City Council and Authorities Concurrent
September 1, 2026

1 City CouncilItem #: 26-936Response to Civil Grand Jury Report on VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase IIAracely AzevedoAssistant City ManagerSeptember 1, 2026 Background•Civil Grand Jury report published June 17, 20261. Response required within 90 days (Penal Code 933 (c))•Due September 15, 20262. Report primarily addresses VTA’s oversight of BART Phase II3. City response required to Finding and Recommendation 6 and 7 on VTA Board appointments•Groups 2 through 5: city groupings outside San Jose that appoint Board members•Santa Clara is in Group 5 with Milpitas and Sunnyvale2 1 2
2 Legally Required Responses to Findings•Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following for eachௗCivilௗGrandௗJuryௗfinding: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.3 Legally Required Responses to Recommendations•Penal Code Section 933.05(a) requires the responding entity to report one of the following actions for eachௗCivilௗGrand 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 theௗgrandௗjuryௗreport. 4. The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, with an explanation therefor.4 3 4
3 Finding and Recommendation 6•Finding 6Groups 2 through 5 often do not follow VTA Administrative Code Section 2-14 to appoint individuals with appropriate experience and qualification in transportation on expertise and reappoint representatives to consecutive terms.•Draft Response: Partially disagree–City appointments comply with State law; Section 2-14 encourages but does not require •Recommendation 6Certify adherence to Section 2-14 to the VTA Board•Draft Response: Will not be implemented; not warranted–City will not bind the Council to a partner agency’s rules 5Response to Civil Grand Jury Report Finding and Recommendation 7•Finding 7Groups 2 through have different processes for making Board appointments•Draft Response: Partially disagree. –City follows State law and has a consistent annual practice –Unable to confirm processes used by other agencies•Recommendation 7Adopt a uniform appointment process among cities•Draft Response: Will not be implemented; not warranted–Each city’s approach reflects its own charter, policies, and needs–State law already establishes who is eligible to serve6Response to Civil Grand Jury Report5 6 4
Recommendation1.Approve the draft responses to the Civil Grand Jury report2.Authorize the City Manager to submit the City’s response by September 15, 20267 8 7
8