CC 07-15-2025 Item No. 13 Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study_Written Communications_2CC 07-15-2025
Item No. 13
Stevens Creek Corridor
Vision Study
Written Communications
From:Connie Cunningham
To:City Clerk; City Council
Cc:Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 13 Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 1:57:39 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
2025-07-15 CC Agenda Item 13 Acceptance of the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers and City Manager:
My name is Connie Cunningham, 38 year resident and Chair, Housing Commission, speaking for myself only.
I add my name to those who have written or will speak tonight to support the recommendation to Adopt Resolution
No. 25-068 accepting the Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study, including the additional qualifications
recommended by the Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission, and directing City staff
to work through the multi jurisdictional working group and Steering Committee to further assess the Study’s
recommendations and opportunities for implementation.
It is critical that regional solutions are found for transportation. Cupertino has been a member of this regional effort
since the City Council adopted a resolution in July 2019 affirming Cupertino’s support for this project. By voting
tonight for this phase of the project the Council will show that Cupertino is committed to finding regional solutions,
including this corridor’s shape.
Money is always a key topic in projects of this size. This regionally approved corridor will be a very high priority
for state and county grants.
Since the Vision Study includes the segment from Bubb to Foothill, I highly recommend that the City Council
include that segment in its final vote. Various segments will be voted on separately, so final decisions can be fully
thought out between now and completion.
I highly support the Council’s adoption of Resolution No. 25-068. Thank you, in advance, for keeping this regional
project momentum moving forward.
Sincerely,
Connie Cunningham
From:Aaryan Doshi
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Accept Stevens Creek Corridor Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:41:51 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Councilmembers,
I hope you're doing well!
My name is Aaryan, a recent graduate of Monta Vista and frequent biker across Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
I strongly urge you to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Study for the following
three reasons:
--- This will be a joint project to support Stevens Creek Blvd across multiple cities
--- Cupertino is the only city right now that has not accepted the study. There is no need for
us to be an outlier on this matter --- there is a reason it has been so popular elsewhere
--- Our funding chances will increase tremendously and we can have full coverage to Foothill
Boulevard
Please keep these at the back of your mind when you vote today.
We can keep our bikers safe.
We got this :)
Sincerely,
Aaryan
From:Sharlene Liu
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:accept Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 3:07:49 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Please include my email in the public record).
Dear Cupertino Council,
I ask you to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study at tonight's council meeting.
Stevens Creek Blvd (SCB) is an important cross-county route and we need to make it safe for
all modes of transportation. By accepting the study, Cupertino will continue to be involved in
its planning. The study would be greatly weakened if the Cupertino segment of SCB were left
out, making it unsafe for vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. After several
years of involvement, Cupertino would be wasting a lot of effort if you don't accept the study
now.
I personally bike on SCB, but I try to avoid it by using parallel streets because of the
unprotected nature of the bike lanes on SCB. This is inconvenient and lengthens my
commute, discouraging me from biking to my destinations along SCB. Please make SCB safe
all the way to Foothill Blvd on the west. We need connectivity.
Thank you,
Sharlene Liu
From:Seema Lindskog
To:City Council; City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Accept the Stevens Creek Blvd Corridor Vision Study
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 9:41:28 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and council members,
I am on the Planning Commission, but I am writing this email as a resident of this city. Please
include it in the public record.
I am writing today to urge you to accept the SCB Corridor Vision Study. Over the past few
years, multiple Cupertino councilmembers of different political views have sat on the Steering
Committee and influenced the direction of the Vision Study. It is the result of years of input
from them combined with listening to residents in three cities, community leaders, and elected
leaders. The Bike Ped Commission and Planning Commission have also voted to recommend
that the City Council accept the Vision Study.
Accepting the Vision Study means that the City of Cupertino continues to be "in the room
where it happens" when decisions are made about the future of this corridor. Cupertino doesn't
exist in a vacuum. Traffic, transit, pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure, medians, and
sidewalks on Stevens Creek Boulevard in Santa Clara and San Jose impact Cupertino residents
too. Cupertino needs to make sure it has a seat at the table when the corridor in its entirety is
being planned.
Accepting the Vision Study does not lock Cupertino into any specific projects, it only sets out
a vision for the corridor. How we realize that vision can be very tailored to what works for us
as a city.
While the Planning Commission recommended that the Vision Study's scope end at Bubb Rd,
I urge the council to include the entirety of the corridor all the way to Foothill Blvd. The
stretch from Bubb to Foothill is very busy with high speed car traffic and hundreds of children
crossing it every day to get to Stevens Creek Elementary and Monta Vista High School. It's
often used as a shortcut by drivers looking to avoid congested freeways and sees daily
significant safety issues. It's a critical length and it must be included in the scope of the Vision
Study.
Regards,
Seema Lindskog
Cupertino resident
___________________________________________________________________
"You must be the change you want to see in the world." - Mahatma Gandhi
This message is from my personal email account. I am only writing as myself, not as a
representative or spokesperson for any other organization.
From:J Shearin
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:City Council July 15, 2025 | Accept the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 4:47:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please include the following in the public record.
Dear Mayor Chao and City Council:
I ask you today to approve the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study. As the Cupertino City
Council affirmed in 2019, this is a key corridor through our city which needs careful planning
and improvement to meet the needs of our residents for the next 50 years. This study lays out
that vision, while not stating any specific changes for Cupertino. All potential plans would
have to be approved by the City Council. There’s not a downside for our city to approving this
vision, but there is an upside: we maintain our voice in what will happen to Stevens Creek
Boulevard.
This study has had extensive community input over several years, both diving deep on issues
and hearing from a wide variety of residents. Cupertino has had an equal voice in the results.
By approving this study, Cupertino will have a voice even beyond its borders in what happens
next. This is crucial as we know that our South Bay issues such as heavy traffic do not restrict
themselves by stopping at a city limit. Let’s not throw that away voice.
Other cities, VTA, and the county have all approved this study. They want to keep their
constituent’s interests represented. The Planning Commission and the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission have encouraged approving it, too.
One note is that this study should not stop at Bubb Road, as a few Planning Commissioners
(who live on the west side) asked for. We are one city, and the west side should not be above
consideration for inclusion just as it should be for all city decisions, whether zoning,
transportation, or other large-scale planning. Stevens Creek Boulevard extends to Foothill, and
the vision should, too.
Thank you for considering my input on this matter, and your work on behalf of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
Cupertino resident
From:louise saadati
To:Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Fwd: Steven Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 12:53:48 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: louise saadati <lwsaadati@gmail.com>
Date: July 15, 2025 at 1:38:21 AM PDT
To: citycouncil@cupertino.gov, City Clerk <cityclerk@cupertino.gov>
Subject: Steven Creek Corridor Vision Study
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and City
Council Members:
Please include the following in the public record:
Please vote yes on the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision
Study at the City Council Meeting of 7/15/26.
This is a joint project by Santa Clara, Cupertino, San
Jose, VTA and the County to study and make
recommendations for the safety along the Stevens
Creek Boulevard. Cupertino needs to approve this to
be included in the conversation and decisions made
by these cities and the County. This is to improve the
safety for all of us whether on transit, driving , biking
or walking.
The recommendations need to go end to end
including all the way to Foothill Blvd where all the
residents travel to and deserve optimal safety.
Cupertino is the last city to give their approval to this
vision. Cupertino’s approval of the results of the
Vision Study will make it easier for the cities and
entities to receive grant approvals to improve that
corridor.
Please vote yes to show that you believe in making
Stevens Creek Corridor a safe and enjoyable corridor
for us all to enjoy.
Thank you for supporting this by voting yes.
Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From:Jennifer Griffin
To:City Council; City Clerk
Cc:grenna5000@yahoo.com
Subject:Item 13-Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:52:04 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless
you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
(Please include the following as comments for Item Number 13 in the City Council Agenda
For July 15, 2025).
Dear City Council Council:
I attended the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision Studies meetings and activities in different cities for the last few
years. This included a bus tour from Diridon Station and many different types of meetings and activities in
San Jose, Santa Clara and Cupertino.
The meetings were well attended and there was much discussion about different aspects of the
Corridor.
I don't think it is a good idea to have BRT or Bus Rapid Transit down Stevens Creek Blvd. It would
not be a good idea to close one lane on each side of Stevens Creek Blvd for a Fixed Bus Rapid Transit
Or a dedicated bus line as there is already gridlock in some areas of Stevens Creek Blvd. There is
simply no room to have any lanes closed on Stevens Creek Blvd. Traffic flow demands having full
Access of all lanes of traffic, especially in the Cupertino area.
There is already a bus line on Stevens Creek Blvd. in the form of Bus 23 and 523. These buses do
A good job of moving passengers up and down the corridor and they seem to operate as well
As bus lines in other cities, especially the Santa Cruz area. There is no reason to shut down one
Lane of Stevens Creek Blvd. for Bus Rapid Transit.
I think the corridor study should include the part of Stevens Creek Blvd/San Carlos that goes
Toward San Jose State University.
I don't think the Corridor Study should try to include the area of Cupertino where Stevens Creek
Blvd. connects with Foothill Blvd. This area is far off the scope of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision
Study and it is too deep into Cupertino where Stevens Creek Blvd. narrows and gets into a highly
Rural area. Los Altos was never consulted or involved in the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision
Study at all. We also never studied the Downtown San Jose areas where San Carlos runs into the
San Jose Downtown and San Jose State. The boundaries of the Stevens Creek Blvd. Corridor Vision
Study did not involve these adjacent areas of Foothill Blvd and San Jose State so it would be better
To concentrate on the Corridor Proper that was indeed studied.
It is important to make sure car traffic is not impeded on Stevens Creek Blvd. It is a major source of
Transportation and keeping all lanes open on Stevens Creek Blvd. will keep traffic flowing smoothly.
I am also extremely concerned about the potential implications if SB 79 (Senator Wiener) passes
In 2025. This bill is not subject to CEQA, and there may be the potential that traffic in the Stevens
Creek Blvd. Corridor will go to gridlock if this bill is implemented, especially since I believe
The main intent of SB 79 is to run high voltage transmission lines for AI and Data Centers down
Transit and bus lines of which Stevens Creek Blvd. is one.
Please make sure Bus Rapid Transit is not installed on Stevens Creek Blvd on the Stevens Creek Corridor
And especially not in Cupertino. Do not let lanes be closed on Stevens Creek Blvd. for bus only
Service. Cupertino has its Heart of the City which is very important to the City and many people
have worked countless hours to maintain it.
Thank you.
Best regards,
Jennifer Griffin
From:Hoai-An Truong
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:21:36 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
I am Hoai-An Truong, with Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley for a livable
climate for all children.
As a lifelong transit rider, I urge you to fully support the “Stevens Creek
Corridor Vision Study”.
The following statistics probably come from VTA a few years ago: During
the pandemic, 80% of riders were transit-dependent. Here in the county,
people of color made up 80% of VTA riders. 50% of riders were low-
income. Nearly a third of all transit riders were essential workers.
Make it easier and FASTER for low-income folks and all transit riders
to get to work. We need improvements to public transit to support all
these populations and more.
We desperately need Bus-Only Lanes. We need to fund signal
preemption for public transit post-haste to make public transit faster.
BOTH will help speed up travel from San Jose to Cupertino. a major
benefit not only to Cupertino, but to getting around the whole county.
Additionally, in the Bay Area, the fastest-growing demographic is people
aged 65 and older.
We need safer street crossings for everyone crossing the street.
We need a LOT more protected bike lanes for safety and to encourage
more biking for improved health, reduced stress, and getting more of
us out of our cars.
We need lots more trees to help cool the city, and make getting
around without a car easier.
All of these things also help us reach the city’s climate goals.
Increased foot traffic also benefits local businesses as in this
FANTASTIC TED Talk.
TED Talk: Janette Sadik-Khan: New York's streets? Not so mean
any more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LujWrkYsl64&t=1s
I urge you to make these changes as quickly as possible. Thank you.
Hoai-An Truong
Mothers Out Front Silicon Valley
San Jose resident
--
Sent by carrier pigeon
*** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm ***
350ppm ***
ALL HANDS ON DECK!
Climate Action: Do it for everyone you LOVE!
Food as Climate Action: Changing how we eat, how we farm,
and reducing food waste are some of the FASTEST and easiest
ways to REVERSE climate change.
#WeCanSolveThis (playlist - fun & interesting videos!):
The diet that helps fight climate change and more
Now on Netflix! KISS THE GROUND - movie based on the bestseller.
A climate solution full of hope!
Support statewide and local/regional public banks that reinvest profits
in the public interest. This can include pandemic relief & recovery, AND
climate solutions. And it's a way to divest our public institutions from fossil
fuel investments!
*** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm *** 350ppm ***
350ppm ***
From:Jacob Brandis
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:12:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Jacob Brandis and I’m a Cupertino commuter.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current
design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are
unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Jacob Brandis
From:Ashwin Venugopal
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:03:22 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Ashwin Venugopal and I’m a Cupertino student.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current design
encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive
like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With
the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the
transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a
less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve
safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects
that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning
Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will
be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without
binding the city to any new financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek
Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Ashwin Venugopal
student email provided for educational purposes by Fremont Union HSD
From:radhika
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:58:41 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is radhika and I’m a Cupertino student!
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current
design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are
unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
radhika
From:Hazel
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:54:33 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Hazel Harrison and I’m a Cupertino resident.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current
design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are
unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Hazel Harrison
From:Shaurya Arora
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 10:51:25 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Shaurya Arora and I’m a Cupertino resident and business owner
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current
design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are
unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Shaurya Arora
From:Mary Williams
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 9:12:20 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Mary Williams and I’m a long time Cupertino bike commuter.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current
design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are
unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Mary Williams
From:Daniel Huynh
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7:29:43 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Daniel Huynh. From my experiences as someone who lives by Stevens Creek
Boulevard, I can tell it's not only Cupertino's most vital corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but also a gateway connecting it with other major cities and neighborhoods in
the county allowing for people from all over the county to visit, work, study, do business,etc in
Cupertino enriching all of us.
But sadly the current design of the corridor isn’t up to this awesome task. Its current design
encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive
like children, seniors, or mobility device users with Stevens Creek Blvd and its immediate area
is home to many schools, childcare facilities, senior centers, and parks.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With
the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the
transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a
less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve
safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects
that Cupertino residents object to. It will ignificantly improve safety for car drivers, bus riders,
and people on bike, foot, or wheelchair without affecting traffic flow. These include high
visibility crosswalks, protected bike lanes, and pedestrian crossing islands.
It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment
to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new financial
obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek
Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely, Daniel Huynh
From:Phillip Hines
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 11:51:27 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor & Council,
My name is Phil Hines, and I am a frequent commuter within Cupertino. I have many friends
and a church community in the area, and would love to see improvements made to the safety
of all residents in the city.
I urge the council to approve The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan, which
includes sensible and data-proven methods to reduce traffic and improve safety at this key
corridor. Stevens Creek Blvd is a key part of many folks' commutes, and improving the safety
and long-term sustainability of the corridor is a must. And as there are plans to further
improve and develop Stevens Creek, this kind of long-term thinking is paramount.
I hope the council recognizes the merits of the plan, as many others in the area -- like the
county, San Jose city, and the VTA have. Please vote in favor of the plan, which provides the
city a wealth of opportunities to stay committed to safe streets and strong relationships with
your neighboring cities.
Thank you,
-Phil
From:Alex Richardson
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 8:28:57 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Alex and I’m a Cupertino resident.
I've lived here almost my whole life. Cupertino is a beautiful place and I want to enjoy it
through biking and walking. Unfortunately, I don't feel safe when I do. I try to bike 11 miles to
work as much as I can but hate that cars are passing me at twice the speed less than a foot
away. It makes me want to stop for good.
I drive as much as the next person and want to keep being able to, and am not worried about
that as this plan will not affect traffic flow. What this plan will do is look into options that
make other forms of transport more realistic and will help with our sense of community and
sustainability.
Whenever I walk around Stevens Creek, I always feel a little unsafe and isolated on an empty
sidewalk with a massive road next to me. Crossing can be a harrowing experience, rushing to
get to the far side in the 30 seconds the light allows, all while hoping no cars decide to pull a
fast right turn. Through this plan, if we are able to find a way to make it more friendly to
pedestrians, I think it would be amazing to be able to bike and walk around the area
comfortably and run into friends and acquaintances.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current design
encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are unable to drive
like children, seniors, or mobility device users. Changing this street could also play a major
role in better connecting our city centers such as Main Street and the Cupertino Library to the
rest of the city, further enhancing our city's community.
The current design is deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With the
state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must ensure the
transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a
less congested and more livable future.
whether I'd want that to be in Cupertino or not. My biggest challenge living here has been the
lack of community and accessibility for shorter commutes due to our current infrastructure.
Plans like this are what give me hope for our city's future and make me excited to see how
Cupertino can continue to lead the way in building a sustainable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve
safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not forcing any projects
that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning
Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will
be reaffirming our commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without
binding the city to any new financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek
Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Alex Richardson
From:CrystaLuna Luminescent
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 6:20:04 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Savita Nataraj and I regularly drive through Stevens Creek Boulevard.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is the city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current design
encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those who are unable to drive like
children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially. With
the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, please ensure the
transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of new projects for a
less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to improve
safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of the city by not forcing any projects
that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning
Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission. By accepting the study, the city will
be reaffirming the commitment to safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding
the city to any new financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens Creek
Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Savita Nataraj
Blessings on your night and day,
Savita N.
From:Vishnu Bhat
To:Public Comments
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:23:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Council,
My name is Vishnu and I’m a Cupertino resident.
Stevens Creek Boulevard is our city’s most important corridor for jobs, housing, and
transportation, but the current design of the corridor isn’t up to the task. Its current
design encourages speeding, putting everyone at risk, especially those of us who are
unable to drive like children, seniors, or mobility device users.
The current design is also deeply unsustainable, both environmentally and financially.
With the state forcing us to plan for more development along Stevens Creek, we must
ensure the transportation options along the corridor can mitigate the traffic impacts of
new projects for a less congested and more livable future.
The Stevens Creek Vision Study’s Recommended Plan includes proven measures to
improve safety and reduce traffic, and respects the independence of our city by not
forcing any projects that Cupertino residents object to. It was approved
UNANIMOUSLY by the Planning Commission and the Bicycle and Pedestrian
Commission. By accepting the study, the city will be reaffirming our commitment to
safe streets and strong regional partnerships without binding the city to any new
financial obligations.
Please vote to accept the study so we can all enjoy the safe and sustainable Stevens
Creek Boulevard that we deserve.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bhat
From:louise saadati
To:City Council; City Clerk
Subject:Steven Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 1:38:31 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Chao, Vice-Mayor Moore and City Council
Members:
Please include the following in the public record:
Please vote yes on the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
at the City Council Meeting of 7/15/26.
This is a joint project by Santa Clara, Cupertino, San Jose,
VTA and the County to study and make recommendations for
the safety along the Stevens Creek Boulevard. Cupertino
needs to approve this to be included in the conversation and
decisions made by these cities and the County. This is to
improve the safety for all of us whether on transit, driving ,
biking or walking.
The recommendations need to go end to end including all the
way to Foothill Blvd where all the residents travel to and
deserve optimal safety.
Cupertino is the last city to give their approval to this vision.
Cupertino’s approval of the results of the Vision Study will
make it easier for the cities and entities to receive grant
approvals to improve that corridor.
Please vote yes to show that you believe in making Stevens
Creek Corridor a safe and enjoyable corridor for us all to
enjoy.
Thank you for supporting this by voting yes.
Louise Saadati
40 year resident of Cupertino
Sent from my iPhone
From:Kelly Cox
To:Public Comments; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore
Cc:Lisa Gillmor; Manager
Subject:Steven’s Creek Study Public Comment
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 6:27:20 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers,
Tomorrow, Cupertino City Council will be voting on the adoption of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision
Study. This project is a testament to the collaboration between the Public Works departments of our cities
and our joint commitment to a safe, sustainable, and economically productive corridor that we can all be
proud of. Accepting this study will enable our cities to move forward in a unified manner to transform the
corridor in accordance with the will of our communities who have repeatedly made their voices heard in
favor of such an effort.
We in Santa Clara value our relationship with our neighbors and partners, and hope to strengthen our
collaboration in key areas such as traffic safety, economic development, and sustainability. I know our
residents and small businesses share that sentiment, and we have heard time and time again that they
are excited for us to collaborate on such an important corridor.
While the adoption of the study does not commit us or our partners to implementing any specific projects
or ongoing financial obligations, it will make our joint efforts and joint projects significantly more
competitive for grants. Should we decide to advance a project on the corridor, we can count on the Vision
Study to show our regional, state, and federal partners that we are committed to a safe and seamless
experience on the corridor for all.
In such uncertain times, I am grateful that we are working to preserve and strengthen our ties. Our efforts
to improve safety, sustainability, congestion, and economic productivity will only be furthered by our
partnership.
I look forward to our continued collaboration and I hope that the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study can
be adopted without alteration.
Sincerely,
Kelly Cox, Santa Clara Vice Mayor
Get Outlook for iOS
From:Glenn Fishler
To:City Council
Cc:City Clerk; Cupertino City Manager"s Office
Subject:Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study Acceptance on July 15, 2025
Date:Monday, July 14, 2025 9:31:29 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino City Council Members,
Please include this message in the public record.
I am writing to encourage your unanimous approval to accept the Stevens Creek Corridor
Study during the City Council meeting on July 15, 2025. This is a joint project intended to
improve the Stevens Creek Corridor from end to end. The cities of San Jose and Santa
Clara, plus Santa Clara County and VTA have already accepted the Vision Study; now it’s
Cupertino’s turn to follow suit so we may be included in this important process.
Why is it important for Cupertino to accept the Vision Study?
1) Cupertino needs to accept the Vision Study to be part of the go-forward decision
making on the corridor, because traffic and transit do not stop at our city borders.
What happens in Santa Clara and San Jose affects Cupertino as well, so it's
important for us to have a say.
2) Unanimous acceptance by the three cities involved, plus the county, and VTA
means future projects are more likely to receive priority for state and county grant
funding.
3) The Vision Study has involved a multi-stakeholder process. Recommendations
were developed after receiving years of input by the broader public, a Steering
Committee made up of elected leaders from all three cities, and a Community
Advisory Group made up of community leaders from all three cities.
4) The Study does not mandate any specific changes to the Corridor. Rather, it
lays out a vision. Any specific projects will need to be approved separately and
individually. So, Cupertino’s specific interests will be heard as the vision moves
forward.
