] independence of judgment or action.” Depending on the facts, such circumstances may warrant disclosure, consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, or recusal from a particular matter.

Review of Applicants

Set forth below are the applicants and any apparent conflict-of-interest, incompatible-office, or impartiality issues identified from the applications and the limited public information reviewed.

 Najmul Hai is a Director of Engineering at Verint Systems, an enterprise software company focused primarily on customer-service operations, call centers, and customer-experience automation. The application discloses neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.

A standard question on the application form asks: “City policy directs all advisory body members not to vote on matters where there exists a potential conflict of interest. Would you be willing to abstain from voting if such a conflict arises?” Mr. Hai responded “no”. This may have been a simple error, but this would need to be confirmed during the interview because a commissioner is legally required to refrain from participating when a disqualifying conflict exists .

 Jonathan Marinaro is a Director of Technical Sales at Celerium, a cybersecurity company. His employment does not present an apparent conflict of interest. Mr. Marinaro is the current Vice Chair of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). He has previously served for two terms on the Cultural Commission, including a term as Chair.

The BPAC’s duties include making recommendations on comprehensive bicycle and pedestrian master plans, and providing advice on modifying, expanding, and maintaining the City's public bicycle and pedestrian transportation systems. The BPAC acts only in an advisory capacity, but it is possible that the Planning Commission, at some point, may review a draft plan or policy prepared by the BPAC. As a result, there is a potential for an incompatible office conflict if Mr.

Marinaro were to remain on the BPAC when serving on the Planning Commission. It would likely be necessary for Mr. Marinaro to resign from his BPAC seat, should he receive the position on the PC.

 Jeffrey “Jeff” Poddraza is a realtor with eXp Realty, which conducts real-estate transactions in Santa Clara and throughout the Bay Area. A realtor may serve on a planning commission, but active real-estate work can create recurring, fact-specific disqualification risks. Under the Political Reform Act, the real-estate license itself is not disqualifying. Instead, particular decisions must be evaluated for reasonably foreseeable and material financial effects on the commissioner’s real- property interests, brokerage business, commission-income sources, clients, or prospective employment arrangements. For example, in Downey Cares v. Downey Community Development Commission, 196 Cal. App. 3d 983 (1987), a planning commissioner who was the sole proprietor of a Century 21 office employing 32 salespersons and who owned m ultiple parcels of real property in a redevelopment area was found to have a disqualifying conflict when voting on a redevelopment plan.

Conflicts Review – Planning Commission Applicants
August 27, 2026

Realtors have served on the Santa Clara Planning Commission in the past. If Mr. Poddraza is appointed, staff would work with him on a case-by-case basis to identify potentially disqualifying financial interests before matters are heard by the Commission.

 Nicholas Repetto is an installer for Earth Electric, a solar and electrical contractor. Earth Electric has installed a number photovoltaic systems at residences in Santa Clara in recent years. If a matter before the Planning Commission would have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect on Earth Electric—for example, because Earth Electric is a contractor on the project—Mr. Repetto could be required to recuse himself based on his employment and resulting source-of-income interest. Other than this fact-specific possibility, the application discloses no incompatible offices or apparent conflict of interest.

 Shawn Williams is a truck driver for 1-800-GOT-JUNK and also works at Musik Ink Studios, which leases studio space for music rehearsals and production in San Jose. Mr. Williams previously served a partial term on the Santa Clara Planning Commission from late 2018 to early 2019. The application discloses neither incompatible offices nor apparent conflicts of interest.

Conclusion

The City Council may wish to consider the above comments in making its appointment to the Commission. These observations are preliminary and based on the applications and limited public information reviewed; any future disqualification determination would depend on the facts of the particular matter before the Planning Commission.

cc: Jovan Grogan, City Manager
Nora Pimentel, MMC, Assistant City Clerk

City of Santa Clara
Agenda Report
1500 Warburton Avenue
Santa Clara, CA 95050
santaclaraca.gov
@SantaClaraCity
26-936 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026

REPORT TO COUNCIL

SUBJECT
Action on the City Council's Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report Entitled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" (DEFERRED FROM AUGUST 25, 2026)

BACKGROUND
On or about June 17, 2026, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury published a report entitled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" (Civil Grand Jury report) (Attachment 1). The Civil Grand Jury report contains findings and recommendations directed to several agencies, including the City of Santa Clara.

