REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Approve City’s Responses to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Reports Titled, “Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County” and “VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II”
Report
BACKGROUND
On June 12, 2026, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released a report, entitled Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County, included in this Report as Attachment 2. The Civil Grand Jury report details the findings and recommendations from their investigation concerning the process to file claims against local governments in Santa Clara County, including filing deadlines, access to an agency’s Claim Form, transparent information in multiple languages and information regarding where to file a particular claim.
The Civil Grand Jury report stated that the investigation employed the following methodology:
• Requested pothole claim data from Santa Clara County and the 15 cities within the County.
• Reviewed information related to pothole claims, the amount claimed, the resolution of the claims, and the reason for claim rejections.
• Interviewed representatives from four jurisdictions.
On June 17, 2026, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released another report, entitled VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II, included in this Report as Attachment 4. In this report, the Civil Grand Jury report details the findings and recommendations from the Civil Grand Jury’s investigation concerning financial challenges, risks, and accountability issues regarding Valley Transportation Authority’s (VTA) management of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) extension to Silicon
Valley.
The Civil Grand Jury report stated that the investigation employed the following methodology:
• Reviewed VTA’s BART Silicon Valley Phase II Oversight Committee meetings and select VTA Board meetings.
• Interviewed 17 officials from VTA, BART, and the State of California.
• Reviewed publicly available documents as described in the reference section of the Civil Grand Jury Report.
• Reviewed documents requested from VTA and submitted to the Civil Grand Jury.
California Penal Code Section 933(c) requires the governing body of the public agency that has been the subject of a Civil Grand Jury report to respond to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court on findings and recommendations that pertain to that agency. The response is due within 90 calendar days following the issuance of the report.
A response to the Pothole Damage Civil Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment 1 to this report and is due no later than September 10, 2026.
A response to the VTA Management and Oversight Civil Grand Jury Report is included as Attachment 3 to this report and is due no later than September 15, 2026.
EXISTING POLICY
Pursuant to Administrative Policy Chapter 1, Article 19 Responding to Civil Grand Jury Reports, the City’s obligations, under California Penal Code Sections 925-933.6, are to provide responses to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court within 90 days.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The actions being considered do not constitute “projects” with the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(5) in that they are governmental organizational or administrative activities that will not result in direct or indirect changes in the environment.
DISCUSSION
Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County
The Civil Grand Jury investigation resulted in four findings and five recommendations (pages 14 to 15 in the Civil Grand Jury report, Attachment 2). Sunnyvale is required to respond to two of the findings and two of the recommendations. The findings and recommendations applicable to Sunnyvale are:
• Finding 1 - Jurisdictions within Santa Clara County rejected 92% of pothole claims from 2020 - 2025 due to reasons including missed deadlines, incorrect jurisdiction, and lack of prior notice.
• Finding 2 - Claims are often rejected because the claimant filed with the incorrect jurisdiction, which can happen because jurisdictional lines are often unclear or poorly communicated. The claims websites of all jurisdictions within Santa Clara County lack information about how to determine if a road is in its jurisdiction.
• Recommendation 2a - All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should include a link to a map or list of roads they maintain on their claims website. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
• Recommendation 2b - All jurisdictions within Santa Clara County should update their claims websites to identify roads that are commonly mistaken as being in their jurisdictions. The jurisdictions should implement this by December 15, 2026.
City staff reviewed the findings and the recommendations and prepared a draft response letter (Attachment 1) explaining more about the City’s claims review process and reasons why the City partially agrees with the Civil Grand Jury’s findings and will only be implementing Recommendation 2b. The City partially disagrees with Findings 1 and 2 because claims are appropriately rejected for reasons such as incorrect jurisdiction, lack of liability, insufficient information, and untimeliness. The City refers claimants to the proper agency when known. The City will not implement Recommendation 2a, because maintaining an online roadway list or static map may be unclear, outdated, or too detailed to effectively show jurisdictional boundaries. The City will implement Recommendation 2b by adding a list of commonly mistaken highways and expressways to its File a Claim Against the City web page.
VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II
The Civil Grand Jury investigation resulted in ten findings and ten recommendations (pages 27 to 30 in the Civil Grand Jury report, Attachment 4). Sunnyvale is required to respond to two of the findings and two of the recommendations. The findings and recommendations applicable to Sunnyvale are:
• 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.
• Recommendation 7 - The cities represented in Appointing Authority Groups 2 and 5 should agree on a uniform process for making Board appointments. This should be implemented by December 31, 2026.
City staff reviewed the findings and the recommendations and prepared a draft response letter explaining more about the City’s Intergovernmental Agency appointment process and reasons why the City does not agree with the Civil Grand Jury’s recommendations. Sunnyvale wholly disagrees with Finding 6, City Council appointments to the VTA board comply with state law and follow Council Policy 7.4.12. The City partially disagrees with Finding 7 as the City assumes other agencies follow appointment processes defined by their governing bodies. Sunnyvale will not implement Recommendations 6 or 7, and will retain its existing appointment practices rather than certify adherence to VTA rules or adopt a uniform process with other jurisdictions. The response underscores reliance on the City’s Council policies.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact from the City’s response to the Civil Grand Jury report.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council meeting agenda on the City's official-notice bulletin board at City Hall, at the Sunnyvale Public Library and in the Department of Public Safety Lobby. In addition, the agenda and this report are available at the City Hall reception desk located on the first floor of City Hall at 456 W. Olive Avenue (during normal business hours), and on the City's website.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County as presented in Attachment 1 to the report and authorize the Mayor to sign the response.
2. Approve the City’s response as presented in Attachment 1 to the report with modifications and authorize the Mayor to sign the response.
3. Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II as presented in Attachment 3 to the report and authorize the Mayor to sign the response.
4. Approve the City’s response as presented in Attachment 3 to the report with modifications and authorize the Mayor to sign the response.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Alternatives 1 and 3:
1. Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County as presented in Attachment 1 to the report and authorize the Mayor to sign the response.
3. Approve the City’s response to the 2026 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury report VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II as presented in Attachment 3 to the report and authorize the Mayor to sign the response.
Levine Act
LEVINE ACT
The Levine Act (Gov. Code Section 84308) prohibits city officials from participating in certain decisions regarding licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use if the official has received a campaign contribution of more than $500 from a party, participant, or agent of a party or participant in the previous 12 months. The Levine Act is intended to prevent financial influence on decisions that affect specific, identifiable persons or participants. For more information see the Fair Political Practices Commission website: www.fppc.ca.gov/learn/pay-to-play-limits-and-prohibitions.html
An “X” in the checklist below indicates that the action being considered falls under a Levine Act category or exemption:
SUBJECT TO THE LEVINE ACT
___ Land development entitlements
___ Other permit, license, or entitlement for use
___ Contract or franchise
EXEMPT FROM THE LEVINE ACT
___ Competitively bid contract*
___ Labor or personal employment contract
___ Contract under $50,000 or non-fiscal
___ Contract between public agencies
_X_ General policy and legislative actions
* "Competitively bid" means a contract that must be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
Staff
Prepared by: Tamara Davis, Senior Management Analyst
Reviewed by: David Carnahan, City Clerk
Reviewed by: Aaron Bert, Public Works Director
Reviewed by: Heather Ruiz, Human Resources Director
Reviewed by: Sarah Johnson-Rios, Assistant City Manager
Approved by: Tim Kirby, City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
Pothole Damage: Improving claims processes within Santa Clara County
1. Draft City Response Letter
2. Civil Grand Jury Report
VTA’s Management and Oversight of BART Silicon Valley Phase II
3. Draft City Response Letter
4. Civil Grand Jury Report