5) The vision should include the entire length of Stevens Creek Blvd. to Foothill
Blvd. It should not stop at Bubb Road, as recommended by the Cupertino Planning
Commission. The other cities, the County, and the VTA recognize the importance of
improving the corridor from end to end. Cupertino should follow suit.
Thank you for your support on this important matter.
Sincerely,
Glenn Fishler
Cupertino Resident since 1997
From:Kitty Moore
To:City Clerk
Subject:Item 13 Written Communications
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 1:17:46 PM
Attachments:2023-101-Report.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Please provide this email and the attached State Auditor Report regarding VTA for Written
Communications Item 13:
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
“Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its Project Management and Financial Oversight”
June 2024
State Auditor REPORT 2023‑101
https://www.auditor.ca.gov/reports/2023-101/
A key point in the report is that there has been a lack of cost-benefit analyses conducted by VTA.
Thank you,
Kitty Moore
Kitty Moore
Vice Mayor
City Council
KMoore@cupertino.gov
(408)777-1389
Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority
Improvements Are Necessary to Strengthen Its
Project Management and Financial Oversight
June 2024
REPORT 2023‑101
For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact our Communications Office at 916.445.0255
This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov | Alternative format reports available upon request | Permission is granted to reproduce reports
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento | CA | 95814
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
916.445.0255 | TTY 916.445.0033
1.800.952.5665
For complaints of state employee misconduct,
contact us through the Whistleblower Hotline:
Don’t want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at auditor.ca.gov
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 | Sacramento, CA 95814 | 916.445.0255 | 916.327.0019 fax | www.auditor.ca.gov
Mike Tilden Chief Deputy
Grant Parks State Auditor
June 11, 2024
2023‑101
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:
As directed by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee, my office conducted an audit of the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) regarding the agency’s governance structure, project planning
and management, financial viability, and fiscal oversight. VTA is a special district that provides transit
services throughout Santa Clara County (county). The agency is governed by a Board of Directors
(board) consisting of 12 directors who each represent various jurisdictions within the county.
VTA is responsible for planning and delivering improvements to county transit systems or
transportation infrastructure. However, the agency needs to strengthen its planning and oversight
of such capital projects. For example, when VTA estimates the costs of capital projects, it does not
always estimate the cost to operate and maintain the project. Also, VTA’s staff do not provide regular
updates to the board about variances from the cost estimates it develops before the construction
of a project. For example, the construction cost of one project we reviewed increased by about
24 percent from the start of construction. Without regular information about cost increases such
as this one, the board has diminished insight into capital project performance.
The processes for appointing VTA’s directors are not always transparent enough to ensure the
appointment of directors with experience in transportation. For example, one group of cities in
the county does not meet publicly when it decides who to appoint as its director. Once appointed,
VTA’s directors have briefer tenures than those of peer transit agencies, and this is due, in part, to
the shorter term lengths that state law establishes for VTA directors compared to the term lengths
of other agencies’ directors. As a result, VTA’s board has less experience overseeing the agency’s
operations than the boards of peer agencies.
Finally, VTA is in good financial condition but would benefit from adopting additional fiscal oversight
practices. More than 60 percent of VTA’s annual revenue comes from sales taxes, which are a
time‑limited and uncertain source of revenue. However, VTA has not determined how it will replace
this revenue once some of the measures authorizing these taxes begin expiring in 2036. Additionally,
VTA’s staff do not report to the board about financial performance metrics, such as the cost per
passenger trip, which is information that could assist the board in overseeing VTA’s performance.
Respectfully submitted,
GRANT PARKS
California State Auditor
Selected Abbreviations Used in This Report
ACFR Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
APTA American Public Transportation Association
BART Bay Area Rapid Transit
CalPERS California Public Employees’ Retirement System
CapMetro Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority
CEO Chief Executive Officer
CFO Chief Financial Officer
EBRC Eastridge to BART Regional Connector
FPPC Fair Political Practices Commission
FTA Federal Transit Administration
GAO U.S. Government Accountability Office
GFOA Government Finance Officers Association
LA Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
OCTA Orange County Transportation Authority
OPEB Other post-employment benefits
SacRT Sacramento Regional Transit District
SCIP Strategic Capital Investment Plan
SSTPO Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and Operations
TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program
TriMet Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon
VTA Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
iv CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Contents
Summary 1
Introduction 3
Chapter 1
VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight of Capital Projects
and Better Inform the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes 9
Recommendations 22
Chapter 2
Legislative Changes Could Increase the Transparency and
Effectiveness of VTA’s Board 23
Recommendations 36
Chapter 3
VTA Should Adopt Several Additional Practices to Optimize
Its Financial Health and Strategic Direction 37
Recommendations 55
Other Areas We Reviewed 57
Appendix A
Status of VTA’s Implementation of Our Prior Audit Recommendations 61
Appendix B
Scope and Methodology 63
Response to the Audit
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 67
California State Auditor’s Comments on the Response From
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 77
vCALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
vi CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Summary
Results in Brief
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is a special district responsible
for ensuring that Santa Clara County’s (county) transit and transportation needs are
met. VTA provides transit services—including light rail and bus service—and traffic
congestion management services throughout the county. A 12‑member board of
directors (board) governs VTA and sets VTA policy. Board directors are appointed by
local elected officials from the city of San José, from the county, and from groups of
smaller cities within the county. The head of VTA’s Administrative Branch is the Chief
Executive Officer (CEO), who oversees and manages all facets of the organization
under policy direction from the board. This audit report concludes the following:
VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight of Capital Projects and Better Inform
the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes
• VTA addressed individual changes to its capital projects’ costs and schedules
in accordance with its procedures. However, VTA’s cost estimates are neither
comprehensive nor fully documented. VTA staff also do not regularly report to
the board variances in cost or schedule in VTA’s capital projects, leaving the board
unaware of important details about these projects and diminishing the board’s
oversight of capital projects.
Legislative Changes Could Increase the Transparency and Effectiveness of VTA’s Board
• The process for selecting directors for the board is not always transparent enough
to ensure the appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues. For
example, the mayors from one group of cities do not meet in public to deliberate
regarding whom they will appoint as a director.
• The two‑year term served by VTA’s directors is established in state law and is
shorter than the terms of most of their peers at other transportation agencies.
In practice, 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.
VTA Should Adopt Several Additional Practices to Optimize its Financial Health and
Strategic Direction
• VTA is in relatively good financial condition. The agency has consistently spent
less than it received in revenue, and it has built sizeable reserves to prepare for
unexpected financial events. However, VTA relies on an uncertain source—
sales taxes—for more than 60 percent of its annual revenue, and it has not yet
determined how it will replace this revenue once the measures authorizing these
taxes begin expiring in 2036.
1CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
• Despite the importance of working from a strategic plan, VTA has been
operating with an expired strategic plan since 2022. Further, VTA’s strategic
planning documents—the expired plan and a CEO’s list of initiatives—do not
contain measurable objectives, strategies for achieving particular objectives, or
performance measures that would enable it to track its progress toward achieving
its goals.
Agency Comments
VTA agreed with the recommendations we directed to it and indicated that
it is committed to implementing them. However, VTA disagreed with the
two recommendations we made to the Legislature regarding the transparency of
the appointment of directors to its board and the term length for its directors.
2 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Introduction
Background
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is a special district
responsible for providing transit services within Santa Clara County (county). VTA
reports that it provides transit services to a 346‑square‑mile service area with more
than 50 bus routes and more than 50 light rail stations.
VTA also serves as the county’s congestion management
agency, which means VTA is responsible for developing,
adopting, and updating a congestion management
program that, among other things, contains traffic
level‑of‑service standards for highways and roadways in
the county. In these roles, VTA may design and
construct state highways, create transit‑oriented joint
development projects, and provide bicycle and
pedestrian facilities. The text box provides examples of
VTA’s responsibilities.
Structure and Responsibilities of VTA’s Board of Directors
State law assigns responsibility for the governance of VTA to a board of directors
(board). The law specifies that the board is composed of 12 members (directors), all of
whom must hold office as either a mayor or city council member of a locality within
the county, or as a member of the county board of supervisors.1 According to state
law, a director’s term on the board may generally last for two years, but the law does
not limit the number of terms a director may serve. Figure 1 shows that the directors
are appointed from six different regions, or groups, within the county—each having a
fixed number of directors.
Each group is responsible for appointing its directors to the board. State law requires
that, to the extent possible, the individuals appointed to the board should have
expertise, experience, or knowledge relative to transportation issues. For the city of
San José (San José) and the county, state law specifies that the city council and the
county board of supervisors must appoint their respective directors. However,
the law provides that local agreements between the other cities in the county govern
how the other directors are chosen. For example, the mayors from the West Valley
Cities group appoint that group’s director from a pool of mayors and city council
members interested in serving on VTA’s board, whereas the cities in the Northeast
Cities group take turns appointing a director to the board, and that choice is
approved by the city council of the city assigned the appointment.
1 According to state law, in some instances, the office of mayor, city council member, and county supervisor may be filled by
an individual who is appointed. Nevertheless, for purposes of this report, we refer to all individuals who fill these positions
as elected.
Examples of VTA’s Responsibilities
• Providing public transportation services:
bus, light rail, and paratransit.
• Developing countywide transportation planning.
• Managing specific highway improvement projects.
Source: VTA policy.
3CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Figure 1
VTA’s Board Is Composed of Elected Officials From the County and the Cities Therein
South County Cities:
Gilroy and Morgan Hill
(City Council Member
or Mayor)
West Valley Cities:
Campbell, Cupertino,
Monte Sereno, Saratoga,
and the Town of Los Gatos
(City Council Member
or Mayor)
Northwest Cities:
Los Altos, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, and the Town
of Los Altos Hills
(City Council Member
or Mayor)
Northeast Cities:
Santa Clara, Milpitas, and Sunnyvale
(City Council Members or Mayors)
County of Santa Clara
(Members of the Santa Clara County
Board of Supervisors)
City of San José
(City Council Members
or the Mayor)
VTA’s Groups and Total Board Representatives
Source: State law and VTA’s administrative code.
4 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Broadly, VTA’s board is responsible for monitoring
VTA’s operations and capital projects, as well as
setting VTA policy. The text box lists examples of
the board’s duties. To assist it in carrying out its
responsibilities, the board maintains several
standing and advisory committees that are tasked
with providing advice and nonbinding
recommendations to the board on VTA policy. The
board may also form ad hoc committees, composed
of directors, to address and resolve specific
problems or to achieve defined objectives as needed
and for a limited duration. Figure 2 shows the
three types of committees.
Figure 2
VTA’s Board Maintains Several Standing and Advisory Committees
• Bicycle and Pedestrian
• Citizens Advisory
• Policy Advisory
• Technical Advisory
• Transportation Mobility
and Accessibility
• Administration and Finance
• Capital Program
• Congestion Management
Program and Planning
• Governance and Audit
• Safety, Security, and Transit
Planning and Operations
Advisory Committees
(Members are citizens
and local o cials)
Standing Committees
(Members are directors)
Ad Hoc Committees
(Members are directors;
these committees are created
only when necessary)
VTA Board
Source: VTA administrative code and rules of procedure.
Each standing committee, composed of at least four directors, focuses on a specific
area of responsibility. In contrast, advisory committees are composed of individuals
who are not directors. Depending on the specific advisory committee, those
individuals may be members of the public, organizational representatives, or local
officials, or a combination of them. Similar to the standing committees, advisory
committees exist to offer the board advice and nonbinding recommendations
on topics relevant to their areas of responsibility. For example, the Bicycle and
Examples of the Board’s Responsibilities
• Setting transit rates and charges for the transit services
VTA operates.
• Adopting VTA budgets.
• Determining the property and equipment to be owned or
acquired by VTA to provide transit services.
• Selecting and evaluating the CEO.
Source: State law; VTA’s rules of procedure; VTA policies.
5CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Pedestrian Advisory Committee is responsible for providing advice regarding
funding priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Committee meeting agendas
and documentation show that each standing and advisory committee has a work plan
outlining items that the committee intends to address during prospective meetings.
However, the board secretary—in consultation with, among others, the board’s
chairperson—is responsible for preparing the agenda for full board meetings.
VTA’s Operations and Capital Projects
The head of VTA’s administrative branch is its chief executive officer (CEO), who
manages eight divisions. As Figure 3 details, each division carries out different
elements of VTA’s responsibilities. VTA’s activities generally fall into two categories:
those related to its general operations and those involving capital projects and
maintenance. In total for fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25, VTA appropriated about
$5.7 billion—which included $1.8 billion for operations and $3.9 billion for its capital
program. VTA’s operations primarily include the transit services that it provides
to its residents—bus, light rail, and paratransit services. VTA’s capital projects and
maintenance functions include its efforts to maintain its capital assets in good repair
and expand its services by building new infrastructure.
VTA’s Engineering and Program Delivery division is responsible for the development
and delivery of various capital projects under VTA’s capital program, including
transit and highway projects. Broadly, VTA is responsible for both the delivery
and operation of transit projects, therefore it implements and maintains the assets
related to transit projects. In contrast, VTA is generally responsible only for the
implementation of highway projects, not their maintenance.2 Finally, VTA has a
division devoted entirely to the development of one capital project, the Bay Area
Rapid Transit (BART) Silicon Valley Extension project.
Other Transit Agencies That We Compared to VTA
Several objectives the Legislature asked us to address as part of our audit led us to
identify other transit agencies against which we could compare VTA. Throughout
this report, we refer to these as VTA’s peer agencies. We selected five specific entities
as peer agencies based on their operating costs, the populations of their service
areas, the types of transportation services they provide, and the compositions of their
governing boards. Table 1 provides detailed information about these peer agencies
and VTA.
2 A notable exception is VTA’s Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program. VTA is the owner and operator of this program.
6 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Figure 3
VTA’s Eight Divisions Carry Out Different Functions
BART Delivery Program
The BART Delivery Program is
under the executive supervision
of the CEO and is budgeted as
part of that o ce. It provides
project oversight for the
proposed extension of the Bay
Area Rapid Transit (BART) system.
Engineering & Program Delivery
Develops and delivers various capital projects.
External Affairs
Develops and executes a communication plan and coordinates government relations.
System, Safety & Security
Oversees system safety and compliance.
Human Resources
Provides agencywide human resources functions.
Finance, Budget & Real Estate
Oversees accounting and nance functions, including development of the
biennial budget, as well as the acquisition of real property for capital projects.
Planning & Programming
Responsible for the programming of Congestion Management Program (CMP)
funds, transportation planning, service planning, and the development and
review of bicycle and pedestrian planning.
Operations
Operates bus and light rail service and oversees contracted paratransit services.
Office of the CEO
The O ce of the General Manager/CEO is responsible for overall administration, overseeing
construction, planning, nancial, and capital program e orts and strategies.
The o ce includes the general manager/CEO, the executive assistant to the CEO,
the chief of communication, and the chief of sta .
Source: VTA’s 2024/2025 biennial budget.
7CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Table 1
We Compared VTA With Five Peer Transit Agencies
SANTA CLARA
VALLEY
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY (VTA)
TRI‐COUNTY
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT OF
OREGON (TRIMET)
CAPITAL
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
(CAPMETRO)
LOS ANGELES
COUNTY
METROPOLITAN
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
(LA METRO)
SACRAMENTO
REGIONAL
TRANSIT
DISTRICT
(SACRT)
ORANGE COUNTY
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
(OCTA)
Service Area Santa Clara
County, CA
Clackamas,
Multnomah,
and Washington
Counties, OR
Travis and
Williamson
Counties, TX
Los Angeles
County, CA
Sacramento and
Yolo Counties, CA
Orange County, CA
Population of
Service Area
(2022)
1,895,000 1,558,000 1,331,000 10,395,000 1,333,000 2,944,000
Operating
Costs (2022)
Cost per capita*
$424,438,000
$224
$506,016,000
$325
$283,570,000
$213
$1,801,365,000
$173
$215,479,000
$162
$295,256,000
$100
Selected
Transportation
Services
Provided†
CMA, rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
CMA, rail, bus, and
transit services
for individuals
with disabilities
Eligible
Candidates for
the Governing
Board‡
Specified elected
officials
Elected officials
and members of
the public
Elected officials
and members of
the public
Specified elected
officials and
members of
the public
Elected officials
and members of
the public
Specified elected
officials and
members of
the public
Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and National Transit Database transit agency data, transit agency documentation, state laws.
* The per capita cost is the cost per person in the transit service area.
† Congestion Management Agencies (CMA) are agencies responsible for, among other things, traffic level-of-service standards for highways and
roadways. We identified select transportation services common among the agencies.
‡ In our report, we use the term specified elected officials to refer to directors who are required by law to hold a specific elective office—such as a
city council member—to be eligible for appointment to the board of a transit agency. We refer to elected officials when we are discussing directors
who are required or permitted by law to hold an elective office but do not need to hold a specific elective office to be eligible for appointment to
the board of a transit agency.
8 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Chapter 1
VTA CAN STRENGTHEN ITS PLANNING AND OVERSIGHT OF CAPITAL PROJECTS
AND BETTER INFORM THE BOARD ABOUT COST AND SCHEDULE CHANGES
Key Points
• VTA generally followed capital project selection best practices but did not conduct
cost‑benefit analyses before selecting two capital projects. As a result, it is not clear
whether one of these projects—an extension of VTA’s light rail system—is the best use
of the $653 million cost VTA plans to incur.
• VTA did not always estimate the costs of the operation and maintenance of its capital
projects when it developed those projects. These estimates are essential to anticipating
the expected long‑term costs of the capital projects VTA pursues. Further, the
methodologies for VTA’s project cost estimates are only partially documented.
• VTA managed individual changes to project cost and schedule in accordance with
its procedures. However, it does not report to the board about deviations from the
estimated cost and schedule for capital projects. This lack of reporting diminishes
the board’s awareness of important details about these projects.
VTA Did Not Perform Cost‑Benefit Analyses When It Planned Two Major Capital Projects
When transit agencies plan and select capital
projects that expand their capacity, the agencies
are committing to long‑term, costly efforts with
the goal of improving their operations and services.
Accordingly, the process such agencies use to plan
and select these projects must thoroughly examine
the projects across several factors, including an
area’s transportation goals and the needs of the
community. To assess VTA’s project planning and
selection practices, we compared VTA’s processes
for two capital projects—the Eastridge to BART
Regional Connector (EBRC) and the Silicon Valley
Express Lanes Program (express lanes program)—
against selected best practices. We selected these
projects because they are large projects to which
VTA has appropriated funding within the past
five years, and they are capital expansion projects,
meaning the projects add assets to VTA’s existing
system. The text box provides information about
the scope of each project. Table 2 summarizes the
best practices we reviewed and our determination
that VTA followed two of the three best practices
for these projects.
VTA Capital Projects Reviewed
Eastridge to BART Regional Connector ($653 million):
VTA plans to build approximately 2.4 miles of light rail track
along East Capitol Expressway in San José, starting from its
existing Alum Rock station. VTA will build two new light rail
stations: an elevated station at Story Road and a ground-
level station at VTA’s Eastridge Transit Center. In order to
build the light rail track and stations, VTA also plans to
remove two existing High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes
along Capitol Expressway.
Silicon Valley Express Lanes Program ($1.1 billion):
VTA has begun constructing express lanes to add the option
for single-occupancy vehicles to pay a toll to use the HOV
lanes on certain highways in the county. This program is a
multiphase program with multiple projects. Some sections
have been collecting toll revenue since 2012. One of the
program’s goals is to generate revenue for VTA’s other transit
and transportation improvements.
Source: VTA project documents and website.
9CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Table 2
VTA Did Not Follow a Key Project Planning and Selection Best Practice
DURING PROJECT SELECTION, A TRANSIT AGENCY SHOULD …
… SELECT PROJECTS
THAT ALIGN WITH ITS
IDENTIFIED NEEDS.
… CONDUCT A
COST‑BENEFIT
ANALYSIS.
… SELECT PROJECTS
THAT SHOW A LINK TO
PERFORMANCE MEASURES.
EBRC Yes No Yes
Express Lanes Program Yes No Yes
Source: VTA project documentation; best practice resources from the Federal Transit Administration, the Federal Highway
Administration, and the Government Finance Officers Association.
A key best practice for capital project planning and selection is that an agency
implements projects that align with its identified needs. VTA has identified its needs
in its Valley Transportation Plan 2040 (VTP 2040). In 2014 the board adopted
this plan, which identifies capital programs, projects, and policies that the board
plans to pursue through 2040. VTP 2040 outlines VTA’s needs and goals, including
accommodating growth in the region, maintaining VTA’s transportation system
in a state of good repair, and reducing vehicle miles and hours traveled in order to
reduce emissions.
Both projects we reviewed align with needs identified in VTP 2040. Specifically,
EBRC’s expected benefits align with VTP 2040’s goals of accommodating population
growth, reducing vehicle miles traveled, and reducing emissions. VTA anticipated
that the EBRC project will reduce emissions by more than 50,000 metric tons of
carbon dioxide and reduce vehicle miles traveled by more than 124 million miles
over the span of 50 years. Similarly, the express lanes program helps VTA achieve a
different goal specified in VTP 2040: reduced reliance on state and federal funding.
VTA expects the express lanes program to generate an average of $164 million per
year by 2040—including $68 million per year to fund other transit services and
transportation improvements. Additionally, the express lanes will likely continue to
operate and generate revenue for VTA beyond the period covered by VTP 2040.
Although the two projects we reviewed are likely to address needs that VTA has
identified, VTA’s staff stated that they did not perform a cost‑benefit analysis on
either project when they proposed them to the board and received the board’s
approval. A cost‑benefit analysis is a tool that transportation agencies use to quantify
the benefits to society of implementing a transportation investment and to help
determine whether a project is economically efficient. A project is economically
efficient if its projected future benefits equal or exceed the project’s life‑cycle costs.
10 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Despite the advisability of using a cost‑benefit analysis to make project selection
decisions, VTA did not perform a cost‑benefit analysis that could have informed the
selection of these two projects. VTA’s chief engineering and program delivery officer
(chief engineering officer) informed us that VTA does not conduct a cost‑benefit
analysis on projects unless it is required to do so to obtain external funding because
such an analysis takes a considerable amount of staff resources to complete.
However, VTA’s ridership projections for the EBRC project demonstrate the
importance of a cost‑benefit analysis because VTA is predicting only a small increase
in ridership. We compared the number of riders VTA projects will ride its light rail
system in 2043 if it constructs the EBRC project and the number it projects will
ride the system if it does not. VTA’s ridership projections show that VTA expects
that the EBRC project—which is projected to cost $653 million—will increase light
rail ridership by only 1.5 percent by 2043 when compared to the number of riders
expected if it did not construct the project. This increase is the equivalent of about
2,500 additional riders per day in that year. The EBRC project’s estimated costs are
$272 million per added mile of track. Although a comprehensive cost‑benefit analysis
would likely include an examination of more factors than just ridership, such as the
effects on greenhouse gas emissions and the effects on the surrounding community,
the slim increase in overall ridership is a concerning sign for a project to which VTA
is committing significant resources.