California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires the governing body of a public agency or department that is the subject of a Civil Grand Jury final report to respond within 90 days to the findings and recommendations that pertain to matters under the control of the governing body.

The Penal Code outlines the following legal requirements for responses:

Response Standard for Findings
Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following for each Civil Grand Jury finding:

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.

Response Standard for Recommendations
Penal Code Section 933.05(b) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for each Civil Grand Jury recommendation:

1. The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding 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 explanation 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 agency or department being investigated or reviewed, including the governing body of the public agency when applicable. This timeframe cannot exceed six months from the date of publication of the grand jury report.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
26-936 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026

4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.

Consistent with Penal Code Sections 933.05(a) and 933.05(b), this report contains draft responses for the City Council’s consideration and approval. A response letter will be prepared consistent with the City Council’s direction on the draft responses below and will be transmitted to the Civil Grand Jury.

The City Council’s final responses on the Civil Grand Jury report findings and recommendations are due to the office of the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by September 15, 2026.

DISCUSSION
The Civil Grand Jury report made ten findings and ten recommendations, not all of which require a response from the City. The City of Santa Clara has been directed to respond to two (2) findings (Findings 6 and 7) and two (2) recommendations (Recommendations 6 and 7).

The complete list of all findings and recommendations in the Civil Grand Jury’s “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” report can be found on pages 27-30 of the document, which is attached to this staff report (Attachment 1) and can also be found on the Civil Grand Jury’s website: https://santaclara.courts.ca.gov/system/files/civil/vtas-management-and-oversight-bart- silicon-valley-phase-ii.pdf
Proposed Responses to Civil Grand Jury Findings and Recommendations For the City Council’s consideration, below are proposed responses to the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and recommendations to which the City was directed to respond:

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.” Draft Response
The City partially disagrees with this finding.

The City disagrees with the finding to the extent it applies to the City of Santa Clara. Santa Clara is a member of Appointing Authority Group 5, along with the cities of Milpitas and Sunnyvale. The City's appointments to the VTA Board of Directors comply with State law, specifically Section 100060(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code, which governs the composition of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors and the representation of cities other than the City of San Jose:
"Five city council members or mayors selected from among the city councils and mayors of all of the cities in the county, other than the City of San Jose, as provided by agreements among those cities.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
26-936 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
The agreements may provide for the appointment of alternates, who shall be city council members or mayors, for those city representatives."
The City follows this requirement, and all of its appointees and alternates to the VTA Board are Santa Clara Councilmembers or the Mayor.

Section 2-14 of the VTA Administrative Code provides that Board Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 are "strongly encouraged, where possible" to appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualifications in transportation and to reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.

By its own terms, this provision encourages but does not require either practice. As a practical matter, the City has no way of guaranteeing that one or more of the individuals elected to the position of Councilmember or Mayor had experience or qualifications specifically in the field of transportation.

The requirements to run for such an elected position are set forth in the City Charter, Section 600, et seq. and do not include any requirements for subject matter expertise.

By practice, the City compiles a list each January of Councilmember appointments to City Committees and to regional and outside agency committees for City Council review and consideration. The Mayor recommends which Councilmembers serve as members or alternates, and those recommendations are brought forward at a City Council meeting for the Council to review and approve. Because appointments reflect individual Councilmember interest and the changing needs of the City, and because one City Council cannot bind a future City Council, reappointment to consecutive terms, including on the VTA Board, is not automatic. As a matter of practice, however, the City has generally sought to reappoint the same individual from one year to the next.

The City takes no position on the portion of the finding that concerns the appointment practices of the other agencies in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5, as the City has no information regarding how those agencies make their appointments.