In response to these concerns about the EBRC project, VTA’s CEO and its chief
external affairs officer asserted that VTA has a commitment to the voters who
approved Measure A to follow through on the project. Voters passed Measure A
in 2000, and an allowable use of the sales tax revenue generated by that measure is
the expansion of light rail into the East Valley region, where VTA plans to construct
EBRC. Although the EBRC project is an allowable use of Measure A funds, the
measure never required VTA to construct the EBRC project, and the project’s
scope does not include all parts of the projects described in the measure. Instead of
connecting the East Valley to downtown through a new light rail corridor or through
a direct route to downtown, as identified in the measure, the EBRC project adds
2.4 miles of light rail track to the end of an existing light rail line that only indirectly
leads to downtown.
Although VTA told us that it generally does not complete cost‑benefit analyses, it
did conduct some cost‑benefit analyses for the express lanes program. Specifically,
its first analysis was for the third phase of the program and occurred 10 years after
the board first approved the program and about two years after it made a $28 million
appropriation to the third phase. This 2018 analysis demonstrated that this phase’s
expected benefits, valued at more than $1 billion, would exceed its costs by $534 million
over 10 years. The analyses for the fourth and fifth phases also demonstrated that the
phases’ expected benefits would exceed their costs by $50 million over 10 years and
$586 million over six years, respectively. VTA completed all three of these analyses
using a template issued by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
11CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
However, VTA did not complete similar analyses for the first two phases of this
program. VTA highlighted for us that it had reviewed the feasibility of the express
lanes program and secured external financing for the program’s early phases, both of
which it believed demonstrated that VTA had performed a review of the program’s
value. Although the feasibility study does include a review of the projected expenses
and revenues for the program, a project’s estimated direct expenses and resulting
revenues are not as thorough as a full consideration of a project’s costs and benefits
to society, which would factor in other elements such as emissions and time saved or
added to commutes in the region.
As indicated earlier, VTA’s leadership shared that cost‑benefit analyses can be costly
to produce. More specifically, VTA shared its concern that some of its capital projects
are not expected to cost enough to merit a cost‑benefit analysis. For example, VTA
pointed out that some capital projects are not major investments that expand transit
services but rather smaller, less costly upgrades to existing facilities. One example
from VTA’s most recent biennial budget is the remodeling of conference rooms,
which is expected to cost only $229,000. We agree that some projects are not costly
enough to warrant a cost‑benefit analysis. VTA would likely benefit from establishing
a threshold cost to indicate when a project requires such an analysis.
Additionally, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the Federal Highway
Administration emphasize the importance of performance measures that help
transit agencies assess whether projects are helping the agency meet its goals. VTA
performed a comparison between the two projects and relevant transportation
performance measures. In its Major Investment Study from December 2000 that
aimed to provide a strategy for investing in VTA’s transit system in the Downtown/
East Valley region, VTA compared EBRC and other project alternatives against
six performance measures. These measures included total riders, new riders, and
low‑income households served. The EBRC alternative ranked highest only for the
new riders performance measure. Other alternatives—which were bus routes instead
of light rail—served more low‑income households at lower capital costs but were
not supported during community outreach sessions because they ran only during
commute hours, whereas EBRC would operate for a greater period of time each
day. Because VTA has not yet constructed the EBRC project, it is too early to know
whether the project will achieve its expected performance.
VTA also used performance measures to assess its express lanes program. VTA’s
Express Lanes Operations Report for fiscal year 2022–23 describes that vehicle speed
in express lanes are above the 45 miles‑per‑hour performance goal that VTA adopted
from certain federal express‑lane standards, showing that the program is succeeding
in keeping traffic moving at the speed desired by VTA. The toll systems manager, who
oversees express lanes, also provided a variance report demonstrating that for express
lanes currently in operation, actual revenue is greater than the amount VTA budgeted.
For example, actual revenue for the first three phases of the express lanes program
was nearly $7.8 million in fiscal year 2022, whereas VTA had planned for revenue to
be less than $6 million.
12 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
More recently, VTA began evaluating and prioritizing capital projects by using its
Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP). VTA adopted the SCIP in 2022 to help
prioritize its long‑term capital needs and identify how it anticipates appropriating
funding for its capital projects over the next six years. VTA’s adoption of the SCIP
aligns VTA with an FTA recommendation that agencies adopt a standard review and
approval framework when determining which projects to select within their capital
improvement plans. In particular, VTA staff prioritize a list of proposed capital projects
according to weighted scoring criteria, such as increasing ridership, enhancing safety,
and environmental sustainability, among other factors. Most factors are assigned a
weight of either 15 or 20 percent, with environmental sustainability being granted
the lowest weight of 10 percent. Using this list, VTA told us it then ranks the capital
projects against additional factors, including financial considerations and board
priorities. Staff then use the final list of capital projects in the SCIP to guide the
development of the biennial budget, which is how the board appropriates funds for
these projects.
Best Practices Can Help Agencies Better Manage Capital Projects’ Costs, Schedules,
and Changes
According to the Project Management Institute,
project management is the application of
knowledge, skills, tools, and techniques to project
activities to meet a project’s requirements. The
institute explains that project management enables
organizations to execute projects effectively and
efficiently by helping them resolve problems,
manage change, and manage constraints, such as
scope, schedule, and costs. A variety of resources—
shown in the text box—are available to agencies to
guide their project management.
Transit and highway projects generally follow the
project development process that Figure 4 shows:
after initiating a project, agencies design the
project, solicit and award the contract, construct
the project, and finally close the project and begin
its operation and maintenance.
Sources of Project Management Best Practices
• Project Management Institute:
» Project Management Body of Knowledge Guide
• Federal Transit Administration:
» Construction Project Management Handbook
» Project and Construction Management Guidelines
• Federal Railroad Administration:
» Capital Cost Estimating, Guidance for Project Sponsors
• California Department of Transportation
» Project Development Procedures Manual
» Preparation Guidelines for Project Development Cost
Estimates, Cost Estimating Guidelines
» Workplan Standards Guide
» Capital Project Workplan Handbook
• U.S. Government Accountability Office:
» Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide
• Transportation Research Board:
» Guidebook for the Evaluation of Project Delivery Methods
Source: Auditor research.
13CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Figure 4
Transit and Highway Projects Follow a General Project Development Process
Operation and Maintenance*
During this phase, a transit agency operates the transit project and maintains it in good repair.
Construction
During this phase, a transit agency …
• Supervises the contractor’s construction of the project in accordance with the contract.
• Conducts walkthroughs of the built project and completes documentation to con rm closeout of
the construction contract.
Solicitation and Award of Contracts
During this phase, a transit agency …
• Advertises the project construction proposal and accepts construction cost proposals from
interested parties.
• Compares contractor cost proposals with its own independent estimate. The outcome of this process
is a contract with a xed construction cost amount.
Design and Preconstruction
During this phase, a transit agency …
• Develops the project design, including the plans, speci cations, and construction quantity estimates.
• Works with property owners, if necessary, to obtain land.
Project Initiation and Development
During this phase, a transit agency …
• Selects a proposed project and appropriates funding to begin project development.
• Identi es the scope and design concept for a range of possible project alternatives, including a
no-build alternative.
• Studies the environmental impacts of the project alternatives.
• Chooses a preferred project alternative.
Source: FTA and Caltrans guidance, interviews with VTA staff.
* Caltrans is responsible for the operation and maintenance of highway projects, with the exception of VTA’s express lanes program.
14 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
As part of our audit, we reviewed VTA’s procedures
and its implementation of six capital projects—
shown in the first text box—to determine whether
they reflect project management best practices in
the areas of cost, schedule, and change control. We
focused on these areas at the request of the
Legislature and also because they are important
areas of project management.
VTA’s Project Cost Estimates Are Not Comprehensive,
and Its Cost Estimate Methods Are Not
Sufficiently Documented
Project cost estimates are important to agencies as
they make investment decisions, set budgets,
procure firms to assist with project implementation,
and monitor their projects to assess whether they
are meeting expectations. Accordingly, it is
important for agencies to develop cost estimates
that are reliable. The second text box shows the
four characteristics that the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Cost Estimating and
Assessment Guide states make a cost estimate
reliable. The guide also defines each of these traits.
For example, a comprehensive cost estimate
includes costs from the entire lifecycle of the
project, including the operation and maintenance
phase, and a credible cost estimate includes a
consideration of the project’s risks and the
uncertainty around the project. Although the VTA
cost estimates we reviewed exhibited some of these
characteristics, they fell short in other areas.
For the projects we reviewed, VTA did not address
the first of these elements: having comprehensive
cost estimates. VTA did not always estimate the
operation and maintenance costs for its capital
projects as part of its project development, even
though operation and maintenance costs are
essential to knowing the long‑term costs that
an agency will incur by committing to a project.
However, for the three projects we reviewed in
which VTA expected to incur operation and
maintenance costs, the project request forms did not include an estimate of how
much those costs would be—instead two of the forms read “TBD,” meaning the costs
were yet to be determined. The other form noted that the operation and maintenance
costs would be offset by the fare revenue from the project but did not specify how
VTA Capital Projects We Reviewed
Rail Rehabilitation Phase 7 (Rail Rehabilitation)—This
project is part of an ongoing program to ensure that VTA’s
light rail track infrastructure remains in a state of good
repair. Rail Rehabilitation includes a subset of four projects:
• Rail Replacement and Rehabilitation FY18
($20.2 million): The majority of the work includes the
repair and replacement of the Younger “Half-Grand” rail
junction, including the installation of two new crossovers.
• Upgrade Ohlone/Chynoweth Interlocking ($4 million):
The project includes making improvements to an
interlocking at the Ohlone-Chynoweth light rail station.
• Light Rail Crossover and Switches FY16–17
($8.4 million): The project involves the installation of
crossovers and power switches at several locations.
• Rail Replacement and Rehabilitation FY16–17
($4.5 million): This project includes rehabilitation and
replacement of track components at various locations.
Santa Clara Pocket Track (Pocket Track) ($33.6 million):
The project included the construction of a pocket track
alongside existing track on Tasman Drive.
US 101/De La Cruz Boulevard/Trimble Road Interchange
Improvement Project (US 101) ($75.4 million): The project
includes various improvements at the US 101 interchange,
including the replacement of an existing overcrossing
structure over US 101 and the installation of bicycle and
pedestrian facilities along De La Cruz Boulevard.
Source: VTA project documentation, VTA’s website, and
interviews with VTA staff.
Characteristics of a Reliable Cost Estimate
• Comprehensive
• Well documented
• Credible
• Accurate
Source: GAO’s Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide.
15CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
VTA came to this conclusion. Because VTA did not develop operation and
maintenance cost estimates for these projects, the agency was at a greater risk of not
being prepared to pay for their ongoing costs.
VTA did not estimate operation and maintenance costs at the time of project
proposal because it lacked procedures specifying that it should do so. The chief
engineering officer confirmed that the Engineering and Program Delivery division
does not estimate the operation and maintenance costs for projects and that VTA
does not have written procedures for how it develops project cost estimates. He also
stated that a separate VTA division estimates project operation and maintenance
costs. However, when we spoke with that division and the CEO, neither could clarify
the division with this responsibility. Adopting procedures for including operation
and maintenance cost estimates could specify which division has responsibility
for developing estimates for the operation and maintenance phase of a project.
According to VTA, it is in the process of drafting a project administration manual.
The CEO shared that VTA will develop anticipated operation and maintenance costs
for substantial projects like EBRC because such estimates are generally required
as part of environmental documentation or seeking outside funding. For example, as
part of its request for FTA grant funding for BART Phase II, VTA estimated that
from fiscal years 2023–24 through 2042–43, VTA’s total direct and fixed overhead
operation and maintenance costs for its share of the BART system will be $1.9 billion.
Although VTA estimates operation and maintenance costs for substantial projects, it
is also important for VTA to develop operation and maintenance cost estimates for
the remainder of its capital projects. VTA has a significant number of capital projects.
Its 2024–2025 biennial budget included appropriations to 47 capital projects in just
its transit capital program, which does not include the substantial projects to which
the CEO referred. Therefore, it is important for VTA to understand the operation and
maintenance cost implications of its projects, regardless of their size, because without
doing so it cannot ascertain the cumulative impact on its financial condition.
We also found that in the projects we reviewed, the second element of a reliable cost
estimate was missing: VTA did not fully document its cost estimates. Transportation
projects include two key cost estimates, which the text box shows. In addition to the
GAO guidance we discuss above defining a
reliable cost estimate, guidance from the FTA,
Federal Railroad Administration, and Caltrans
also indicates that a well‑developed cost estimate
is documented, traceable, and includes
documented assumptions the agency used to
create the estimate.
However, VTA’s documentation of its project
cost estimates are not always aligned with this
guidance. The documents we reviewed for
VTA’s initial cost estimates showed a reasonable
explanation for the estimates that VTA
developed given the nature of the cost estimate.
As the text box indicates, the initial cost estimate
Two Key Cost Estimates of Transportation Projects
Initial Cost Estimate—Referred to as “conceptual” or
“order-of-magnitude” estimates. These estimates are
developed when a quick estimate is needed and few details
are available.
Baseline Cost Estimate—The control budget against
which project cost performance is measured and change
is controlled.
Source: FTA and the GAO.
16 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
is a rough order‑of‑magnitude estimate, so we did not expect VTA to keep detailed
documentation to explain how it arrived at this estimate. VTA does not use the
term baseline to refer to any of its cost estimates. Nonetheless, we observed that it
treats its preconstruction cost estimates as baseline estimates. Preconstruction cost
estimates are those cost estimates that VTA has developed by the time it has fully
designed the project and awarded the construction contracts. To determine whether
VTA documents its more developed project cost estimates, we reviewed VTA’s
preconstruction cost estimates, as the FTA indicates that an agency should establish
a baseline cost by that point in the project process.
Although the preconstruction estimates we reviewed were composed of several
different types of work on the project, including design, construction, and other costs,
VTA could provide documentation of its methodology for only some of these
costs. VTA provided us with the documented estimation methodology for the
construction portions of the projects. VTA also provided some documentation for
the design portions of the six projects we reviewed, but this documentation was not
comprehensive across all of the projects. Specifically, VTA provided documentation
of its design cost methodology for the majority of the design costs for the Rail
Rehabilitation projects and the US 101 project. However, VTA had only partially
documented its methodology for the Pocket Track project. VTA had documented its
estimates for the design and construction portions of these projects because it needs
that information when it enters into contracts, which it uses to hold contractors
responsible for the costs of specific services.
However, VTA’s project managers did not consistently retain documented
methodologies for the development of other costs for its projects—that is, the
costs not related to designing and building the project, such as fees, testing,
and third‑party costs. For example, the engineering group manager for VTA’s
highway program and the US 101 project manager confirmed that there was no
documented methodology for the utility relocation and field operation costs for
the project because they are placeholder estimates. Also, although VTA uses a
staffing spreadsheet to estimate its own labor costs, it did not always keep copies
of these spreadsheets. Among the six projects we reviewed, VTA had maintained
complete documentation of labor estimates for only one project and retained partial
documentation for another. Among the projects we reviewed, the magnitudes of
the costs incurred without documented methodologies in relation to the overall
project costs ranged from 13 percent to 38 percent.
VTA’s deputy director of construction for transit engineering (construction deputy
director) confirmed that VTA does not require its project managers to document
the methodology used to develop their preconstruction estimates because it expects
project managers to already have the technical expertise to create an estimate as part
of their job qualifications and responsibilities. The GAO notes that undocumented
cost estimates can lead to unanswerable questions about the estimate and make it
harder for others who are unfamiliar with the project to use the estimate effectively.
Furthermore, the lack of documentation creates difficulty when trying to conduct
analyses of why actual costs differed from the estimates. By not requiring its staff to
document their assumptions, VTA is at a higher risk for these effects.
17CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Because VTA’s cost estimates were partially undocumented, VTA cannot know how
credible they are and therefore how well they align with the third element of a reliable cost
estimate. The GAO states that credible cost estimates are developed with consideration
for the sensitivity of the estimates’ assumptions and the risks of the project. The GAO
suggests that agencies develop estimates that help decision makers appreciate the range
of costs that a project may incur so they can make informed decisions about the project.
However, the cost methodology documents VTA provided during this audit did not show
VTA had identified a range of costs or demonstrate the effects of changing assumptions.
Nevertheless, we note that for the construction portions of the projects we reviewed,
VTA compared its own estimate of costs against the estimates provided by bidders, which
provides some independent validation of costs.
Finally, although VTA’s cost estimates are incomplete, they were generally accurate for the
phases of the project that they covered. For the costs it does estimate, VTA has provided
its board with a schedule of expected accuracy for its cost estimates, with the degree
of accuracy dependent on the state of a project’s design. Table 3 shows VTA’s expected
accuracy ranges for the initial and preconstruction estimates.
Table 3
VTA’s Cost Estimates for the Six Projects We Reviewed Generally Fell Within Accuracy Ranges
PROJECT STATUS
INITIAL ESTIMATE
(ACCURATE IF WITHIN
‐50% TO +100%)
PRECONSTRUCTION
ESTIMATE
(ACCURATE IF WITHIN
‐10% TO +15%)
CURRENT
ESTIMATE
AMOUNT
SPENT AS OF
FEBRUARY
2024
Upgrade Ohlone/Chynoweth
Interlocking*
variance from current estimate
Ongoing $1,200,000 $4,600,000 $4,600,000 $3,880,000
283%0%
Rail Replacement and
Rehabilitation FY18
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 17,100,000 18,440,000 20,240,000 19,010,000
18%10%
Light Rail Crossover and
Switches FY16–17*
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 8,200,000 7,750,000 8,440,000 8,370,000
3%9%
Rail Replacement and
Rehabilitation FY16–17
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 4,500,000 4,670,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
0%‐4%
Pocket Track
variance from current estimate
Complete 21,550,000 24,810,000 33,630,000 33,630,000
56%36%
US 101
variance from current estimate
Ongoing 60,000,000 75,370,000 75,370,000 58,780,000
26%0%
Source: VTA capital project request forms, cost reports, cost estimates for each project, and criteria for cost estimate accuracy.
* The “Current Estimate” and “Amount Spent” columns include appropriated funds for another project.
= Accurate Estimate
= Inaccurate Estimate
18 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
The majority of the cost estimates for the projects we reviewed—10 of 12 estimates—
fell within the expected accuracy ranges. The most significant outlier was the initial
estimate for the Upgrade Ohlone/Chynoweth Interlocking project. The actual costs
for this project were close to 300 percent higher than VTA’s original cost estimate.
According to documentation requesting the budget increase, the affected project area
was larger than originally planned, and VTA did not anticipate the extensive system
changes and equipment required to complete the project.
VTA Generally Followed Best Practices for Developing Its Project Schedules
Another key activity within project management is the development and management
of an accurate and complete project schedule. According to the FTA, a schedule is
one of the tools that project managers use to maintain accountability for the activities
that take place during a project, anticipate upcoming activities, review progress,
and modify work plans if necessary. The FTA’s publication Project and Construction
Management Guidelines provides examples of the different types of schedules that
transit projects typically include. Among these is the Integrated Master Project Schedule
(master schedule), which FTA advises should be developed early in the project lifecycle
and should include information from all phases of the project lifecycle up to, but not
including, the operation and maintenance phase. However, to build the master schedule,
agencies must first define the specific actions necessary to produce the project’s
deliverables and then estimate the amount of time necessary to complete those activities.
Consistent with best practices, for the six projects we reviewed, VTA defined the specific
project activities necessary to produce deliverables and estimated the duration of each
activity. For example, VTA noted that specific actions, such as writing a memo to the
board and obtaining board authorization to proceed, must happen before it could award
the construction contract for the US 101 project. VTA also developed the estimated start
and finish dates and the estimated number of days each activity would take. By following
the advised scheduling practices, VTA helps ensure that it is developing detailed
schedules that will more accurately reflect the time it will take to complete a project.
In addition, VTA met industry best practices and developed a master schedule for the
projects we reviewed. FTA notes that a master schedule is the official project schedule
and should display how the project will be logically implemented. According to VTA’s
project schedule guidelines, VTA’s project manager or project controls unit prepares a
draft master schedule upon initiating a project. In the projects’ master schedules, we
found that VTA included all project phases from inception to closeout, including design
and engineering, bid and award, and construction. Because VTA implements master
schedules, it ensures that it is developing a detailed overview of the project schedule that
it can manage during the project.
Similar to our cost estimates review in the previous section, we calculated the variances
between VTA’s schedule estimates and its actual project timelines. Table 4 shows the
variances for VTA’s initial and preconstruction estimates for the projects we reviewed.
The variances were in part the result of circumstances outside of VTA’s control. For
example, according to the project change orders, extensions to the Rail Rehabilitation
schedule during the construction phase were caused in part by global supply chain issues
19CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
and a May 2021 shooting incident at a VTA rail yard. Also, the project manager for
the US 101 highway project shared that the design consultant developed an ambitious
schedule for the project’s design, but stakeholders such as Caltrans, the city of
San José, and the Federal Aviation Administration took longer than expected to
review the design of the project.
Table 4
VTA Had Different Schedule Estimate Variances for the Projects We Reviewed
PROJECT STATUS
INITIAL
COMPLETION
ESTIMATE
COMPLETION
ESTIMATE AT
PRECONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION
ESTIMATE AS OF
APRIL 2024
Rail Rehabilitation*
variance from current estimate (in years)
Ongoing 4/3/2019 9/21/2021 6/28/2024
5.2 2.8
Pocket Track
variance from current estimate (in years)
Complete 6/30/2015 1/8/2015 4/29/2016
0.8 1.3
US 101
variance from current estimate (in years)
Ongoing 12/30/2023 12/28/2024 9/14/2025
1.7 0.7
Source: VTA capital project request forms and schedules for each project.
* VTA managed all four Rail Rehabilitation projects under one schedule.
VTA Does Not Regularly Report Project Variances to the Board
The FTA and the Project Management Institute both advise that a project sponsor,
such as VTA, have a process for managing changes to contracts that increase the cost,
schedule, or scope of the project. The FTA explains that a change control process
can enable decision‑makers to make cost‑effective decisions and help oversight
staff identify errors as the source of the needed change. VTA’s change management
guidelines detail its process for managing changes to its construction contracts (change
control process). That process includes documenting the following: the justification
for any change, the effect on the project’s cost and schedule where applicable, a cost
analysis, a record of VTA’s negotiation with the contractor, and approval by the change
control board. The package of documents in which VTA presents these factors is called
a change order, and each change order that changes the contract value by more than
$50,000 or changes the contract’s schedule must be approved by VTA’s change control
board. The change control board includes senior VTA staff and is responsible for
reviewing and approving contract changes to ensure that, among other requirements,
they are appropriate, necessary, and include required documents.