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.

Draft Response
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

The City appreciates the intent of this recommendation, but it does not plan to bind the City Council to administrative rules adopted by a partner agency. The City will continue to follow the California Public Utilities Code and its current practice, which preserves the City Council's discretion to determine appointments to City boards and committees and to regional and outside agency committees.

The City can and will consider the encouraged actions in Section 2-14 of the VTA Administrative City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
26-936 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026
Code when making appointments, where possible; this is what the Administrative Code requires.

However, as stated above, the City cannot guarantee that a future appointee will have experience and qualifications in transportation, nor can it commit a future City Council to reappointing a representative to consecutive terms. Further, this should not disenfranchise Santa Clara voters from having a representative on the VTA Board.

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

Draft Response
The City partially disagrees this this finding.

The City disagrees with the finding to the extent it suggests that the absence of a uniform process results in appointments that do not comply with State law. While Santa Clara does not have an adopted policy or ordinance governing City Council appointments to committees, by practice, the City compiles a list each January of Councilmember appointments to City Committees and to regional and outside agency committees for City Council review and consideration. The Mayor recommends which Councilmembers serve as members or alternates, and those recommendations are brought forward at a City Council meeting for the Council to review and approve. As a matter of practice, however, the City has generally sought to reappoint the same individual from one year to the next. In every instance, the appointment satisfies Section 100060(a)(3) of the California Public Utilities Code.

The City takes no position on the portion of the finding that concerns the processes used by the other agencies in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5, as the City is unable to confirm those processes.

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.

Draft Response
The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted.

The City appreciates the intent of this recommendation, but it does not plan to commit the City Council to an appointment process that differs from its current practice for making appointments to City boards and committees and to regional and outside agency committees. Each city's approach may reflect its own charter, city policies, and local needs, and State law already establishes who is eligible to serve.

The City remains willing to share its current practice with the other cities in Appointing Authority Groups 2 through 5 should those cities wish to compare approaches.

City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
26-936 Agenda Date: 9/1/2026

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(5) in that it is fiscal activity that does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potential significant impact on the environment.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to sending the response other than administrative staff time and expense.

COORDINATION
This report was coordinated between the City Attorney and City Manager’s Offices.

PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email [email protected] or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.

RECOMMENDATION

1. Discuss and approve a final response to the Civil Grand Jury Report entitled "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II" and direct the City Attorney to prepare the formal response consistent with City Council direction; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to submit the City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury Report in the form approved, subject only to finalization of response language, as directed, and any technical, conforming, non-substantive modifications approved by the City Attorney, to the Honorable Julie A. Emede, Presiding Judge, Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, no later than September 15, 2026.

Reviewed by: Glen Googins, City Attorney
Approved by: Jovan Grogan, City Manager

ATTACHMENTS

1. Civil Grand Jury Report: "VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II” City of Santa Clara Printed on 8/27/2026Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
VTA’s Management and
Oversight of BART
Silicon Valley Phase II
June 17, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BACKGROUND
The Valley Transportation Authority is a transportation agency established by 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 Sections 100060-100070, the VTA is governed by a 12-person Board of Directors composed of elected officials appointed by the County of Santa Clara (County) and the cities in Santa Clara County , who each serve two -year terms . The Board has many responsibilities and its monthly meeting agendas are lengthy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VTA was forced to increase its reliance on local sales tax revenue and still faced a gap of approximately $700 million (VTA, Summe r 2025). To reduce project costs , VTA has been studying design changes while maintaining the full six-mile extension with four stations. Options discussed by VTA staff and officials include (VTA, November 11, 2024):
• Simplifying station configurations;
FTA New Starts --s
$5,098M
Available Loe~
- Measure
$502M
Local _____/
$4,5 4M
TBD
,,,,--$700M