We examined a selection of 19 change orders that affected the costs or the schedules
for construction contracts related to the six capital projects we reviewed. We found
that VTA followed its procedures for handling these change orders, including obtaining
approval from the change control board. Consistent with VTA’s change management
guidelines, the change orders we reviewed contained justifications for the changes,
20 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
descriptions of the change orders’ effect on the schedules where applicable, cost
analyses, records of negotiation, and approval by the change control board.
For example, VTA required a change order related to the Pocket Track project to
account for lost productivity due to multiple factors, including design changes.
These changes increased the cost of that particular construction contract, which
had an original value of $13.7 million and had already undergone $1.6 million in
prior contract changes, by another $1.7 million. The project documentation for the
related change order contained the required elements, including a description of
the justification for the changes and a detailed discussion of the negotiations with the
contractor on the price of the changes.
VTA’s staff also regularly monitor project cost and schedule information. Guidance
from the FTA prescribes that agencies should monitor project costs and schedules
through frequent reporting to management of the projects’ approved and
ongoing costs, as well as schedule progress. We reviewed VTA’s capital project
documentation and determined that VTA follows this guidance through various
reporting and monitoring methods. For example, VTA utilizes monthly cost
reports that monitor and report to VTA management cost information, such as the
projects’ approved budget, estimated total costs, and incurred costs. Also, VTA’s
technical services group manager told us that project managers and schedulers
review and update project schedules on a monthly basis. Further, a deputy director
of construction told us that every quarter he, the chief engineering officer, and
VTA’s project controls unit, review transit project cost and schedule information.
We reviewed examples of the project reports that the managers evaluate at these
meetings and verified that the reports show project cost and schedule information
along with the current project phase.
However, VTA staff do not regularly inform the board about project cost or schedule
variances. VTA’s staff provide updates to the board about capital project budgets and
funding levels in the biennial budget. For example, the budget includes information
about total capital project costs, unspent funds, and funding sources for each project.
However, VTA staff confirmed that it does not regularly update the board about
variances in capital projects from the preconstruction estimates. For example, earlier
in this section we discussed a change order to a construction contract originally
worth $13.7 million. Cumulatively, as of the change order that we reviewed, the cost
of that contract had grown to about $17 million, or about a 24 percent increase.
Because VTA staff do not regularly inform the board about variances such as
this one, the board’s understanding of capital project performance is diminished.
In response to our concern that staff do not provide the board with updates about
variances from the preconstruction estimated costs and schedule for VTA’s capital
projects, the staff liaison to VTA’s Capital Program Committee agreed that there
would be value in staff providing semiannual reports to that committee and the
board. The staff liaison indicated that the reports should include updates comparing
the cost and schedule estimates of capital projects at contract award to their actual
cost and schedule for any projects that have had a material change to either factor.
The staff liaison stated that he was unaware of a reason the board does not receive
semiannual reports of capital projects but added that these reports would improve
the board’s understanding and management of VTA’s capital programs.
21CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Recommendations
To ensure that VTA’s board is fully informed when approving projects, VTA should
update its planning procedures by December 2024 to do the following:
• Establish a threshold for estimated project cost that defines when project planning
must include the performance of a cost‑benefit analysis.
• Conduct a cost‑benefit analysis for all capital projects that meet or exceed that
cost threshold.
To help ensure that it develops reliable cost estimates for its capital projects, VTA
should develop procedures by December 2024 to do the following:
• Document the methodology for developing its capital project cost estimates,
including costs other than those directly related to the design and construction of
the project.
• Estimate the anticipated operation and maintenance costs for capital projects
in development.
To help ensure that the board can monitor project costs and schedules, VTA should
develop procedures by December 2024 to monitor project costs and schedules
against preconstruction estimates and present this information as part of its
semiannual report to both the Capital Program Committee and the board. This
report should provide status updates on the agency’s existing capital projects and
identify deviations from projects’ preconstruction estimates.
22 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Chapter 2
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES COULD INCREASE THE TRANSPARENCY AND
EFFECTIVENESS OF VTA’S BOARD
Key Points
• The 12 directors on VTA’s board are elected officials who are chosen by elected
officials, which makes the board similar to other transit boards. However,
the director selection process is not always transparent enough to ensure the
appointment of directors experienced in transportation issues.
• VTA directors have shorter terms than their peers on other transit boards, which
leads to shorter tenure overall, lessening the overall experience level on the board.
• The board generally uses both its standing committees and advisory committees
effectively to review policies and make recommendations to the full board.
• Although VTA has safeguards in place to ensure that directors adhere to their
fiduciary duties, it should make improvements to promote accountability for
financial interest disclosures and ethics training.
VTA’s Director Selection Process Is Not Transparent Enough to Ensure the Appointment
of Experienced Directors
The 12 VTA directors are public officials responsible for the strategic direction of
VTA. Their decisions can affect the quality of life of everyone who lives within VTA’s
jurisdiction. Given the public nature of their positions and the degree of influence
that directors have, it is important that, whenever possible, directors are individuals
with experience in or knowledge about transportation. To assess VTA’s process for
selecting and appointing directors, we considered three factors: who selects the
directors, who is eligible to serve as a director, and the selection approach used by
those who select directors.
Specific elected officials appoint VTA’s directors, a practice that makes VTA similar
to other transportation agencies. State law requires the San José City Council to
appoint the city’s VTA directors and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
to appoint the county’s directors. Further, state law specifies that agreements
between the remaining cities in the county govern how their directors are chosen.
We determined that as of December 2023, the directors that represent cities other
than San José were appointed by elected officials. State law refers to those responsible
for making appointments to the VTA board as appointing powers. We reviewed the
appointments of each voting director as of December 2023, and determined that all
were selected by the appropriate appointing powers.
23CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Having elected officials appoint directors aligns VTA with the most common practice
in the country. According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA),
60 percent of transit boards are appointed by local or state officials, such as mayors,
governors, or a legislative body, and only 3 percent of transit boards are directly
elected.3 The laws that create four of the five peer agencies we reviewed also specify
that certain elected officials, such as city council members, mayors, and county
supervisors, appoint all but three of the directors of those agencies.4 VTA not only
conforms to the most common practice nationwide but also has a practice similar to
its peers.
State law restricts who can serve as a director and, within those restrictions, VTA
has provided guidance to the appointing powers about the desirable traits for a
director. As the text box shows, state law does
not allow a member of the general public to serve
as a VTA board director. Additionally, state law
requires that, to the extent possible, directors
be individuals with expertise, experience, or
knowledge relative to transportation issues—a
requirement we refer to in this report as the
experience requirement. As of December 2023,
all directors were the elected officials state law
requires. However, as we note in more detail
below, the appointing powers did not always
demonstrate to the public that they fulfilled
the experience requirement when appointing
directors. In addition to the requirements in
state law, VTA has published nonbinding guidance for the appointing powers about
its expectations for directors. These expectations include the directors devoting
an average of five to 10 hours per month to board and committee assignments,
representing the interests of their constituency while endeavoring to achieve regional
consensus, and keeping their respective jurisdictions informed on key issues.
The state law requiring that VTA’s directors are specified elected officials is unique
among the peer agencies we reviewed. The law that establishes SacRT does not
restrict directorship to elected officials, although in practice the board—as of
April 2024—is composed solely of city council members and county supervisors.
Differently, the state law that governs CapMetro requires that three of its
eight directors be elected officials but does not restrict the other five directorships
to elected officials. In addition, the board of directors for LA Metro and OCTA are
required by law to be composed of a combination of members of the public and
specified elected officials, with the majority of directors on each board required to be
those elected officials.
3 The American Public Transportation Association is an international nonprofit association that represents more than
1,500 public and private sector member organizations. According to the association’s website, more than 90 percent of
people using public transit in the United States and Canada ride on systems belonging to its members.
4 State law establishing SacRT’s board does not specify the individuals within the appointing power who are responsible
for appointing the agency’s directors. Nevertheless, SacRT confirmed that in practice the directors are appointed by
elected officials.
Requirements for VTA Director Selection
• Directors appointed by a city must be a mayor or city
council member, and directors appointed by the county
must be a member of the board of supervisors.
• To the extent possible, appointing powers must select
directors who have expertise, experience, or knowledge
relative to transportation issues.
Source: State law.
24 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Restricting directorships to elected officials likely provides some benefits, but the
practice also limits the expertise that appointing powers can access when making
appointment decisions. In our July 2008 audit of VTA, we stated that having elected
officials serve on the board may allow VTA to be more influential in aligning local
land use decisions with the countywide transportation plan.5 Additionally, elected
officials—having gained support for their leadership—could serve as trusted messengers
to their local jurisdictions on behalf of VTA. Nonetheless, because state law restricts
other individuals from serving as directors, the pool of candidates for VTA’s board is
limited and excludes members of the public who have direct experience with transit or
transportation issues. Overall, the law limiting directors to specified elected officials
likely leads to a board with less experience with transit or transportation issues than
one that could exist without such limits.
Nonetheless, the appointing powers could maximize the transit and transportation
experience on the board by ensuring that their appointments comply with the experience
requirement. Accordingly, we reviewed the ways in which a selection of appointing
powers chose their directors to determine whether the appointment processes were
public and demonstrated that the appointing powers complied with the experience
requirement. Specifically, we reviewed the available public record of the meetings for the
appointing powers that took place in January and February 2023, as presented in Figure 5.6
None of the appointing powers we reviewed have a formal process that requires them
to publicly cite and document appointee qualifications. This lack of a formal public
process may allow the appointing powers to circumvent the experience requirement.
For appointments made by the cities of San José, Sunnyvale, and Santa Clara, the
appointments were made at a public city council meeting. The city councils for San José
and Sunnyvale discussed the general attributes of their appointees, including experience
and the ability to work with others. For example, in January 2023, Sunnyvale’s city
council discussed its appointee’s experience serving on VTA’s policy advisory committee
and the benefits that experience would provide to the individual as a director.
However, each of the appointing powers confirmed that it does not have a formal
process to make public the qualifications of its appointees to VTA’s board. As a result,
appointing powers are able to make appointments without having affirmatively
demonstrated to the public that their appointees have the relevant experience necessary
to fulfill their responsibilities on VTA’s board. For example, during Santa Clara’s
city council meeting in February 2023, it voted to approve the appointment of its
VTA director without any discussion of that individual’s qualifications or the extent
to which it had considered other candidates who may have had transportation
experience. Without a process in place requiring appointing powers to make public the
qualifications of their appointees, VTA and the public are not always able to determine
whether the appointing powers adhered to the experience requirement and appointed
qualified candidates to VTA’s board.
5 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: It Has Made Several Improvements in Recent Years, but Changes Are Still Needed,
2007‑129, July 2008.
6 We did not review the appointment process for the city of Milpitas, because it appointed an alternate director in 2023, rather
than a director.
25CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Figure 5
The Appointing Powers We Reviewed Have Different Processes for Selecting Directors
Cities of Milpitas, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale
(2 voting directors)
The cities take turns appointing a director from
among their city council members and mayors.
The city council making the appointment
votes on the appointment.
Cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno,
Saratoga, and the Town of Los Gatos
(1 voting director)
At a non-public meeting, the mayors of the ve cities vote for a
director from among the members of their collective city councils.
San José
(5 voting directors)
At a public meeting, the mayor recommends the city council
members whom the mayor believes should be directors.
The city council votes to approve the recommendation.
Source: State law and VTA administrative code; documentation and interviews provided by each city group.
Note: The graphic does not include the selection processes for Santa Clara County, Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View,
or Palo Alto.
The remaining cities we reviewed—Campbell, Cupertino, Monte Sereno, Saratoga, and
the town of Los Gatos—which represent a single city group, used the least transparent
appointment process among the groups we reviewed. This process involves the mayors
or other designated leaders of each city holding a meeting to determine who will be
their appointed director. State law governing local government meetings requires that
legislative bodies of local agencies—such as city councils—publicly report all actions
taken by the body. However, this appointing power is not a legislative body and, as a
result, it is not required by this law to hold a public meeting. Campbell’s city manager
confirmed that this appointing power’s meeting is not public. Accordingly, the public
does not know this group’s reasons for its appointment decisions and has no assurance
that the appointing power satisfied the requirement to appoint individuals with
transportation experience to the extent it was possible to do so.
Because appointment decisions are not always deliberated and delivered in public, a
significant safeguard for ensuring that appointing powers choose qualified directors is
missing. VTA’s CEO agreed that the appointing powers should be more transparent
in the selection of their directors, but she also expressed her belief that VTA’s enabling
26 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
statute did not need to be amended to promote such transparency. Nonetheless, because
VTA does not have the authority to mandate such transparency, legislative action would be
required to compel more transparency in the appointment process.
VTA Directors Have Briefer Tenures Than Their Peers at Other Transit Agencies
Although we could not identify any recommendations from authoritative sources
specifying the number of years that a director should serve on a board of directors, we
reviewed available guidance on board membership in the public sector and determined
that having a mixture of experience levels on the board can provide benefits. For
example, the California State Teachers’ Retirement System’s governance guidance states
that effective boards have both short‑ and long‑tenured directors to ensure that fresh
perspectives are provided and that experience, continuity, and stability exist on the board.
The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP)—a federally sponsored transportation
research organization—reported that in response to a national survey of transit CEOs
and board chairs, respondents said that some of their board members serve staggered
terms to ensure that the board has both continuity and fresh ideas. The TCRP further
reported that transit agency boards should have sufficient continuity and institutional
memory to promote long‑term planning and follow‑through. These sources indicate that
longer‑tenured directors can benefit a board by providing stability and experience.
However, the average tenure of VTA’s directors is shorter than directors’ average tenure at
the peer agencies we reviewed. Only three of the peer agencies—LA Metro, OCTA, and
SacRT—maintained historical data regarding their directors’ tenures. To assess the average
tenure of directors at VTA and at these agencies, we identified all directors who served
for any duration during the period of 2013 through 2023. We then calculated the average
number of years those directors served regardless of when those years occurred. Figure 6
shows the results of our review and demonstrates that VTA’s directors served for notably
shorter periods, on average, than did their peers.
Figure 6
VTA Directors’ Average Tenure Is Shorter Than Average Tenures of Directors at Peer Agencies
Average Years of Service
109876543210
8.3 years
5.3 years
9.3 years
3.7 years
SacRT
OCTA
LA Metro
VTA
Source: Director tenure documentation provided by the agencies that maintain such data.
Note: CapMetro and TriMet did not maintain historical data on the tenure of their directors.
27CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
One contributing factor to shorter tenure among VTA’s directors is VTA’s shorter term
lengths. As we describe in the Introduction, state law establishes the term length for
VTA’s directors generally at two years. State law allows up to 30 days beyond two years
if a director’s successor has not been appointed. However, this term length is generally
half as long as the duration of the term lengths among VTA’s peers. Three of the five peer
agencies have four‑year terms. Table 5 compares the term lengths of VTA directors and
those of its peers. VTA’s term lengths are also shorter than the national average. According
to the TCRP, the average transit board member serves a three‑year or four‑year term.
Table 5
VTA’s Directors Have Shorter Terms Than the Terms of Directors at Most of the Peer Agencies
We Reviewed
AGENCY DIRECTOR
TERM LENGTH
VTA 2 years
CapMetro 2 years
LA Metro 4 years
SacRT 4 years
TriMet 4 years
Source: State laws creating these agencies.
Note: We do not include OCTA in the table because state law does not standardize the term lengths for most directors on the
board for OCTA. Instead, state law allows the appointing powers that place directors on OCTA’s board to set the directors’ term
lengths. The exception is the public members who have term lengths of four years prescribed in state law.
Another factor contributing to VTA’s shorter director tenures has been the city groups’
appointment decisions. Directors who were appointed by the city groups that have only
one board director representative as well as the Northeast Cities group all had shorter
tenures than the directors representing San José and the county, who had average tenures
of roughly four and eight years respectively. The state law that creates VTA does not
establish a limit on the number of terms that a person can serve as a VTA director—
meaning that so long as a person continues to serve as an eligible elected official
in their respective jurisdiction, a city group could reappoint that individual as their
designated director indefinitely. In fact, the South County group, composed of Gilroy
and Morgan Hill, has reappointed individuals to consecutive terms, resulting in that
group having directors with the longest average tenure of any of the non‑San José city
groups at an average of nearly three‑and‑a‑half years. The remaining non‑San José
city groups have generally rotated which cities appoint a director to the board, and
those directors have an average tenure of about two‑and‑a‑half years. Although that
practice allows for the city groups to rotate which city has a director on the board, it
generally detracts from the overall tenure and experience level of the board.
In previous reviews of its board tenure, VTA has received recommendations to extend
its term length to four years. Our July 2008 audit found that VTA director tenure was
shorter than tenures at comparable transit agencies at that time, and we recommended
that VTA request a change to state law that would allow it to implement a four‑year term.
Similarly, a 2019 grand jury review of VTA noted that extending the term length of its
28 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
directors to four years would increase the average tenure of board members and help
provide continuity on the board. In May 2019, a VTA ad hoc board enhancement
committee began meeting to review VTA’s governance practices. This committee
commissioned an independent study that ultimately recommended that VTA’s board
adopt a four‑year term for its directors.
Despite these recommendations to pursue a four‑year term length for its directors,
VTA has not done so. In response to our July 2008 recommendation, VTA stated
that the board had recently voted to keep a two‑year term for its directors and
encouraged the appointing powers to reappoint board members to consecutive
terms. A VTA staff report in August 2020 to the Governance and Audit committee
in response to the 2019 study of VTA’s structure reached similar conclusions.
Although staff noted that it takes a VTA director about two years on average to
become comfortable and effective in their role, the staff recommended that VTA
keep the two‑year term length. The staff report noted that the two‑year term length
allowed city groups to remain flexible with their appointments, whereas a four‑year
term can limit their flexibility and options.
Because state law establishes the length of VTA’s directors’ terms, legislative action
will be necessary to lengthen those terms. In July 2008 our office reported that
extending the terms to a four‑year period was appropriate and recommended that
VTA pursue this change to the law. Nearly 16 years have passed since we made that
recommendation, and VTA’s tenure remains lower than its peers. Therefore, we
believe that the Legislature should take action to extend the term length for VTA
directors to four years, more closely aligning VTA with its peer agencies and helping
to ensure that it is composed of individuals with the experience to lead VTA.
VTA’s Use of Alternate Directors Does Not Lower the Attendance of Regular Directors
When directors cannot attend a board or committee meeting, VTA uses alternate
directors to attend the meetings in their absence. According to state law, in addition
to the 12 directors, there must be two alternate directors, one from the county
and one from San José. Further, state law permits the other cities to agree to have
alternate directors. VTA’s administrative code states that alternate directors will
attend board meetings, attend assigned standing committee meetings, and sit for and
vote in place of their director if that director is absent. Alternate directors are not
required to attend board meetings unless the director they are an alternate for cannot
attend, although they are allowed to attend even when the director they serve as an
alternate for is already in attendance.
We also reviewed guidance from the TCRP on board governance and management
of transit agencies. The guidance noted that boards may use alternate directors;
however, the guidance we reviewed neither recommended nor discouraged the
practice. Of the five peer agencies we reviewed, only SacRT uses alternate directors.
The law establishing SacRT allows the entities appointing directors to the board to
also select alternate directors.
29CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
External reviewers have expressed concern about VTA’s use of alternate directors.
In 2019 the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury released a report on VTA’s
governance and remarked that alternate directors may cause directors to deprioritize
meeting attendance. Also in 2019, VTA contracted for a governance assessment, and
the scope of work included evaluating VTA’s governance compared to other transit
agencies. The firm that conducted the assessment recommended that VTA stop
using alternate directors, stating that the alternate directors are often not needed to
achieve a quorum and their average attendance rate is low—indicating that the board
often does not rely on the alternates.
However, the existence of alternate directors does not appear to have affected
director attendance, which was generally high. We reviewed VTA director
attendance data from 2020 through June 2023. VTA directors attended 92 percent
of board meetings and 83 percent of committee meetings, which are relatively
high attendance rates. Further, VTA staff and directors noted that there is value in
having alternate directors, including the fact that serving as an alternate director
can provide experience and exposure to VTA that could prepare an alternate to
become a director. In our review of board tenure we noted that several directors who
served during the past ten years had started as alternates. Given the relatively high
attendance rate of regular directors and the potential benefits of alternate directors,
we did not conclude that VTA should discontinue its use of alternate directors.
VTA’s Board Generally Uses Its Committees Effectively by Consulting Them About
Relevant Policies and Incorporating Their Input
As we describe in the Introduction, VTA maintains several standing and advisory
committees. VTA’s administrative code, rules of procedure, and committee bylaws
assign a title, duties, and responsibilities to each committee. For example, the Capital
Program Committee is responsible for reviewing and recommending to the board
policies pertaining to VTA’s capital projects. According to the TCRP, transit agencies
create committees to accomplish specific tasks and to address needs that the board is
responsible for governing. The TCRP adds that
committees make recommendations to the full
board for approval. To assess whether VTA uses
its committees effectively, we reviewed each
standing and advisory committee’s involvement in
the development of five VTA policies, which the
text box lists. For each policy, we assessed
three areas: whether all of the applicable standing
and advisory committees provided their
perspective or advice on the policy, whether the
committees provided that perspective or advice
before board approval, and whether VTA staff
presented the committees’ perspective or advice
to the board.
Policies We Reviewed for
Board Committee Involvement
• Biennial budget for fiscal years 2024–25 and 2025–26
• Strategic Capital Investment Plan
• Visionary Transit Network Plan
• 2023 Transit Service Plan
• 2016 Measure B 10-Year Program and Biennial
Budget Principles.
Source: VTA policies.
30 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
For the five policies we reviewed, the board’s committees generally reviewed the
policies and provided advice or recommendations when the policies were relevant to
the committees’ areas of responsibility. For example, the Capital Program Committee
reviewed and provided advice on VTA’s Strategic Capital Investment Plan (SCIP),
but it did not review the 2023 Transit Service Plan, which was outside of the
committee’s purview because it focused on changes to VTA’s services rather than its
capital programs.