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The financial risks identified by the Civil Grand Jury have been experienced by other major transit agencies. For example, the various rail projects of the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) 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 revenue over its 30-year life (FTA, 2024). Net sales tax revenue (defined as Program Tax Revenue in the measure) is calculated as the amount remaining after deducting administrative costs and any debt service.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An overall decrease in ridership 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 remain in place for 14 years. If the ballot measure does not pass, BART has proposed closing up to 15 stations and reducing service hours and train frequency (BART, February 26, 2026). Ironically, the proposed station closures would not affect Santa Clara County because VTA is solely responsible for the net operating costs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Although it had requested the analysis, the Oversight Committee did not make a recommendation to the Board. In October 2025, the Board was presented with the 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 Committee considered the potential benefits significant, the committee asked both VTA staff and the SME to analyze the options and prepare a recommendation. O n

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

VTA staff subsequently presented its analysis and recommendations to the Oversight Committee on October 9, 2025. Although the Project Manager stated that the VTA staff was aware of some of GZ’s preliminary analysis (especially differing assumptions about the rate at which each of the two TBMs can move forward when digging a tunnel), VTA staff 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 general nor the Oversight Committee holds VTA staff accountable for late responses to issues raised in the tracking report. Below, the Civil Grand Jury presents two examples:

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

At the Oversight Committee’s first meeting in November 2023, a member of the public requested that the committee order a cost and risk analysis of the single-bore versus twin-bore options, which remained controversial following the VTA Board’s selection of the single-bore option in 2018. In 2023, the Chair of the Oversight Committee responded that such an “apples-to-apples” (side-by- side) analysis would be one of the committee’s first tasks . Here 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 with the federal funding decision, VTA staff advised the Oversight Committee that it would wait until after the federal decision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As recently as December 2025, BART’s Independent Office of the Inspector General (OIG) issued a report titled: “Transparency & Communication Gaps in the BSVII Project.” The report summarizes years of controversy over the single-bore versus twin-bore approach but acknowledges that BART eventually agreed to the single-bore concept evaluated in the final environmental impact statement. However, the BART OIG remained critical of the extent of cooperation between the two agencies:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VTA Directors1 Average Tenure Is Shorter Than Average Tenures of Directors at P,eer Agencies VTA 3.lyears
LA Metro 9.3 years
OCTA
SacRT 8.3 years
0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Average Years of Service

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

Finding 8
The role assigned to the auditor general is outside the traditional scope of an auditor’s responsibilities and has introduced conflict and uncertainty among 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 supporting the Oversight Committee that does not rely on the auditor general to provide services such as agenda preparation, monitoring of VTA staff assignments, or preparation of a synthesis of multiple independent inputs to the Committee’s deliberations.

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

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

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

This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.

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

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

This should be implemented by October 31, 2026.

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

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

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

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

BART SILICON VALLEY
P ASE (BSV 1)
M RA
TO: 'A naral an g .r
DATE: Augu;.1 IS, _025
FR M: n1 eneral l na er. pe ti n
BJE T: oncem Regarding La k oflnf◄ rotation haring and 01ificaciori on e Pro'e l han
Dear eneral an ger onot:

The Ba Are ' T it ismct (B
prior notice ug 11 pre rel
' gra ely c n emed with VT ' failure top
n th twin re "t rep n u date and the I
odvnn~ di, t ignifi ant.ly s wn \'ersion ofLhe ord p d al 1h O\' igh1 Commiuee Meeting on glht 14 2025. Both actions iola1e es1ablished prut l:s m1dem1i.ne the • ati th t have guided • oership, and represent erions brea.cbes of p B ill under the clear impre after m nth of partnership, and oollaborati n. th a • ard with n J f rd de ign.

In 201 , B RT and VTA re confi
m rk~ng the ulminatian of yea~ ofcooroin loo cffart , joinl od oc.a.c , (Ind mutlllll lian . Since lh :!oigning of the Compn:hcn,i Agreement 1be n:quin:1n 111 ho;. been 1D1equivoc-al: any ignifi ant proj I hange part:i ular!l th affi ting peracion f. , or long-ccrm s st m perfonnan , m t be di l ed to BAR in advamce of any publi release.