In total, across the five policies we reviewed and VTA’s 10 standing and advisory
committees, we identified 34 instances in which a committee’s responsibilities
appeared to overlap with the policies we reviewed. In all but eight of these cases,
VTA’s committees reviewed the relevant policy. In four of these eight cases, VTA had
reasonable explanations for why the apparently relevant committees did not review
a particular policy. One example of this type of exception is the approach VTA took
to review its biennial budget. Although the Safety, Security, and Transit Planning and
Operations (SSTPO) Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the
board about transit planning, capital projects, and operations and marketing, it did
not review the biennial budget. However, the staff liaison to this committee explained
that, although the biennial budget allocates funds for transit projects and operations,
the committee did not review the budget because it does not relate to the planning or
development of projects with respect to their safety or security—which is a focus of
the committee’s responsibilities. We find this explanation reasonable.
Nevertheless, we found four instances in which committees likely should have
reviewed a policy but did not do so. As mentioned above, the Capital Program
Committee reviewed the SCIP, but no advisory committees reviewed that policy.
According to the staff liaison for the committee, VTA chose to focus the involvement
of its standing committees to just the Capital Program Committee because it is
the committee with primary responsibility for this plan and doing so alleviated the
workload of the other committees. We agree that this rationale is reasonable but note
that it meant two advisory committees—the Policy Advisory Committee and the
Technical Advisory Committee—did not review the SCIP when they likely should
have given their purviews. For example, the Policy Advisory Committee—which
is made up of members who represent VTA’s member cities—is responsible for
advising the board on multiple issues, including long‑range transportation planning,
VTA’s budget, and service modifications, and as a result could provide valuable
stakeholder input on the SCIP. The staff liaison agreed that it was a good idea for
VTA to solicit stakeholder input on the SCIP and that, looking forward, VTA should
present matters regarding the SCIP to relevant advisory committees.
In addition, we found two other instances in which a committee was not involved in
a policy related to its responsibility. Specifically, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee, which is responsible for providing advice to the board on funding
priorities for bicycle and pedestrian projects, did not review the program principles
that guide funding for the 2016 Measure B Program—a program that in part funds
bicycle and pedestrian projects of countywide significance—for a 10‑year period.
The committee’s staff liaison acknowledged that not involving the committee was
an oversight by VTA’s staff. Similarly, the Capital Program Committee also did not
review the principles for the 2016 Measure B Program, which funds capital projects
31CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
that are in part managed by VTA. As a result, the committee missed an opportunity
to fulfill its responsibility to review the efficacy of a policy that influences how the
agency intends to fund VTA capital projects.
In all cases when committees reviewed policies, they did so before the board made
an approval decision. We reviewed the meeting minutes of 36 committee meetings
and found that the committees generally reviewed policies at least one month before
staff presented the policy to the board. This timeline indicates that VTA staff should
have sufficient time to respond to committees’ advice and adjust policies before
presenting them to the board. In fact, we saw those types of adjustments occurring
when we reviewed the materials presented to the board.
Staff presented the committees’ input or recommendations to the board. For
example, when the SSTPO Committee received the 2023 Transit Service Plan—
VTA’s plan for bus and light rail services in 2023—committee members thanked the
staff for developing the policy based on market‑ and data‑driven analyses that also
focused on equity. The SSTPO Committee subsequently recommended the policy to
the board for approval, and staff presented that recommendation to the board. We
also identified instances when committees recommended that staff amend or refine
a policy to reflect a desired change that committee members requested. For example,
during the development of the principles for the 2016 Measure B 10‑Year Program,
the Administration and Finance Committee recommended that staff amend the
principles to include the percentage of funds allowed to be spent on each program
category, consistent with the measure’s ballot language. The version of the policy that
staff presented to the board included the committee’s recommended changes.
VTA Could Strengthen Its Safeguards to Better Ensure That Directors Uphold Their
Fiduciary Duties
It is important that government officials exercise
their fiduciary duties to ensure that they are acting
in the best interest of the people and institutions
that they serve. VTA’s Code of Ethics states that
directors are required to carry out their duties
in the best interest of the agency and all agency
stakeholders, which includes the residents of
Santa Clara County. VTA further defines each
director’s fiduciary duties in its new director
orientation, where it explicitly specifies two duties,
which the text box shows.
Determining that a director has breached their
fiduciary duties is a difficult task, potentially
requiring evidence of the director’s intention or
state of mind when the director took certain actions.
Therefore, we instead reviewed the extent to
which VTA has created an environment that encourages directors to uphold their
fiduciary duties. During our review, we observed several positive signs.
Fiduciary Duties of VTA Directors
• Duty to be diligent and informed
Directors should consider all relevant information before
making decisions, understand the complete financial
consequences of policy proposals, and work through the
CEO to provide direction to VTA staff.
• Duty to be responsible and loyal
Directors should make decisions that are in the best
interest of VTA and the VTA territory, subordinate the
interests of individual directors or local jurisdictions, think
regionally, and act in the best interests of all stakeholders,
on behalf of VTA as a whole.
Source: VTA new director orientation training.
32 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
We found that VTA clearly communicates its expectations of directors. A key
example is the content of its new director orientation, which is excerpted in the
text box. The new director orientation also lists the types of activities that directors
undertake that will require them to uphold their fiduciary duties, such as adopting
the budget for VTA, making decisions related to capital projects, and managing
VTA’s assets. Moreover, consistent with best practices from the GAO, VTA has
established its Code of Ethics that outlines the ethical responsibilities and standards
of conduct to which directors must adhere, including the responsibility to promote
the best interest of the public when determining VTA policy.
Further, the process by which directors make VTA policy encourages accountability.
Earlier we describe how we reviewed the process by which VTA considered and
adopted five key policies. Discussions on these policies occurred in public meetings
at both the committee and full board level. Discussing and making decisions on
VTA policy in public promotes accountability because it requires directors to make
decisions subject to public comment and critique.
VTA’s process for reviewing policies in committee also supports directors fulfilling
their duty to be informed before making policy decisions. Our review of the
board’s involvement in the five policies revealed that directors received information
and proposals on the policies prior to voting on them. For example, during the
development of the SCIP, the directors on the Capital Program Committee held five
separate meetings from April 2021 through April 2022 to review, amend, and refine
the SCIP prior to its presentation to the board, suggesting that directors exercised
diligent review of the policy.
To determine the extent to which VTA directors consulted with their city staff and
city councils prior to voting on a policy, we interviewed four VTA directors who
represented different city groups, and they said that under certain circumstances
they do consult or share information with their respective city staff or city council
members. For example, one director shared that he discusses matters related to the
upcoming BART project with his city staff. We reviewed the meeting agendas of
30 city council meetings that took place within two months before the board voted
on one of the five policies that we discussed earlier, but we did not see these policies
on the agendas for discussion at the council meetings we reviewed.
Nevertheless, VTA’s directors do receive input and recommendations from city
staff and city council members through the advisory committees on which those
individuals sit. Such advice can help the board build regional consensus and make
decisions on issues that are in the best interest of the county. VTA has five advisory
committees that represent county stakeholders and the various jurisdictions
within the county by including city staff and city council members, as well as other
members of the community as committee members. These committees provide
stakeholder perspective to the board before it votes on a policy. For example,
the Citizens Advisory Committee—a committee of 13 individuals representing
different stakeholder groups in the county—provided its perspective to the board
and recommended that the board adopt the Visionary Transit Network, a vision
and framework for fast and reliable transportation services. Because directors
33CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
receive input and recommendations from the public and key stakeholders on policy
proposals prior to adoption, the board is better able to make decisions that are in the
best interests of the agency and the county.
Despite these positive elements, VTA could strengthen its safeguards to hold
directors accountable to their fiduciary duties. One way that a director could violate
their fiduciary duties would be to make decisions for their own benefit or financial
interest instead of for the benefit or financial interest of VTA and its constituents.
Generally speaking, this type of decision making could constitute a conflict of
interest. We assessed VTA and the 27 directors who served on the board from 2021
through 2023, including alternates, for adherence to several requirements and best
practices that are intended to help prevent
conflicts of interest, as described in the text box.
We found that the directors generally adhered to
these requirements and best practices. For
example, as required by state law, VTA has a
conflict‑of‑interest code to govern the directors’
requirement to disclose reportable financial
interests. However, VTA could enhance its
approach to two statutory requirements regarding
conflicts of interest—disclosing economic interests
and completing ethics training.
We reviewed the directors’ adherence to state
law requiring that certain officials disclose
particular economic interests which is done
by filing a Statement of Economic Interests
(Form 700). We requested the Form 700s filed by
each director who served in 2021 or 2022 and
by all directors who assumed their directorship
in 2023 and found that 25 of the 27 directors we
reviewed submitted their Form 700s. If an official
does not submit the Form 700, state law requires
that the entity’s filing officer report the official to
the appropriate agencies, which may include the
California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). Failure to appropriately file a
Form 700 may subject the official to criminal or civil penalties.
For the two directors who did not submit their forms—one current and one former
director—VTA’s board secretary explained that although VTA sends reminders to
directors who have not submitted their forms, the agency does not report delinquent
filers to the FPPC because she believes it is the county’s responsibility—not VTA’s—
to report these directors to the FPPC. The county sent notifications to both directors
to inform them that it had not received their forms and that it would report them
if they remained in violation of their reporting requirements. In March 2024 VTA’s
board secretary indicated that the agency would send reminders to both directors
to submit their forms. Although we agree that the county, as VTA’s filing officer, is
required to report relevant violations to the FPPC, the state law governing the filing
Key Requirements and Best Practices to
Detect and Prevent Conflicts of Interest
1. Establish a conflict of interest code—Agencies must
adopt and promulgate a conflict-of-interest code that
identifies positions within the agency that are required
to report financial interests and what interests they
should report.
2. File statements of economic interest—Directors must
disclose specified financial interests and sources of income.
3. Conduct biennial ethics training—Certain local agency
officials, including directors, must receive an ethics
training at least once every two years.
4. Establish a standard of conduct—Agencies should
establish standards to communicate expectations
concerning ethical values and can use policies to
communicate those standards.
Source: State law, GAO best practices, and VTA Conflict of
Interest Code.
34 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
of Form 700s does not prohibit VTA from also reporting the directors. Because VTA
did not report these two directors to the FPPC, VTA has not taken steps to hold all
of its own directors accountable for disclosing their financial interests.
We also reviewed VTA directors’ compliance with a state ethics training requirement
and found that the agency does not have a process to monitor whether directors
complete this training. State law requires that certain local officials receive
an ethics training course every two years. An analysis of the bill enacting that
requirement suggested that the intent of the requirement was to enhance officials’
understanding of how to use public resources and adhere to ethics guidelines set
forth in state law. To determine whether VTA directors completed their required
ethics training course, we requested from VTA’s board secretary the 27 directors’
most recent course completion certificates that they should have received from 2019
through 2023. VTA was unable to locate certificates for four of the directors. One of
these individuals no longer serves on VTA’s board as of April 2024, suggesting that
the director may not have fulfilled the ethics training requirement before leaving the
board. The board secretary stated that the Office of the Board’s Secretary (secretary’s
office) has attempted to collect the ethics training course completion certificates for
these four individuals. However, the board secretary explained that VTA does not
have a process to track which directors have submitted their certificates. Instead, she
stated that the secretary’s office sends emails to VTA’s directors reminding them to
take their ethics training and submit their certificate to the secretary’s office. Because
VTA does not have a process in place to track whether directors complete their
ethics training, it cannot be assured that all of its directors are properly trained about
their ethical obligations.
Finally, recommendations that we have made throughout this report could also
strengthen VTA’s safeguards against breaches of fiduciary duties. For example,
creating cost‑benefit analyses of capital projects will better illustrate the benefits
and tradeoffs of approving certain investments. This practice could in turn enhance
directors’ ability to make decisions in the best interests of the agency and the
county. Expanding the agency’s oversight of its budget, which we discuss later in the
report, will provide more information to directors about VTA’s efficiency in using
its resources to benefit its residents. Finally, as we also explain later in the report,
developing a new strategic plan that articulates clear direction about the agency’s
measurable goals would provide a clear indicator of what directors should be
considering when making decisions.
35CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Recommendations
Legislature
To ensure that VTA’s appointing powers appoint directors based on their relevant
qualifications, the Legislature should amend state law to require that VTA’s
appointing powers make public, consistent with applicable privacy protections,
their rationales for the appointments they make to VTA’s board, including a
description of the appointee’s relevant experience and qualifications related to transit
and transportation.
To make VTA’s term lengths more consistent with those of its peer transit agency
boards and to help increase the overall experience and stability of board membership,
the Legislature should amend state law to increase the length of VTA directors’ terms
to four years.
VTA
To ensure that VTA receives stakeholder input on the Strategic Capital Investment
Plan (SCIP), the agency should ensure that it presents all subsequent updates to the
SCIP to the appropriate advisory committees, solicits their input, and presents that
input to the board.
To ensure that it more effectively safeguards against a breach of fiduciary duty, VTA
should complete the following by December 2024:
• Establish a policy requiring relevant staff, including the secretary’s office, to report
to the FPPC those directors who do not submit their Form 700s in a timely manner.
• Establish a process for verifying whether directors have completed their biennial
ethics training and following up to remind those who have not done so to complete
the training.
36 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Chapter 3
VTA SHOULD ADOPT SEVERAL ADDITIONAL PRACTICES TO OPTIMIZE
ITS FINANCIAL HEALTH AND STRATEGIC DIRECTION
Key Points
• Although VTA is in relatively good financial condition—with its revenues
regularly exceeding its expenses and a sizeable reserve for unexpected economic
conditions—more than 60 percent of its annual revenue comes from sales tax
revenue, an uncertain revenue source. VTA has not determined how it will replace
this revenue source as sales tax measures begin to expire.
• VTA creates financial forecasts 10 years into the future, showing that it is
following a key financial planning best practice. However, VTA’s forecasts do not
always include multiple expense scenarios, limiting its ability to set its budget with
multiple situations in mind.
• VTA did not consistently monitor its budget for variances between actual
spending and planned spending and does not report key financial metrics to its
board. As a result, VTA has less insight than it otherwise would into where it may
need to improve its operations.
• VTA’s strategic plan expired in 2022, and neither the expired plan nor interim
strategic initiatives VTA has pursued have included measurable objectives that
VTA or the public could use to determine whether VTA is making progress
towards its strategic goals.
VTA Is in Relatively Good Financial Health but Would Benefit From Taking Additional
Actions to Better Ensure Its Continued Viability
For a government agency, maintaining a good financial condition is essential to
ensuring that it can continue to meet stakeholder needs. There are several indicators
that can demonstrate whether a government is financially healthy. Accordingly,
we assessed VTA by considering the following: whether the agency has been in a
spending deficit or surplus, whether it has maintained the recommended level of
reserve funding, the uncertainty of its revenue sources, and the size of and ways that
it is funding its pension and other post‑employment benefits (OPEB) expenses.
For the past six fiscal years, VTA has consistently reported higher revenues than
expenses. Figure 7 shows VTA’s total revenues and expenses, including the amount
of revenue it received from COVID‑19 pandemic‑related federal assistance. Despite
a decrease during the initial period of the pandemic, VTA’s overall annual revenue
has grown since fiscal year 2017–18. Moreover, the growth in revenue has generally
aligned with the growth in VTA’s expenses over the past six fiscal years, during
which VTA recorded a 68 percent increase in revenue and a 67 percent increase
in expenses.
37CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Figure 7
VTA’s Revenue Was Consistently Higher Than Its Expenses Over the Past Six Fiscal Years
ExpensesPandemic-Related
Federal Assistance
Operating and
Non-Operating Revenue
Fiscal Year
2022–232021–222020–212019–202018–192017–18
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
$1,600
Do
l
l
a
r
s
(
i
n
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
)
Source: VTA’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports for fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23.
Note: The spike in revenue in fiscal year 2018–19 was caused by the realization of 2016 Measure B sales tax revenue after a court ruling on
the legality of the measure.
For a three‑year period spanning from fiscal years 2019–20 through 2021–22, VTA
relied significantly on pandemic‑related federal assistance to support its major
operating fund, the VTA transit fund. During this period, the fund operated at a
deficit in one year—meaning that its change in net position was negative—and
would have been in a similar situation in all three fiscal years had it not been for that
federal assistance. Nonetheless, these federal funds were awarded in recognition of
an extraordinary disruption to transit operations caused by circumstances outside
the control of agencies like VTA. Accordingly, we do not find the reliance on such
funds to be a sign of mismanagement by VTA. In fact, when these federal assistance
programs stopped providing funds in fiscal year 2022–23, VTA continued to avoid
operating at a deficit.
38 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
VTA has accumulated significant reserve funding. The California Special Districts
Association recommends that special districts such as VTA establish policies that
set a target level of reserves to maintain based on a percentage of regular operating
revenues or regular operating expenditures, depending on which element is more
predictable. In addition, the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA)
recommends that general purpose governments maintain at all times a minimum
unrestricted fund balance of no less than two months’ of either operating revenues
or operating expenditures. As of June 30, 2023, VTA had three reserves, each with
its own dedicated use as Table 6 shows.7 In fiscal year 2022–23, VTA nearly exactly
met the reserve target for its operating reserve—15 percent of the operating budget.
Although this amount on its own does not quite reach the level recommended by
the GFOA, VTA has other reserves to supplement its operating reserve. Accordingly,
VTA is currently well‑positioned to address unexpected swings in its revenues
and expenditures, which ultimately can reduce the effect of that uncertainty on the
residents it serves.
Table 6
VTA Has Established Reserves
RESERVE TYPE PURPOSE
RESERVE AMOUNT
AS OF JUNE 30, 2023
(IN MILLIONS)
DID VTA MEET THE
RECOMMENDED RESERVE AMOUNT?
Operating Reserve To ensure that sufficient funds are always available
in the event of either unanticipated shortfalls in
revenue from sources other than sales tax or
unavoidable expenditure needs.
$91 Yes
Sales Tax Stabilization To mitigate the impact of sales‐tax‐receipt volatility
on service levels and on the operating budget.
$35 Meets maximum allowed in reserve
Debt Reduction To enhance VTA’s fiduciary governance practices and
ensure that funds are available to sustain a capital
program that maintains VTA’s infrastructure and
keeps assets in a state of good repair. May be used
to reduce long-term liabilities or to provide funding
for approved transit‐related capital improvements
and replacement of capital assets.
$375 N/A*
Source: VTA fiscal year 2022–23 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report; VTA policy.
Note: In March 2024, the board approved a transfer of $115 million from the Debt Reduction Reserve to help fund the EBRC Project.
* VTA’s Debt Reduction Reserve does not have a targeted level of funding or a cap on the available balance. Once the targeted balances have been met
for the Operating Reserve and the Sales Tax Stabilization Reserve, any additional amounts are added to the Debt Reduction Reserve.
7 VTA established the Transit Operations Capital reserve in fiscal year 2023–24 with a $100 million transfer from the Debt
Reduction reserve. The Transit Operations Capital reserve was created to be the primary funding source for VTA’s biennial
transit operations capital program.
39CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
In part, VTA’s reserve policies reflect its vulnerability to changes in the economy. A
large percentage of VTA’s revenue—on average more than 60 percent over the past
six fiscal years—is derived from sales taxes, a revenue source that fluctuates with the
economy. Figure 8 shows the different revenue sources that VTA relied on during
this period and the proportion that each source represented of its total revenue.
Figure 8
Sales Tax Revenue Is Consistently the Largest Portion of VTA’s Total Revenue
Sales Tax
Capital and
Operating Grants
Operating Revenue
(includes transit fares,
advertising revenue,
toll revenue)
Other Income
Fiscal Year
2022–232021–222020–212019–202018–192017–18
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
Source: VTA’s Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports for fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23.
As the figure shows, a very small percentage of VTA’s total revenue is operating
revenue, which is a category that includes its fare revenue. Instead, VTA primarily
relies on sales tax revenue as well as state and federal grants to maintain its
operations. The degree to which VTA relies on sales tax revenue (non‑operating
revenue) is common among its peers. Among the five agencies to which we
compared VTA, only one—TriMet—did not rely on sales tax as a revenue source.
TriMet instead relies on payroll and self‑employment taxes that it uses in similar
proportion to the sales taxes used by other agencies. Three of the other four agencies
relied on sales tax revenue as the source for at least 50 percent of their annual
revenue. Further, VTA maintains a sales tax revenue stabilization reserve specifically
dedicated to sales tax revenue shortfalls, ensuring that it is at least partially insulated
from the effects of economic downturns.
40 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
The more concerning element of VTA’s dependence
on sales tax revenue is that the revenue is
time‑limited. VTA’s sales tax revenue is generated
from four sales tax measures, three of which have
sunset dates, as the text box describes. In fiscal
year 2022–23, revenue from these three sales tax
measures made up 69 percent of all of VTA’s sales
tax revenue. These revenue sources must eventually
be replaced if VTA is to maintain operations and
capital expenditures at present levels. The earliest
expiration date of these measures occurs in 2036.
Although the expiration of the first of these sales
tax measures is 12 years from now, there are
two compelling reasons why VTA should begin
planning to identify and generate its replacement
revenue sources now. First, if VTA determines
that it wants to replace the existing measure with
another sales tax, it will need to go through a
potentially time‑consuming process of drafting
language for such a measure that it believes
voters will approve, placing that measure on the
ballot, and gaining voter approval. The California
Constitution requires that such tax measures
be approved by at least two‑thirds of the voters.
The longer VTA waits before deciding whether it
wants to pursue a replacement sales tax measure, the less time it has to address the
potential failure of such a measure to garner the required level of support. Secondly,
VTA relies on sales tax revenue to fund its capital projects and support long‑term
efforts to maintain an adequate state of repair of its infrastructure and equipment.
These projects can be in development for many years before beginning construction,
and uncertainty about the availability of funding could hamper VTA’s efforts to plan
these projects and continue to address its needs. The existing Measure A sales tax is a
demonstration of this principle. VTA has used the sales tax measure to fund multiple
capital projects. Although it was approved by voters in 2000, Measure A did not take
effect until 2006, when a different sales tax measure was scheduled to expire.
Two studies since 2018, both commissioned by VTA, have advised VTA to identify
alternate revenue sources beyond sales tax revenue. In general, these studies were
prompted by VTA’s expectation that it may face deficit spending in future fiscal
years. Although that scenario has generally not occurred, the studies show that VTA
is aware of recommendations to diversify its revenue sources. According to its chief
financial officer (CFO), VTA is still exploring additional revenue sources to replace
the aging sales tax measures and has not yet identified the amount of additional
funding that it will need. The CFO noted that VTA is exploring additional funding
through the expansion of its express lanes system (which generates toll revenue), the
renewal of sales tax measures, and transit‑oriented development of its real estate
holdings. For example, a March 2023 report on the estimated value of the private
VTA Sales Tax Measures and Their Sunset Dates
VTA relies on four sales tax measures for the majority of
its revenue.
1976 Measure A: A 1/2-cent sales tax authorized for the
continued operation and development of transit service in
Santa Clara County. No sunset date.
2000 Measure A: A 1/2-cent sales tax authorized for
various transportation-related expenses, including the
expansion of bus and light rail service throughout Santa
Clara County and the purchase of vehicles for senior and
disabled passenger access. Sunset date is March 31, 2036.
2008 Measure B: A 1/8-cent sales tax authorized to
operate, maintain, and improve the BART extension.
Sunset date is June 30, 2042.
2016 Measure B: A 1/2-cent sales tax authorized for
various transportation-related expenses, including road and
highway improvements, completion of the BART extension
through downtown San Jose, improvements to bicycle and
pedestrian safety, and increased Caltrain capacity.
Sunset date is March 31, 2047.
Source: Santa Clara County ballot measures.
41CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
development of VTA’s properties noted that further development of its real estate
holdings, including commercial and residential development, could generate roughly
$30 million in annual revenue for VTA by 2050.
Although VTA could also reduce its reliance on sales tax revenue by accessing more
revenue through the fares paid by users of its transit system, the CFO indicated that
it has not fully evaluated this option. The percentage of operating expenses that
a transit agency covers with user fares is known as the farebox recovery ratio. We
used fare and operating expense data from the National Transit Database (NTD),
which is managed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), to calculate the
farebox recovery ratio for VTA and the five peer transit agencies we reviewed. As
Figure 9 shows, from fiscal years 2009–10 through 2021–22, VTA has had one of the
lowest farebox recovery ratios. We acknowledge the balance VTA needs to achieve
between keeping fares affordable to be providing a public service and subsidizing
its operations through fare revenue. Nonetheless, without a full study of the issue—
including examinations of how much ridership is affected by rates and whether rates
could be increased without unacceptable losses in ridership—VTA cannot know for
certain whether it is already at an optimal balancing point or whether, like its peers, it
can cover a larger percentage of its operating costs with fare revenue.
Figure 9
VTA’s Farebox Cost Recovery Ratio Is Among the Lowest of Its Peers
Fiscal Year
2021
–
2
2
2020
–
2
1
2019
–
2
0
2018
–
1
9
2017
–
1
8
2016
–
1
7
2015
–
1
6
2014
–
1
5
2013
–
1
4
2012
–
1
3
2011
–
1
2
2010
–
1
1
2009
–
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35%
VTA’s farebox recovery percentage
Range among peer agencies
Percentage of Total Operating Costs Covered by Fares
Source: National Transit Database transit agency data, fiscal years 2009–10 through 2021–22. Data for fiscal year 2022–23 were not available.
42 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
We found that despite the volatility in its sources of revenue, VTA’s pension plans are
generally in good condition, and its pension costs pose a low risk to its financial stability.
VTA has two defined benefit pension plans: the Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority Amalgamated Transit Union Pension Plan (ATU Plan) and the California
Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) pension plan. These pension plans
offer retirement, disability, and death benefits for qualifying retired employees. VTA
also has an Other Post‑Employment Benefits (OPEB) plan, a defined benefit health
plan that offers health benefits to its retired employees, including paid contributions
toward retiree health plans.
We reviewed VTA’s pension plans and OPEB funding levels by determining their
funding ratio, which is the value of pension assets divided by its accrued liabilities.
A funding ratio of 100 percent means that a plan has enough assets to cover its
liabilities. According to VTA’s fiscal year 2022–23 Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report (ACFR), its OPEB trust has a funded ratio of 130 percent and, thus, is a low
risk because its assets are able to fully cover its liabilities. However, its ATU plan and
CalPERS plan have a combined funded ratio of 72 percent, which can pose a higher risk
to its financial sustainability because the plans are not fully funded. Nonetheless, as the
rest of this section details, VTA is adhering to practices that reduce this risk.
VTA’s pension and OPEB funding practices generally align with established best
practices. To provide reasonable assurance that the cost of employee benefits will be
funded in a sustainable manner, the GFOA recommends that, on at least a biennial
basis, governments obtain an actuarially determined contribution to serve as
the basis for its employer contributions. VTA receives an annual actuarial valuation
that determines its contributions for its ATU and OPEB plans. VTA’s contributions
for its CalPERS plan are determined by CalPERS.
The GFOA also recommends that governments contribute the full employer
contribution amount each year in order to further promote the sustainability
of their pension plans. Our review of VTA’s audited financial statements and
its actuarially determined contribution amounts found that VTA has met or
exceeded its recommended contribution to its ATU plan from fiscal years 2019–
20 through 2022–23. Similarly, its ACFR states that VTA made the actuarially
determined contributions to its CalPERS plan in the same fiscal years. Since the
actuarially determined contributions take into consideration the need to finance
unfunded pension liabilities, VTA safeguards against future financial instability by
making these contributions in full.
Further, the amount of these contributions does not pose a high risk to VTA’s overall
operations. When their pension and OPEB contributions are high, governments are
at significant risk of needing to curtail other services or spending so that they can
meet the pension and OPEB obligations. However, VTA’s contributions represented
very low percentages of its annual transit revenue in fiscal year 2022–23: about
5 percent for pension contributions and less than 1 percent for OPEB funding.
VTA’s required pension contributions are likely to increase in the near future
before they subsequently decrease over time. VTA’s 2024 actuarial valuation of its
ATU pension plan noted VTA’s employer contributions are projected to increase
43CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
through 2027. However, the 2024 valuation also noted that VTA’s employer
contribution rates have declined over the past decade as its employees increased
their contribution rates. VTA’s pension manager had an overall positive assessment
of VTA’s pensions’ financial condition and expected that by continuing to make fully
actuarially determined contributions, VTA will eventually fully fund the pensions.
The pension manager also noted that VTA has made changes to how it calculates the
cost of its unfunded liabilities over time in its ATU pension plan in order to reduce
its unfunded liabilities over a 20‑year period, and he added that it expects these
changes will lead to a decline in required contribution amounts in the future.
VTA Has Projected Its Long Term Operational and Capital Needs in General Alignment
With Best Practices
Guidance on financial planning for government agencies indicates that agencies
should prepare financial plans that address their long‑term ability to maintain
operations and make investments in capital projects. The FTA has issued guidance
to transit agencies about how to develop a financial plan in accordance with federal
expectations. One of those expectations is that a transit agency’s financial plan
should include long‑term plans and forecasts for the agency’s revenues and costs
to demonstrate that the agency anticipates having adequate revenue to pay for its
costs. By developing these forecasts, an agency can demonstrate that it expects to be
financially viable several years into the future.
In addition to the FTA guidance, the GFOA recommends that governments develop
a range of possible forecast outcomes by using different scenarios. According to the
GFOA, preparing projections under different assumptions, such as assumptions
about economic conditions, permits decision‑makers to consider the mix of revenue
that would be necessary to provide various services. Similarly, the GFOA says that
multiple expense projections can clearly identify the impact of different scenarios.
We focused our assessment of VTA’s long‑term financial forecasting on one of VTA’s
most significant funds and on the capital program that it is in part responsible for
funding. The VTA Transit fund (transit fund) has a fiscal year 2023–24 operating
budget of approximately $600 million, and it funded more than two‑thirds of its
operating activities—including its labor costs—in fiscal year 2023–24. Moreover, the
transit fund contributes revenue to the VTA Transit Capital Program (transit capital
program). The transit capital program helps VTA maintain capital infrastructure,
keep capital assets in a state of good repair, and invest in improvements that are
meant to enhance the safety, security, and efficiency of the transit system. The total
appropriation for the transit capital program in VTA’s biennial budget for fiscal
years 2023–24 and 2024–25 is $163 million, of which the transit fund is budgeted to
provide approximately $65 million.
In both of these areas, VTA has adopted most of the recommended practices for
long‑term forecasting that we reviewed. Most importantly, VTA produces long‑term
forecasts for both the transit fund’s operating revenues and expenses and the transit
capital program’s funding needs. For the transit fund, VTA develops a two‑year
budget for the fund’s revenues and expenses in its biennial budget and, using those
44 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
two fiscal years as its base, projects the fund’s revenues and expenses over the next
eight fiscal years. VTA’s projections account for factors that may affect sources of
revenue and expenses, such as anticipated sporting events and other recreational
activities that could increase ridership and, in turn, affect VTA fare revenues.
For the transit capital program, VTA develops a long‑term forecast for the program
as part of its SCIP. The SCIP identifies, within projected funding constraints,
the program’s funding needs and expected expenses over the next 20 years. By
developing multiyear forecasts, VTA enhances its ability to assess whether it will
have adequate revenue to pay for transit service expenses and to finance capital
projects several years into the future.
VTA also adhered to the GFOA’s recommendation to identify and clearly explain
major assumptions used to inform its forecasts. For example, in its biennial budget,
VTA assumes for the transit fund that ridership levels—which drive transit fare
revenue—will increase between fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25 but remain
approximately 10 percent lower than pre‑pandemic levels. VTA explains in its budget
document that although it expects that ridership will likely increase, hybrid work
and telecommuting by businesses and schools may prevent transit ridership from
making a full recovery to pre‑pandemic levels. Similar to the transit fund’s operating
forecast, the SCIP identifies major relevant assumptions used to develop the forecast
for the transit capital program, including the funding needs for future capital asset
improvement projects—such as bus fleet electrification—and the maintenance
required for the ongoing operation of light rail services.
The GFOA’s guidance indicates that by developing multiple financial forecasts for its
revenues and expenses, governments can better determine their needs under different
economic realities. Consistent with this recommended practice, VTA develops
three forecasts for the transit capital program, which it calls the low, medium, and
high scenarios. Each forecast reflects the program’s needs under different funding
scenarios. Each funding scenario also describes the implications the forecast would
have on VTA’s ability to maintain and replace its capital assets. For example, the
SCIP explains that the forecast reflecting the “medium” scenario—which the board
ultimately directed staff to pursue in future plans and budgets—could in part allow
the agency to replace bus fleets and light rail corridor electrification assets in the near
term while maintaining assets on average in a state of adequate or good repair over
a 20‑year period. Because VTA develops multiple forecasts for the transit capital
program, the board can develop a thorough understanding of the actions the agency
must take to maintain the program’s long‑term viability.
For its transit fund revenues, VTA received from an external contractor three
long‑term forecasts of sales tax revenue under different economic scenarios. VTA
used the “most likely” scenario provided by the contractor to develop the forecast for
the 1976 sales tax and other major sources of sales tax‑related revenues generated
for the transit fund. Because sales tax—an inherently uncertain revenue source—
constitutes more than 85 percent of the transit fund’s budgeted revenues, VTA’s
review of multiple revenue forecasts helps to ensure that it considers potential
scenarios that may influence its ability to support its operations several years into
the future.
45CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
However, VTA does not develop multiple forecasts for the transit fund’s operating
expenses, which may limit VTA’s insight into the long‑term outlook for the transit fund.
According to staff responsible for assembling the long‑term forecast, VTA develops
only one forecast for its operating expenses based on a single set of assumptions.
As a result, VTA is unable to determine what the transit fund’s operating expenses
might be under different scenarios. For example, VTA does not consider varied
degrees of staff vacancies and therefore cannot know the impact of those scenarios
on its spending. It also lacks insight into the impact of fuel price spikes or declines on
its ability to continue funding other budget priorities.
Further, VTA’s single expense projection does not provide sufficient information to
understand the impact of capital investments it is making. We reviewed whether
VTA’s expense projections anticipate operation and maintenance costs that will not
occur until future budget cycles and found that VTA does not incorporate such costs.
For example, VTA’s forecast does not account for the $2 million in maintenance costs
that VTA anticipates EBRC will incur on an annual basis once it becomes operational
in 2029. Accordingly, VTA’s forecast excludes factors that are likely to influence the
transit fund’s long‑term viability.
VTA staff responsible for developing the transit fund forecast agreed that it would
be beneficial to develop multiple expense scenarios. In January 2024, VTA entered
into an agreement with a contractor to develop a new financial model that should
allow VTA to develop multiple forecasts of its revenues and expenses under different
economic assumptions. The deputy director‑controller stated that these multiple
forecasts will give VTA a stronger understanding of the revenues that it must raise
to cover future expenses, something he acknowledged that VTA was limited in
its ability to do with its current forecasting. He further stated that VTA intends
to implement the new financial model by the time it begins developing its fiscal
year 2026–27 biennial budget in the second half of 2024.
VTA Has Not Consistently Implemented Budget Monitoring Practices in Its Financial
Decision‑Making
According to the GFOA, regular monitoring of budgetary performance can provide
an early warning of potential problems and time for decision‑makers to consider
actions they may need to take if there are major deviations between budgeted and
actual spending. The GFOA recommends that governments have mechanisms
in place to ensure compliance with the adopted budget and observes that a
common mechanism is to conduct monthly or quarterly reviews of trends in actual
expenditures and revenues compared to its budget. Further, the GFOA recommends
that governments incorporate an examination of performance measures and linkages
to financial outcomes into their budget monitoring processes. For a transit agency,
these performance measures could include industry metrics such as farebox recovery
rates or operating costs per trip. Finally, the GFOA states that it is important to
establish formal processes for implementing budget monitoring responsibilities.
46 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
VTA indicated that it uses a variety of regular budgetary reviews. VTA’s deputy
director‑controller stated that VTA’s monitoring process consists of day‑to‑day
tracking of expenditures by budget analysts within each division. Further, the deputy
director‑controller and VTA’s budget manager said that VTA also conducts monthly
reviews of spending trends and budget deviations. A key practice that the deputy
director‑controller explained is the quarterly review of actual spending against budgeted
spending. According to the deputy director‑controller, on a quarterly basis the budget
department creates reports for each division regarding their budgeted‑versus‑actual
expenditures (variance reports), and the budget department staff meets with the
leadership from each division to review the reports and discuss any variances.
When we asked the CFO how VTA’s board and staff respond to deviations between
budgeted forecasts and the variance reports, he responded that VTA does not have
a policy related to the variance reports that would require a specific action by VTA
staff when deviations exceed a given threshold. The CFO said that the board makes
inquiries of VTA staff related to the variance reports during board meetings, but he
could not recall an example during his tenure of when the board requested a specific
action as a result of the quarterly variance reports.
VTA could not demonstrate that it consistently generated the quarterly variance
reports or held these meetings with division leadership. We requested a copy of the
quarterly variance reports for three divisions from fiscal years 2021–22 and 2022–23—
a total of 24 reports. However, VTA could provide only two of these reports, both from
the second quarter of fiscal year 2022–23. According to the deputy director‑controller,
half of the quarterly meetings with divisional leadership were never scheduled, often
because VTA did not have a budget manager at the time. In other cases, the deputy
director‑controller explained that he believed the meetings occurred but could not
locate the related variance reports because of recent retirements from VTA. Without
regular monitoring of budgetary performance, VTA is limited in its ability to identify
and respond to deviations between budgeted and actual spending.
In contrast, VTA was able to demonstrate that it regularly presents agencywide variance
reports to the board. We reviewed the meeting minutes from the Administration and
Finance Committee from November 2020 through November 2023 and confirmed
that VTA staff reported quarterly on agencywide operating budget variances,
and that committee members generally discussed the reports. For example, in the
committee’s review of the statement of revenues and expenses from the first quarter
of fiscal year 2020–21, committee members discussed VTA’s use of Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act funding and the degree to which the funding
would cover an anticipated operating budget deficit.
VTA has not adopted another recommended best practice for monitoring budget
performance: the use of financial metrics as a part of budgetary oversight. VTA’s
CFO confirmed that the agency does not have specific financial metrics that it
tracks or uses to report to the board about how well VTA is performing. Our review
of eight board meetings from July 2022 through December 2022 confirmed that
VTA staff generally did not present to the board updates on financial metrics, such
as VTA’s farebox recovery ratio. According to VTA’s CFO, he is working with the
finance department to determine the financial metrics and related goals on which the
47CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
agency intends to report to the board. The CFO also stated that VTA intends to start
delivering quarterly reports on these metrics and goals to the board by July 2024. He
added that VTA intends to update the metrics and goals on an ongoing basis.
VTA is likely to find that tracking financial metrics improves its ability to enhance
its operations. As we describe earlier, VTA’s farebox recovery ratio is notably lower
than that of its peer agencies. However, without regular updates on this metric, the
board is left without reliable and easy access to information that could prompt it to
reconsider VTA’s fares. Similarly, the board would likely benefit from being regularly
informed about how well VTA performs compared to its peers across other metrics.
We reviewed the operating expenses that VTA and its peer agencies reported to the
NTD for fiscal years 2009–10 through 2021–22. These expenses included labor costs,
costs for vehicle fuel and other materials, and utilities. We also reviewed service
hours and ridership data that these agencies reported to the NTD. Using these data,
we calculated the total operating cost per passenger trip and the total operating cost
per hour that a transit vehicle is in service.8 As Figure 10 shows, VTA’s operational
costs across these two metrics were higher than any of the five peer agencies we
reviewed. VTA’s operating costs per trip peaked in fiscal year 2020–21 at $33.11 per
trip—meaning that each trip taken by a passenger cost VTA about $33 in operating
costs. The height of this peak was likely driven by the effects of the pandemic, but
VTA’s costs had nonetheless been higher than its peers’ costs for some years before
the pandemic affected its operations. These high operating cost metrics indicate that
VTA is not operating as efficiently as its peers, which warrants VTA’s further review
to assess the causes. However, because VTA staff do not regularly report these types
of data to the board, the board has a limited ability to monitor VTA’s performance and
direct VTA staff to identify and address causes.
Regular monitoring of these operational metrics is likely to be especially important
to VTA as it continues to address declines in ridership. Metrics such as operational
cost per trip measure how effective VTA is with its resources, which becomes more
important as it faces changes in demand for its services. When we reviewed the
number of passenger trips per service hour—essentially a measure of how many
passengers are served compared to how many total hours VTA’s vehicles are available to
transport passengers—we found that in the four years leading up to the pandemic, VTA
had a lower number of passengers per hour than most of its peers. This metric indicates
that VTA may have been offering more transit service than its ridership required.
Nonetheless, in the post‑pandemic recovery, while ridership levels could still rise
over time, it is likely too early to know whether VTA will continue to compare
unfavorably to its peers. VTA’s chief operating officer told us that both VTA staff
and VTA’s board are more focused on bringing the level of ridership up rather than
the level of service down to meet reduced demand. Figure 11 shows that the trend
in VTA’s ridership was generally declining over the past nine years. As did its peers,
VTA experienced a sharp decline in ridership due to the effects of the pandemic.
Since then, ridership has not returned to its pre‑pandemic levels.
8 For passenger trips, we used the metric unlinked passenger trips, which counts each time a passenger boards a transit
vehicle regardless of how many vehicles the passenger uses to reach their destination. For the hours that vehicles
were in service, we used the metric vehicle revenue hours, which measures the number of hours that vehicles are in
revenue-generating service.
48 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Figure 10
VTA’s Operating Costs per Trip and per Operating Hour Have Consistently Been Higher Than Its Peers’ Costs
Fiscal Year
2021
–
2
2
2020
–
2
1
2019
–
2
0
2018
–
1
9
2017
–
1
8
2016
–
1
7
2015
–
1
6
2014
–
1
5
2013
–
1
4
2012
–
1
3
2011
–
1
2
2010
–
1
1
2009
–
1
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
$300
Range among
peer agencies
VTA
Operating Cost per Operating Hour
Fiscal Year
2021
–
2
2
2020
–
2
1
2019
–
2
0
2018
–
1
9
2017
–
1
8
2016
–
1
7
2015
–
1
6
2014
–
1
5
2013
–
1
4
2012
–
1
3
2011
–
1
2
2010
–
1
1
2009
–
1
0
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
$35
Range among
peer agencies
VTA
Operating Cost per Passenger Trip
Source: NTD transit agency data, fiscal years 2009–10 through 2021–22. Data for fiscal year 2022–23 were not available.
Note: Operating cost per passenger trip is the cost VTA incurs to provide each trip taken by a passenger. For example, each trip taken by a passenger in
fiscal year 2020–21 on average cost VTA approximately $33. Operating cost per operating hour is the cost to VTA to run its transit infrastructure for an
hour. For example, in fiscal year 2020–21 it cost VTA about $277 to provide an hour of service.
49CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Figure 11
VTA’s Ridership Has Declined for Years, Even Before the Start of the Pandemic
Fiscal Year
2021–222020–212019–202018–192017–182016–172015–162014–152013–14
0
5
10
15
20
25
30 Passenger Trips Per Service Hour
Fiscal Year
2021–222020–212019–202018–192017–182016–172015–162014–152013–14
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000 Ridership
The pandemic-related decline
in ridership begins here.
Source: NTD transit agency data, fiscal years 2013–14 through 2021–22. Data for fiscal year 2022–23 were not available.
50 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Finally, according to its budget manager, VTA has not documented any of
its operating budget monitoring practices in written procedures. This lack of
documentation raises the risk that its staff will not perform oversight activities.
Documentation of an agency’s procedures promotes various benefits: the documented
procedures can clearly communicate expectations, helping to reduce inconsistency in
practice. Documented procedures can also assist agencies experiencing staff turnover,
because the documented procedures can guide newer staff who may not be as familiar
with VTA’s expected practices. In fact, VTA has experienced some turnover among
its financial leadership in recent years—including its CFO, deputy director‑controller,
and budget manager. In light of the benefits of documenting procedures and the
inconsistency we found in VTA’s budget oversight practices, it would benefit VTA to
formalize its expectations for budget oversight activities.
VTA Publicly Reports the Recommended Financial Information
To promote fiscal transparency, GFOA recommends that government agencies
make high‑quality financial information available on the agency’s website. The
GFOA also recommends that governments provide opportunities during the budget
process for obtaining the input of stakeholders. Further, the GFOA recommends that
governments obtain and publish independent expert reviews of their finances, such
as annual external audits, to improve credibility with the public. The GFOA notes
that when citizens have trust in government, they will be more willing to pay taxes,
participate in community governance, and invest in the community.
VTA’s biennial budget and its ACFR, which presents its comprehensive financial
position, are available on its public website, including previous reports as far
back as fiscal year 1995–96. VTA’s biennial budget contains long‑term financial
forecasts and the underlying assumptions made in the forecasts. VTA’s budget
process includes the opportunity for the public to comment on its proposed budget.