The deci ion 10 withhold advance notification ofllhe t 11 release, coupled i1h die ence fmeaningful prior discu ion w ncepts of yard rede i n fi re presentin in the fon11n f publi 01n111it1 . , llrTie, dire t and !as.ling op ration l ons uen es for B RT's abiliry to 511fcl and cffi ic:mtly operate th.c -expanded s~tem . These lap!>e;. are iocomp:uib!c \ ·ith the lc,,cl of transparen and peration -c_ pe I d be[\,\ CCII prims proj t partners.. 11: h omi ion hinder BAR 's abiti lo fuHiLI il:S responsibilities lo the publi dam ge takeholder confidence, and rai fundamental ncer about A' adherence to it c mmitment. the ale, c ity f thi p . ~eel, th e fi ilures re not are una c bre
I om formally nolifying , and th Phase [I Proj t tlml th rd on ept pre nted t the VTA Audit • ommilt.:.: on ugu;,t 14 2025 i, rej ted. The L'.bl c:rsion of yafd dc:,,,igii tha1 BART re ·iewed as re i ion J.

BSV I I: Co laboratIon, I nnovation, Sae y, Rel1ab1lI y 1

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

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

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

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

IBART SILICOlil VALLEY

P ASE I (BSV )
B RT remain fully c mmined t the . fill delivery f dl. crifca1 rcgi n I inve.1ment.

How vc , dlas ornmitm nl d
and 11. :,ountabi.lity.
onVTK imme-di le •-
incerely.,
l G ntt[II Man ger Op rnrions
ircclor
I m1ger
I
Bo ram Director
mmitte Memb
To (lgu· _ ·cfDe livery ,ffi erofMeg.i Proj ts
BSV I I: Co l ebora ion, I nnova t ion, Sa t y, R l1abd1 y 2

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 22, 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

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

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

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

Accessed April 23, 2026.

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

6.pdf). Accessed April 5, 2026.

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

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. Special Board Meeting. October 17, 2025. (https:// santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=4297&Inline=True) Accessed April 9, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting”, Agenda Item 9.a, Item #25. April 17, 2024. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=3940&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Agenda Item 4, Item #4. March 13, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4138&Inline=True ). Accessed May 1, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 11a. June 12, 2025.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=4430). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “BSVII Project Update.” Summer, 2025. (https://vtabart.org/vtas-bart-silicon-valley-phase-ii-extension-project-summer-2025/).

Accessed May 13, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 8. January 15, 2026.
(https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4354&Inline=True ). Accessed April 22, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “2000 Measure A.” n.d. (https://www.vta.org/projects/funding/2000-measure-a). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “About 2016 Measure B.” n.d. (https://2016measureb.vta.org/about). Accessed April 29, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “VTA's BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee Regular Meeting.” Item 10b. Slide 21. September 11, 2025. (https://santaclaravta.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=1&ID=4273&Inline=True ). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority. “Fact Sheet: VTA's Bart Silicon Valley Phase 2 Extension Project.” March 2024. (https://www.vta.org/sites/default/files/2024- 07/VTABSV_FactSheet_2024_OverviewBenefits%201.pdf). Accessed April 13, 2026.

Shalby, Colleen. “Trump administration pulls billions in funding for high-speed rail project; state leaders call decision ‘illegal.’” Los Angeles Times. July 16, 2025. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-07-16/trump-administration-cancels- funding-for-high-speed-rail-project). Accessed April 29, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II Shalby, Colleen. “Multibillion-dollar transit project to tunnel through the Santa Monica Mountains is approved by L.A. Metro.” LA Times. January 22, 2026. (https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2026-01-22/this-multibillion-dollar-transit- project-could-improve-traffic-across-la-it-goes-to-vote-today - :~:text=This is read by an,transit projects in the country). Accessed April 13, 2026.

VTA’S MANAGEMENT AND OVERSIGHT OF BART SILICON VALLEY PHASE II This report was ADOPTED by the 2025-2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury on this 17 th day of June, 2026.
______________________________
Dinesh Ramde
Foreperson