For example, an April 2023 board meeting included opportunity for the public
to comment on the proposed budget for fiscal years 2023–24 and 2024–25. The
proposed budget is also presented to various advisory committees to receive their
input and recommendation—including the Policy Advisory Committee and Citizens
Advisory Committee, both of which reviewed the proposed budget in May 2023,
approximately one month before the board adopted the biennial budget. We
reviewed VTA’s ACFRs for fiscal years 2017–18 through 2022–23 and determined
that an independent auditor issued an unmodified opinion on the financial
statements in each year, meaning that the auditor concluded that VTA presented
fairly, in all material respects, its financial position and changes in financial position
for those years.
51CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
VTA Established Broad Strategic Goals Without Setting Specific Actions or
Monitoring Processes
Strategic planning is an important process that can help an organization define
its goals, establish how it will measure performance, and outline strategies that it
will use to reach its goals. The TCRP states that
strategic planning is a management tool used to
define an agency’s role, establish goals, measure
performance, and guide business processes.
Despite the importance of strategic planning,
VTA’s strategic plan is outdated, and VTA is
currently operating with an alternate list of
initiatives created by its CEO. VTA last developed
a strategic plan in 2016, and that plan applied
to the period of 2017 through 2022. In addition,
in 2021, the CEO created VTA Forward, a list of
initiatives that the CEO indicated was originally
created as its strategic response to internal
and external factors affecting VTA. The CEO
stated that multiple crises since the start of the
pandemic in early 2020 highlighted systemic
issues that hindered the organization from
moving forward. VTA Forward is focused on
strengthening VTA and preparing it to take on
future opportunities and challenges. The CEO
told us that these two documents—the outdated
strategic plan and VTA Forward—were the best
source of VTA’s vision and goals. However, she
acknowledged that the strategic plan is outdated
and said that most executive leaders at VTA do
not use the plan. We refer to these two documents
collectively as VTA’s strategic planning documents.
Moreover, VTA’s strategic planning documents
do not contain all of the important elements of a
strategic plan. For example, in the two documents
combined, VTA has listed a total of 12 goals
that it wants to achieve, as shown in the
text box. However, all but one of these goals
lack measurable objectives that would allow
VTA or the public to determine whether it was
making progress toward its goals. Further, VTA’s
strategic plan contains a goal to “optimize transit
travel times and ensure they are preserved and
continually improved.” Yet the plan lacks any
content on how VTA will determine whether it is
making progress in this area. The one goal with a
measurable objective is to ensure frequent service,
VTA’s Strategic Goals
1. Optimize transit travel times and ensure they are
preserved and continually improved.
2. Ensure that transit service, especially in core areas, is
frequent (every 15 minutes or better).
3. Provide customer-focused information systems, and
preserve and enhance reliable operations through
transit-preferential treatments.
4. Create concepts, plans, designs, programs, and policies
to optimize current conditions and identify and seize
new opportunities.
5. Deliver projects and programs on time and within
budget, and creatively pursue new construction,
operational, and business practices that make VTA more
efficient and successful.
6. Provide a comprehensive line of services, technical
support, funding programs, and mobility solutions
to the public and Congestion Management Program
Member Agencies.
7. Address roadway congestion and all modes of
transportation system operations by collecting and
analyzing data, developing and applying technology,
refining current practices, and implementing new
planning and management tools.
8. Retain and increase the value of existing infrastructure
and services, and optimize the utility of new
investments and services.
9. Improve and expand mobility options by innovatively
applying technology, planning, design, construction,
operations, and business techniques.
10. Steady the organization and create clarity surrounding
urgent initiatives in building VTA’s team, retaining VTA
talent, and restoring VTA service.
11. Elevate VTA staff and services with an emphasis on
developing VTA workforce and delivering multi-modal
projects and programs in an equitable and sustainable way.
12. Reach VTA’s full potential through discernable culture
change work and transformative community building
that raises the transportation bar in the region.
Source: VTA’s strategic planning documents.
52 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
with a measurable objective of transit availability every 15 minutes. The CEO agreed
that VTA’s strategic planning documents were missing goals with specific actions
that VTA would take to achieve the goals. A related deficiency is that the strategic
planning documents also do not identify the performance measures that VTA will
use to determine whether it achieves the stated goals.
VTA had expected to complete additional plans that could have created these
missing measurable objectives. VTA’s strategic plan and biennial budgets indicate
that the agency planned to measure its success in meeting its strategic goals through
implementation of goals and metrics that would be included in a business plan.
However, VTA never completed the business plan. With respect to the goals in VTA
Forward, VTA also did not create measurable objectives by which it could determine
whether it was achieving any of the stated goals in that list. The CEO indicated that
factors such as the pandemic and aftereffects of a shooting incident at a VTA rail
yard in 2021 affected the development of the business plans. She agreed that VTA
lacks a performance measurement system for ensuring that actions are implemented
and that VTA achieves the desired results.
Further, VTA’s strategic planning documents do not always include specific strategies
that VTA will use to achieve its goals. VTA’s 2016 strategic plan contains no specific
statements about the activities that VTA plans to engage in to achieve its goals. In
fact, the plan explicitly states that it exists to guide the development of the business
plans that would contain these strategies. In contrast, VTA Forward includes several
statements about the actions that VTA planned to take to achieve the goals in that
list. For example, to achieve the goal of developing its workforce, VTA described
taking actions such as reforming its leadership development program and identifying
and growing the leadership team’s strengths through coaching.
Without a strategic plan that includes measurable objectives, related strategies, and
defined performance measures, VTA is hindered from effectively ensuring that it
meets its organizational goals, including goals valued by the public. According to
the CEO, by November 2024 VTA plans to create a business plan for its outdated
strategic plan and by 2026 create a new strategic plan. However, we question VTA’s
planned approach. As we note earlier, the CEO acknowledged that VTA’s strategic
plan is outdated and that executive leaders no longer refer to the plan. Additionally,
it is unclear how much value VTA will derive from adopting a business plan for its
expired strategic plan only to then replace the business plan approximately two years
later with a new strategic plan. In response, the CEO stated that VTA needs a
framework for the next two years and that a new strategic plan would take a longer
time to create. Nonetheless, given the age of the outdated plan, it would be valuable
for VTA to begin the creation of its new strategic plan as soon as possible to address
its current needs.
53CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
VTA’s CEO Evaluation Process Does Not Align With Best Practices
Organizations can promote accountability and effective performance by regularly
reviewing how well staff fulfill their assigned responsibilities. For the CEO, these
assigned responsibilities include ensuring the proper administration of all affairs of
VTA. The APTA indicates that, by evaluating a CEO, a board can foster a productive
relationship with the CEO. This relationship can in turn benefit both the agency and
the people that it serves. The APTA also states that the evaluation process is effective
when it includes agreement between the board and the CEO on job expectations and
measurable outcomes that the board will use to evaluate the CEO.
VTA has a policy that establishes its process for evaluating its CEO. When VTA adopted
its CEO evaluation policy in 2020, it noted that over the previous years it had evaluated
the CEO inconsistently and that in some cases it had not always met its contractual
requirements for review of the CEO. Therefore, the purpose of the 2020 policy was
to correct VTA’s approach to evaluating its CEO. According to the policy, the board’s
Governance and Audit Committee should receive an annual self‑appraisal from the
CEO, and the board chair should also collect input from each director about the CEO’s
performance and present that input to the committee in closed session. The committee
is then required to present a confidential recommendation to the board about the CEO’s
performance to facilitate the board’s discussion of the CEO’s performance in closed session.
State open meeting laws authorize the board to conduct its evaluations of the CEO’s
performance in closed session. Under those laws, information relating to performance
evaluations that is acquired by being present in closed session is confidential and cannot
be disclosed. Because VTA evaluates the CEO’s performance in closed session meetings,
we cannot disclose any information about the evaluations obtained from the meetings.
According to VTA’s policy, the CEO’s performance evaluation is based on performance
objectives chosen by VTA’s Governance and Audit Committee. However, the policy does
not explicitly require these objectives to be communicated to the CEO. Further, the board’s
chair confirmed that the CEO’s evaluation process is not based on documented goals or
performance metrics. As a result, VTA’s policy likely limits the board’s ability to assess
how well the CEO has helped VTA to achieve its stated goals and benefit the community.
VTA should take action to correct these deficiencies in its evaluation process after it has
addressed issues with its strategic plan. As we note earlier, VTA lacks a current strategic
plan with measurable objectives. Because the CEO is responsible for leading VTA, any
future evaluation of the CEO should include a comparison of VTA’s performance against
such objectives. In October 2023, VTA entered into an agreement with a contractor to
develop a new, documented process for evaluating the CEO’s performance. According
to the board chair, the new evaluation process will include an annual performance
review by the board of the CEO based on performance goals and metrics related to
VTA’s objectives and strategic goals. The chair also said that the board and the CEO will
meet on an annual basis to review the goals and update them as necessary to reflect the
agency’s objectives. Because the new evaluation process will enhance the board’s ability
to assess the CEO’s performance based on performance goals and metrics, VTA’s board
should formally approve the new process and document it in VTA’s administrative code.
54 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Recommendations
To help ensure financial viability, VTA should determine by June 2025 the extent to
which it can rely on revenue sources that are less uncertain than sales tax revenue.
In reaching this determination, VTA should consider taking action to increase its
farebox recovery ratio by, for example, raising fares or cutting expenses. VTA should
then pursue any additional revenue sources it identifies to the extent possible.
To improve VTA’s forecasts of future financial scenarios, VTA should begin
forecasting multiple expense scenarios for its transit fund by December 2024 and use
those scenarios to create a projection of expenses to present to the board. Further,
it should incorporate into these projections any anticipated increases in operational
costs because of capital projects.
To ensure that VTA is consistent in its budget monitoring and oversight, VTA should
adopt documented procedures by December 2024 that include, at a minimum,
the following:
• A process that VTA will use to examine variances between budgeted and actual
amounts of revenues and expenses.
• The use of quarterly variance reports by both the board and VTA staff, and
expectations for appropriate actions to be taken when significant deviations
are identified.
• Assignments that show which staff will be responsible for performing and
reviewing variance analyses, and ensure continuity of these reviews when there is
turnover in key management positions.
To ensure that it is informed about VTA’s performance against key financial
indicators, the board should require VTA staff to regularly report on specified
financial metrics—including its farebox recovery ratio, trips per revenue hour, and
operating cost per revenue hour—beginning in December 2024 or sooner.
To ensure that VTA has a current strategic plan that incorporates best practices,
VTA should create a comprehensive strategic plan by December 2025 that includes
goals, measurable objectives, strategies, and performance measures to track progress.
It should also adopt procedures to ensure monitoring of progress on the strategic
plan and regular reporting to the board.
To help ensure that the CEO is guiding VTA to achieve its goals, the board should
formally adopt by June 2025 the new evaluation process for its CEO and amend
VTA’s Administrative Code to document the process. The evaluation process should
include performance expectations for its CEO based on the agency’s objectives,
including the goals in VTA’s most current strategic plan. All subsequent updates
to the evaluation process and its goals and metrics should be formally approved by
the board.
55CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
56 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Other Areas We Reviewed
To address the audit objectives approved by the Joint Legislative Audit Committee
(Audit Committee), we also compared the board’s responsibilities to those of its peer
agencies. Additionally, to provide information about a significant capital project, we
reviewed information about VTA’s response to concerns expressed by the FTA over
the second phase of VTA’s Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) capital project.
The VTA Board’s Responsibilities Are Generally Consistent With Best Practices and Are
Similar to the Responsibilities of Peer Agencies’ Boards
The responsibilities of VTA’s board align with best practices and are generally
comparable to the responsibilities of the boards of the peer agencies. According
to research sponsored by the FTA, the responsibilities of a transit board include
making policy, upholding fiduciary duties, and overseeing the agency’s CEO. We
reviewed state law and relevant agency documentation and found that VTA’s board
is required to exercise these responsibilities. For example, according to the state law
that establishes VTA, the board is responsible for determining VTA policy, adopting
an annual budget, establishing rates for transit service, and determining the transit
facilities that VTA should acquire and construct. As we stated earlier in the report,
VTA’s directors are also charged with several fiduciary responsibilities, including the
responsibility to act in the best interest of the residents of the county and disclose
reportable financial interests.
Available public records demonstrate that the boards of the peer agencies are often
required to exercise similar responsibilities. For example, the statute that establishes
SacRT states that the board is the district’s legislative body, responsible for adopting
an annual budget and adopting rules and regulations that govern the use of the
district’s transit facilities. Further, CapMetro’s bylaws require that directors act
collectively on behalf of the board in the best interest of the agency. In addition, we
found that each peer agency’s board is either required to, or has the authority to,
appoint the agency’s CEO. For example, the statute that establishes TriMet requires
the board to select a general manager based in part on their past experience as a
general manager. The publicly available documentation we reviewed did not make it
clear whether VTA’s peer agency boards have responsibilities similar to the ones we
describe earlier that position VTA’s board as the body responsible for evaluating the
CEO’s performance.
VTA Has Worked With FTA to Address Federal Concerns About VTA’s BART Capital Project
In 2000 Santa Clara County voters approved Measure A, which included an
extension of BART. The entire BART project is a 16‑mile extension of the existing
BART system. VTA is constructing and will own the project, and BART will
maintain and operate service. VTA reports on its website that Phase I of the project
opened for service in 2020. This phase extended service approximately 10 miles from
Alameda County to North San José. We reviewed VTA’s project planning for Phase II
(BART project), an approximately six‑mile extension that will bring service through
57CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
three new underground stations in San José and end in the city of Santa Clara.
According to VTA’s auditor general’s report on the project, the budget and schedule
for the BART project have grown over time. In April 2021, VTA estimated a cost of
$6.9 billion and date to begin service in May 2030, with contingencies that could
delay the start of service until September 2032.
FTA has assigned a project management oversight contractor (oversight contractor)
to assess VTA’s project planning and federal funding applications. In July 2021,
the oversight contractor issued a report evaluating VTA’s risk assessment, project
scope, schedule, and capital cost estimate for the BART project. The report included
concerns that VTA’s project planning was too optimistic for both the project cost
and project schedule. The oversight contractor recommended that VTA increase
the expected cost of the BART project by more than $2.2 billion, from $6.9 billion to
more than $9.1 billion and push the expected date to begin service to June 2034.
According to the VTA manager in charge of the BART project (BART project
manager), VTA does not have to report a specific corrective action plan describing
how VTA will implement all of the oversight contractor’s recommendations. Instead,
he explained that VTA works collaboratively with the oversight contractor to address
ongoing concerns. VTA has been able to demonstrate that it has addressed some of
the specific concerns that the contractor identified. For example, according to the
contractor’s project monitoring report, when VTA submitted an application to FTA
for funding in October 2022, VTA’s cost estimate of $9.3 billion was greater than
the $9.1 billion that the FTA’s contractor estimated more than a year prior. Further,
VTA’s schedule estimate—with an estimated date to begin service of March 2033—
was 15 months earlier than the contractor’s recommended estimate. In its response
to the contractor’s 2021 assessment, VTA described differences of opinion related to
a timeline for procuring a tunnel boring machine and the estimated tunneling rate
as the primary reasons for differences in schedule estimates between VTA and the
FTA’s contractor.
Despite the scheduling difference, FTA approved VTA’s initial application for a
federal funding program that, according to VTA, can supply funding of nearly
$6.3 billion if VTA ultimately succeeds in satisfying all federal requirements. The
BART project manager explained that the project’s progress through the FTA
funding process is an indication of the confidence that the oversight contractor has
that VTA is successfully addressing concerns. We concluded our audit fieldwork
in April 2024. A report by the CFO to the board indicates that VTA submitted its
application for the engineering phase of the federal funding process in March 2024.
In that report, VTA estimated the project to cost $12.7 billion with an estimated
date to begin service of March 2039. According to the report, if FTA accepts VTA’s
application for the engineering phase, VTA may then submit a final application to
FTA for a full funding grant agreement.
58 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
We conducted this performance audit in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California
State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards require that
we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives.
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings
and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Respectfully submitted,
GRANT PARKS
California State Auditor
June 11, 2024
Staff: Bob Harris, Audit Principal
Ralph M. Flynn, Senior Auditor
Amanda Millen, MBA, Senior Auditor
Mike Carri
Nathan Drake
William Goltra
Alexis Hankins
Roxanna Jarvis
Lily Nuñez, MPP
Legal Counsel: Abigail Maurer
59CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
60 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Appendix A
Status of VTA’s Implementation of Our Prior Audit Recommendations
The Audit Committee requested that we evaluate VTA’s implementation of
recommendations from our July 2008 audit of VTA.9 In Table A, we present these
audit recommendations and their current implementation status.
Table A
Status of VTA’s Implementation of Recommendations From Audit Report 2007‑129
2007‑129 AUDIT RECOMMENDATION CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS*
Board Structure, Governance, and Strategic Planning
1 To promote stability in its leadership and bring the tenure of board
members in line with that of comparable transit agencies, VTA
should request the Legislature to amend its enabling statutes to
allow for a four-year board term.
Not implemented
As discussed in this report, VTA’s term length is two years and not four,
and VTA has decided to encourage appointing powers to reappoint
directors rather than pursue a change to its term lengths.
2 VTA should monitor the effect of the governance changes approved
by the board in May 2008 and determine whether additional
changes to its governance structure are necessary. To this end, VTA
should add board tenure to the performance measures it develops
for its new strategic plan.
Not current practice
As this report describes, VTA’s strategic plan is outdated. Further, VTA’s
strategic planning documents lack performance measures related to
board tenure.
3 To demonstrate that it values the expertise of its advisory
committees, VTA and its board should take actions to ensure that
advisory committees are involved in the development of policy
solutions. Such actions should include the following:
a. Reassessing and stating the purpose and role of each advisory
committee.
b. Reviewing work plans for advisory committees to ensure the
committees have an opportunity to review and provide input on
issues in the early stages of development.
c. Providing the citizens committee with an opportunity to address
the board at every meeting, similar to the opportunity provided
to the policy committee.
Implemented
VTA has regularly updated the bylaws for each advisory committee,
which include each committee’s mission and purpose. The citizens
advisory committee has a regular opportunity to address the
board. Although our report notes that VTA did not involve advisory
committees in the development of the SCIP, we noted that in most
cases, committees were appropriately involved in policy review.
Additionally, the board approves the meeting minutes packages
for advisory committee meetings during which the workplans
are established.
4 VTA should implement its plan to create a comprehensive strategic
plan and ensure that the new plan conforms to the practices
recommended by the GFOA.
Not current practice
As this report describes, VTA’s strategic plan is outdated and does not
adhere to best practices.
Project Management
5 To ensure adequate control over its project planning process, VTA
should develop written policies and procedures for project planning
and evaluation.
Not current practice
As this report describes, VTA does not have procedures for cost
estimation which is a key element of project planning and
management, but it is developing a project administration manual.
9 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority: It Has Made Several Improvements in Recent Years, but Changes Are Still Needed,
2007‑129, July 2008.
continued on next page . . .
61CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
2007‑129 AUDIT RECOMMENDATION CURRENT IMPLEMENTATION STATUS*
6 To conform to GFOA‐recommended practices, VTA should create
policies and procedures to clearly identify all project costs and
revenues, and to estimate and have a plan for funding the operating
costs resulting from capital projects.
Not current practice
VTA does not have written procedures related to identifying project
operation and maintenance costs. Further, as described in this report,
VTA does not identify operation and maintenance costs for all of
its projects.
7 To achieve consistency in project monitoring, VTA should ensure that
its project managers follow the construction administration manual
or document when management has agreed to an exception.
Not current practice
According to VTA, it no longer uses its construction
administration manual.
Financial Planning and Oversight
8 To make best use of its resources, VTA should create regular processes
in which fiscal resources communicates with other VTA divisions—
especially the Engineering and Construction Division—regarding
the cash needs of projects and activities. This communication
process should include estimates of yearly project expenditures and
regular updates to those projections based on actual results.
Not current practice
According to VTA, it had begun but has since stopped holding meetings
between its fiscal team and project staff for these purposes.
9 VTA should update its capital budget to more fully report planned
spending by year, capital carryover by source, and expected total
project costs.
Implemented
As this report discusses, VTA presents this information to the board as
part of its budget.
10 To better monitor capital spending, VTA should regularly compile
and report to management information that tracks all capital
projects and compares spending and project progress to original
projections. Information should be broken down by project but
should also include total project progress and spending by source
of funds.
Not current practice
VTA does not compare its capital project costs to its original estimates
or report variances from the original estimates to the board.
11 To ensure realistic long‐term financial planning, VTA should
continue to update its planning tools and methodology and clearly
explain assumptions that have material effects on overall forecasts.
Implemented
As noted in this report, VTA describes the major assumptions that
impact its financial forecasts.
Source: Audit report 2007-129; VTA documents and processes.
Note: This table does not include three recommendations from the report. All three of these recommendations asked VTA to continue plans it had
to implement recommendations made by a consultant hired by VTA. Because the core of these recommendations were actions recommended by a
third party and not the California State Auditor, we did not follow up on them during this audit.
* We describe the implementation status as Not current practice in cases where VTA had previously demonstrated that it had addressed the
recommendation, but this audit determined that VTA is not following the practices described in the recommendation.
62 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Appendix B
Scope and Methodology
The Audit Committee directed the California State Auditor to conduct an audit
of VTA in relation to its governance structure, project planning and management,
financial viability, and fiscal oversight. Table B lists the objectives that the Audit
Committee approved and the methods we used to address them. Unless otherwise
stated in the table or elsewhere in the report, statements and conclusions about items
selected for review should not be projected to the population.
Table B
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them
AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
1 Review and evaluate the laws, rules, and
regulations significant to the audit objectives.
Reviewed relevant state and federal laws and regulations related to the objectives listed
below.
2 Assess VTA’s governance structure and practices
to determine whether:
a. The roles and responsibilities of the VTA’s
board are comparable to that of other local
transportation authorities.
b. The VTA’s board and management appropriately
carry out their governance-related roles and
responsibilities, including their oversight of
agency funds and their implementation of
management controls designed to detect and
prevent waste, fraud, abuse, illegal conduct,
mismanagement, and conflicts of interest.
c. The VTA board member selection and tenure
practices are effective and whether they align
with state law and best practices. Determine the
effectiveness of current statutes and whether
the VTA could increase transparency related to
the selection of its board members. Consider
whether state law should be changed to
improve performance.
d. The VTA uses committees effectively and the
extent to which advisory committees are
involved in the development of policy.
e. The VTA relies on alternate board members, the
extent to which it did so, and whether the use of
alternates reduced board member attendance
and engagement. Further, assess the extent to
which the VTA’s use of alternates aligns with
best practices and good governance policies.
f. VTA board members perform their fiduciary
duties with a focus on the county overall or on
the city they may represent and the extent to
which members representing cities confer with
respective city staff and councils prior to votes.
• Interviewed VTA staff and identified documentation outlining the board’s roles and
responsibilities.
• Identified five peer agencies to VTA based on service population, operating expenses,
number of directors, director selection method, director term lengths, and services
provided. Compared their boards’ responsibilities with those of VTA’s board.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to standards of ethics as
well as conflict-of-interest prevention and detection.
• Reviewed VTA board directors’ compliance with conflict-of-interest requirements
and policies.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to board tenure requirements.
Reviewed board directors’ tenure data and the peer agencies’ tenure data.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed VTA’s and peer agencies’ board member
selection practices.
• Attempted to review four appointing authority meetings, during which appointments
were discussed or made, to determine the extent to which the appointments were
transparent. One of these meetings was not public and therefore we only reviewed
three meetings.
• Reviewed the roles and responsibilities for each standing and advisory committee.
Identified five board-approved policies by reviewing significant policy actions taken
by the board and choosing policies that represented the range of VTA’s responsibilities.
Reviewed the five board-approved policies to determine whether relevant
committees received the policies for consideration prior to board adoption.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed VTA’s use of alternate directors.
• Reviewed VTA’s attendance data to determine director attendance rates for
January 2020 through June 2023.
• For each of the five peer agencies, reviewed publicly available documentation and
interviewed their staff to determine whether they have alternate board members.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices for ensuring that board members
are aware of and adhere to their fiduciary duties.
• Reviewed city council meetings occurring before five VTA policy decisions to
determine whether VTA policy was discussed at the council meetings.
• Interviewed directors to determine whether they discuss VTA policy with city staff or
city council members.
continued on next page . . .
63CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
3 Review the VTA’s strategic planning by evaluating
the following:
a. VTA’s strategic planning process, including how
goals, objectives, and priorities are set and how
performance is measured.
b. Whether the VTA consistently met its strategic
planning goals and objectives.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to strategic planning,
including how VTA sets strategic goals, objectives, and priorities.
• Because VTA’s strategic plan did not include measurable objectives, we could not
assess the extent to which VTA met its goals or objectives.
4 Evaluate the VTA’s project planning and oversight
by determining the following:
a. The adequacy of the VTA’s policies, procedures,
and practices related to project planning,
management, and monitoring.
b. The extent to which the VTA provided adequate
planning for a selection of large projects.
c. The accuracy of the VTA’s estimates for project
costs and timelines.
d. Whether the VTA could more efficiently and
effectively achieve project objectives through
the application of best practices.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to project planning and
oversight of cost estimates, schedule estimates, and change control processes.
• Selected two capital projects to review VTA’s approach to project selection. Compared
VTA’s project selection practices against identified best practices.
• Selected six capital projects by considering the status of project development,
project cost with a focus on choosing higher cost projects, and type of project.
Reviewed the six VTA capital projects to determine whether VTA applied best
practices for project planning and oversight, including whether the projects’ cost
and schedule estimates were accurate.
• Reviewed project documents related to Phase II of the BART project and interviewed
VTA staff to determine the progress that VTA has made in addressing project risks
identified in the FTA contractor’s 2021 assessment.
5 Assess the VTA’s financial viability by determining
the following:
a. The VTA’s revenues, expenditures, and ridership
for the last four years.
b. Operating costs per trip for the last four years,
the number of passenger trips per revenue hour,
and farebox recovery. Compare the VTA’s results
in these categories to those of other similarly
situated local transit agencies.
c. The extent of financial planning for the next five
and ten years and whether the VTA considered
relevant factors during related planning.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices related to financial planning,
including long-term financial forecasting.
• Reviewed and assessed VTA financial planning documents and processes to
determine the extent of VTA’s financial planning and whether VTA considered
relevant factors during the planning process.
• Reviewed the ACFRs for VTA and the five peer agencies for fiscal years 2017–18
through 2022–23 to identify revenues and expenditures.
• Obtained National Transit Database data to calculate the trips per hour, cost per trip,
and farebox recovery for VTA and the five peer agencies for fiscal years 2009–10
through 2021–22.
6 Review the VTA’s fiscal oversight by assessing
the following:
a. Its financial planning, reporting, and oversight
structure and processes.
b. The adequacy of its policies and procedures
concerning fiscal transparency.
c. The extent to which the capital budget reports
include data on total project costs, unspent
funds, and funding sources.
d. Whether VTA officials review quarterly
reports adequately and what actions the VTA
takes when it does not achieve forecasted
financial results.
• Interviewed VTA staff, reviewed VTA’s practices for budget oversight, and compared
them to best practices.
• Reviewed VTA’s fiscal transparency practices and compared them to established
best practices.
• Reviewed capital budget reports in the annual budget document to determine
the extent to which they include data on total project costs, unspent funds, and
funding sources.
• Reviewed quarterly reports to determine how staff and the board respond to
deviations between quarterly reports and financial forecasts.
7 To the extent possible, determine the extent to
which the VTA has created an agency culture
focused on effective and efficient performance
and compliance.
• Interviewed VTA staff and reviewed best practices regarding board and agency
actions that encourage effective and efficient performance and compliance.
• Determined how VTA updates the board and relevant standing committees regarding
the agency’s financial health and performance measures.
• Reviewed VTA’s CEO evaluation process and compared it to best practices.
64 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
AUDIT OBJECTIVE METHOD
8 Evaluate the VTA’s implementation of
recommendations made as a result of the 2008
audit by the California State Auditor and whether
implementation issues remain.
• Reviewed our July 2008 VTA audit and our subsequent status reviews.
• Identified and documented recommendations made in our July 2008 audit. Omitted
three recommendations made in our 2008 report. These recommendations asked VTA
to continue plans to implement recommendations from a third party. Because the
core of these recommendations were actions recommended by a third party and not
the California State Auditor, we did not follow up on them during this audit. Using VTA
material collected as part of answering the audit objectives above and our July 2008
audit recommendations, determined whether implementation issues remain.
9 Review and assess any other issues that are
significant to the audit.
None identified.
Source: Audit workpapers.
Assessment of Data Reliability
The GAO, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to
assess the sufficiency and appropriateness of the computer‑processed information
that we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations.
In performing this audit, we relied on the FTA’s National Transit Database transit
agency data to determine the operating costs, ridership, fares collected, and service
levels for VTA and the peer agencies. We then used these data to calculate the
operating cost per vehicle revenue hour, farebox recovery ratio, and operating cost
per passenger trip for each agency. Because FTA collects these data from transit
agencies throughout the county by reports that those agencies submit, it was not
feasible to assess their reliability.
Further, we relied on VTA board director tenure data to determine the tenure of
VTA’s directors who served from 2013 through 2023. To gain assurance that the
data contained a complete and accurate list of VTA’s directors and their time in
their positions, we compared the director tenure data with VTA board of directors
meeting attendance roll call sheets and meeting minutes from January 2013 through
December 2023 and found no material differences. We found the VTA data to be
sufficiently reliable for purposes of determining the tenure of VTA’s board directors.
We also obtained the board tenure data from three of the five peer agencies we
reviewed—LA Metro, OCTA, and SacRT. However, because the peer agencies were
not the subject of this audit, we did not assess the reliability of their data.
In addition, we relied on the VTA’s director attendance data to determine the
attendance rate for directors at board meetings and committee meetings from
January 2020 through June 2023. To assess both the completeness and accuracy
of VTA’s attendance data, we reviewed a total of 29 meetings—14 board meetings
and 15 committee meetings—and compared the director attendance data against
independent information about these meetings. To assess for completeness, we
compared the attendance data against the calendar of board and committee meetings
65CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
on VTA’s website and found no issues. To assess the data for accuracy, we compared
the attendance data against meeting roll call sheets and traced key data elements.
We identified only a single discrepancy in the record of attendance for directors.
Consequently, we found these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
determining VTA board director attendance at board and committee meetings.
66 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
May 20, 2024
Grant Parks,California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, California 95814
Re: Response to Draft Report No. 2023-101--Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
Dear Mr. Parks and Professional Staff:
We are grateful for the time and attention you took to conduct a thorough audit.
On behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)Board of Directors
(“Board”), this is to indicate that the VTA Board and Administration have reviewed California
State Auditor (CSA) Draft Report 2023-101 (“Report”).
VTA has a strong and long-term commitment to continuous improvement. Given this, VTA
takes this process and all independent evaluations,both internal and external, very seriously and
with an open mind.The high priority that VTA places on this process is demonstrated in many
ways, two key examples being:
(A)To ensure that the Board is fully engaged in reviewing and addressing the Report’s
recommendations, a special closed session meeting was convened on May 16, 2024,as
provided under Government Code Section 54956.75.This allowed VTA’s governing
body to discuss the recommendations and collaboratively evaluate VTA
Administration’s recommended responses and corresponding commitments to
corrective action.
(B)VTA has since 2009 employed the expert risk advisory services of an independent
Auditor General (AG) to assist the Board in fulfilling its fiduciary responsibilities of
monitoring and managing risks and controls in financial reporting, financial integrity,
program activities, and reputational risks. The outsourced AG is selected by and r
to the Board.This is a transparent process whereby AG reports and corresponding
commitments to corrective action are reviewed and discussed in open session of the
Board and publicly available.
The Report provided to VTA included 16 recommendations to VTA.Overall, VTA generally
agrees with the recommendations stated in the Report and has committed to implement them.
Several of the recommendations had been previously identified by VTA during the
approximately one-year duration it took to complete this audit and thus are already underway.
VTA’s responses and commitment to corrective action for each of the 16 recommendations,
which were unanimously approved by the VTA Board of Directors in closed session on May 16,
2024, are shown on Attachment A.
* California State Auditor’s comments begin on page 77.
*
67CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Grants Parks, California State Auditor
May 20, 2024
Page 2 of 2
In addition, we would like to share our perspectives about the two recommendations for the State
Legislature and thus provided our input on them (Item #2.1 and #2.2 on Attachment A).
VTA will utilize its Auditor General to monitor and provide input on development and
implementation of the corrective actions to help ensure they are both effective and incorporate
best practices.
Lastly, in keeping with our continuous commitment to transparency, the Report will be included
for public review at a future VTA Board meeting following CSA issuance of the final report
scheduled for June 18, 2024.It will also be available on the VTA website.
Thank you for your careful consideration of our response.
Sincerely,
Cindy Chavez, Chairperson
VTA Board of Directors
68 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Responses to California State Auditor (CSA) Audit 2023-101 of VTA
VTA Can Strengthen Its Planning and Oversight Of Capital Projects
and Better Inform the Board About Cost and Schedule Changes
1.1 To ensure that VTA’s board is fully informed
when approving projects, VTA should
update its planning procedures by
December 2024 to do the following:
a)Establish a threshold estimated
project cost that defines when
project planning must include the
performance of a cost benefit
analysis.
b)Conduct a cost benefit analysis for
all capital projects that meet or
exceed that cost threshold.
VTA will define and implement a cost
threshold for when a cost-benefit analysis
must be completed.
In addition, VTA will continue to follow
Caltrans’ Value Analysis process and prepare
value analysis studies for projects that are
$25 million and higher.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
estimates for its capital projects, VTA
should develop procedures by December
2024 to do the following:
a)Document the methodology for
developing its capital project cost
estimates, including costs other than
those directly related to the design and
construction of the project.
b)Estimate the anticipated operation and
maintenance costs for capital projects
in development.
a)VTA will document our methodology
for developing our capital project cost
estimates including costs for all
phases of the project.
b)VTA includes anticipated operating
and maintenance costs in our Capital
Project Request Forms required for
every project and will document the
procedures in estimating these costs.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
1
69CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A2 of 8
Chapter 1 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
1.3 To help ensure that the board can monitor
cost and project schedules, VTA should
develop procedures by December 2024 to
monitor project costs and schedules
against pre-construction estimates and
present this information as part of its semi-
annual report to both the Capital Program
Committee and the board. This report
should provide status updates on the
agency’s existing capital projects and
identify deviation from projects’
preconstruction estimates.
VTA currently monitors project costs and
schedule and is currently enhancing its project
status reporting to the Capital Program
Committee and board. The project budget and
schedule at the time of contract award will be
monitored and reported, and procedures
documenting this process will be developed.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
70 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Page A3 of 8
Chapter 2 - Legislative Changes Could Increase the Transparency and
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
2.1 (State legislature)
To ensure that VTA’s appointing powers
appoint directors based on their relevant
qualifications, the Legislature should
amend state law to require that VTA’s
appointing powers make public, consistent
with applicable privacy protections, their
rationales for the appointments they make
to VTA’s board, including a description of
the appointee’s relevant experience and
qualifications related to transit and
transportation.
this requirement is not supported by VTA.
Although the importance for requiring appointing
authorities to make public the rationales for their
VTA Board appointments is strongly supported,
VTA feels that the same results can be
accomplished via a simpler, faster method and
thus instead recommends amending the VTA
Administrative Code to add a provision requiring
appointees to the VTA Board to complete a
questionnaire before they can be sworn in. This
public facing questionnaire will document their
qualifications, availability, relevant experience
(including business, finance, project
management, and any other pertinent areas). In
addition, the questionnaire will require an
attestation from the appointee confirming their
understanding and willingness to perform the
responsibilities and requirements of a VTA
Board Member. Furthermore, the appointing
authority will be required to provide attestation
indicating review and understanding of the
considerations, requirements, and for serving on
the VTA Board as well as the questionnaire from
its appointee.
2
71CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A4 of 8
Chapter 2 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
2.2 (State legislature)
To make VTA’s term lengths more
consistent with those of its peer transit
agency boards and to help increase the
overall experience and stability of board
membership, the Legislature should amend
state law to increase the length of VTA
directors’ terms to four years.
We have concerns with the ability for this
recommendation to be implemented due to the
following:
•Term limit variations between VTA’s 16
appointing authorities (the 15 cities in Santa
Clara County and the County of Santa Clara)
•Variations in appointment cycles and lengths
of the numerous appointing authorities
•Four-year term could discourage qualified
applicants unable to fulfill entire extended
term
•Could adversely impact jurisdictions sharing
one seat – doubles rotational interval if that
appointment method is utilized
•Two current 2-year terms = one proposed 4-
year term
Also, VTA, as a transportation agency (transit,
state-required congestion management agency
(CMA), and sales tax implementing authority)
has somewhat different responsibilities and
priorities from a transit-only Board but was only
compared against transit-only boards.
VTA will continue its ongoing but recently
enhanced efforts to illuminate the advantages
and encourage appointing authorities to appoint
individuals able to serve multiple terms.
VTA will also continue its practice of encouraging
appointing bodies to reappoint members to
successive terms, wherever feasible. In
addition, VTA will strengthen our engagement
with alternate board members by including them
in appropriate board activities, including
educational opportunities.
3
4
3
3
72 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Page A5 of 8
Chapter 2 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
2.3 To ensure that VTA receives stakeholder
input on the SCIP, the agency should
ensure that it presents all subsequent
updates to the SCIP to the appropriate
advisory committees, solicits their input,
and presents that input to the board.
Target Date: The Strategic Capital
Investment Plan (SCIP) update
is anticipated for late 2025.
safeguards against a breach of fiduciary
duty, VTA should complete the following by
December 2024:
a)Establish a policy requiring relevant
staff, including the secretary’s office, to
report to the FPPC those directors
who do not submit their Form 700s in
a timely manner.
b)Establish a process for verifying
whether directors have completed
their biennial ethics training and
following up to remind those who have
not done so to complete the training.
a)VTA staff, in consultation with Santa
Clara County Filing Officer, will
develop the policy and procedures to
ensure timely reporting of Board
Member Form 700 non-filers to the
Fair Political Practices Commission
(FPPC).
b)VTA staff will develop a
comprehensive solution that will
monitor the submission of Board
Member biennial ethics training and
that will include a reminder system.
Target Date: 12/31/2024 for both
73CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A6 of 8
Chapter 3 - VTA Should Adopt Several Additional Practices to Optimize Its
Financial Health and Strategic Direction
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
3.1 To help ensure financial viability, VTA
should determine by June 2025 the extent
to which it can rely on revenue sources that
are less uncertain than sales tax revenue.
In reaching this determination, VTA should
consider taking action to increase its
farebox recovery ratio by, for example,
raising fares or cutting expenses. VTA
should then pursue any additional revenue
sources it identifies to the extent possible.
VTA is in the process of finalizing a
comprehensive Long Range Financial Plan
that will review the viability of all VTA’s
revenues and their sustainability, inclusive of
operating cost efficiencies to improve
financial metrics such as farebox recovery.
Target Date: 6/30/2025
financial scenarios, VTA should begin
forecasting multiple expense scenarios for
its transit fund by December 2024 and use
those scenarios to create a projection of
expenses to present to the board. Further,
it should incorporate into these projections
any anticipated increases in operational
costs because of capital projects.
VTA is nearly complete in developing a more
robust modeling tool to assist in long range
financial planning.
The Long-Range Financial Plan will enable
VTA to understand the external economic
factors and the risk they pose to our major
revenue sources, like sales tax. We will be
able to run scenarios based on various
internal cost assumptions, revenue trends
and external economic factors and how they
all impact VTA’s fiscal position.
This plan will also address total cost of
ownership for capital projects and include
assumptions for operating costs related to
those projects.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
74 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Page A7 of 8
Chapter 3 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
3.3 To ensure that VTA is consistent in its
budget monitoring and oversight, VTA
should adopt documented procedures by
December 2024 that include, at a
minimum, the following:
a)
variances between budgeted and
actual amounts of revenues and
expenses.
b)The use of quarterly variance reports
by both the board and VTA staff, and
expectations for appropriate actions to
be taken when the significant
deviations are identified.
c)Assignments that show which staff will
be responsible for performing and
reviewing variance analyses, and
ensure continuity of these reviews
when there is turnover in key
management positions.
Although VTA has been following this
practice and presenting variance reports to
internal stakeholders, finance committees,
and the VTA board, we have not had
documented procedures guiding the process
of quarterly variance reviews with internal
divisions.
We are working on finalizing a procedure for
the budget office that will document the
aforementioned process, use of the reports,
and staff responsible for this
recommendation.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
performance against key financial
indicators, the board should require VTA
staff to regularly report on specified
financial metrics---including its farebox
recovery ratio, trips per revenue hour, and
operating cost per revenue hour---
beginning in December 2024 or sooner.
VTA is in the process of identifying the
various metrics to share and the cadence of
reporting. Certain operational metrics, which
have financial implications, are presently
shared with committees and will be
incorporated in full Board reports. It is
anticipated that this will be an iterative
process as VTA and the Board refine the
reporting needs.
Target Date: 12/31/2024
5
75CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
Page A8 of 8
Chapter 3 (continued)
CSA Recommendation VTA Response
3.5 To ensure that VTA has a current strategic
plan that incorporates best practices, VTA
should create a comprehensive strategic
plan by December 2025 that includes
goals, measurable objectives, strategies,
and performance measures to track
progress. It should also adopt procedures
to ensure monitoring of progress on the
strategic plan and regular reporting to the
board.
VTA will prepare a comprehensive strategic
plan. VTA staff will develop a workplan and
schedule for the development of the five-
year strategic plan for Board approval by the
end of 2024. The strategic plan will be
completed according to the schedule
adopted by the Board.
Target Date: Strategic Plan development
work plan and schedule by
12/31/24.
Completion schedule for
Strategic Plan will be
determined and defined in
Board-approved work plan,
and that timetable will be
communicated to the State
Auditor immediately following
Board approval of the
schedule.
to achieve its goals, the board should
formally adopt by June 2025 the new
evaluation process for its CEO and amend
VTA’s Administrative Code to document the
process. The evaluation process should
include performance expectations for its
CEO based on the agency’s objectives,
including the goals in VTA’s most current
strategic plan. All subsequent updates to
the evaluation process and its goals and
metrics should be formally approved by the
Development of a revised evaluation
process for the GM/CEO that includes
expectations, goals, and performance
metrics is underway and any subsequent
updates to the evaluation process will be
formally approved by the board. In addition,
the VTA Administrative Code will be updated
accordingly to reflect the revised process.
Target Date: 6/30/2025
76 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
Comments
CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR’S COMMENTS ON THE RESPONSE FROM
SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
To provide clarity and perspective, we are commenting on VTA’s response to our audit.
The numbers below correspond to the numbers we have placed in the margin of
its response.
VTA asserts that it includes anticipated operating and maintenance costs in its
request forms for every capital project. However, as we discuss on pages 15 and 16
of our report, for the three capital projects we reviewed in which VTA expected
to incur operation and maintenance costs, we did not identify such estimates in
the request forms. Moreover, as we describe on page 16, we found that VTA could
not clarify which of its divisions was responsible for estimating operation and
maintenance costs.
VTA’s suggested alternative to our recommendation, which it had not proposed to
us before submitting its response letter, would create a split set of responsibilities
that is not advisable. If adopted, VTA’s approach would result in a situation in which
appointing powers would continue to be responsible for selecting, to the extent
possible, individuals who met the experience requirement we describe in the text box
on page 24, and the appointees would be responsible for public disclosures of their
experience levels. Because VTA’s proposal would separate responsibility for making
an appointment decision from the accountability for why appointing powers make
these decisions, we believe the proposal is less preferred than our recommendation.
Under our recommendation, the responsibility to appoint and the responsibility
to describe the rationale for that appointment would belong to the same entities:
the appointing powers. For this reason, we stand by our recommendation on
page 36 that the Legislature amend state law to require specific disclosures from the
appointing powers.
VTA indicates that several factors would make implementing a four‑year term for its
directors difficult. Most of these factors were among the reasons VTA decided not to
pursue a four‑year term in response to the 2019 study of VTA’s structure we describe
on page 29 or were shared with us by VTA during this audit. Accordingly, we were
aware of these factors during our audit, did not find them persuasive, and still made
our recommendation that the Legislature amend state law to increase VTA directors’
term lengths.
Moreover, VTA’s response to our recommendation is generally the same as its
response to a similar recommendation we made in 2008. At that time, we found
that VTA directors’ tenure was shorter than the tenures of directors at comparable
transit agencies. In response, VTA stated that it would encourage appointing powers
to reappoint directors to consecutive terms. However, as Figure 6 on page 27 shows,
VTA’s directors continue to average shorter tenures compared to their peers. The
fact that VTA’s prior corrective action has not had the effect VTA desired over this
nearly 16‑year period was a key component of the analysis that led us to make our
recommendation to the Legislature.
1
2
3
77CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2023-101 | June 2024
VTA is incorrect in its assertion that we compared it against boards of agencies with
only transit responsibilities. As referenced in Figure 6 on page 27, we compared the
average tenure of a VTA director against the average tenure of directors at three peer
agencies, including the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), which is
also a congestion management agency (CMA). Moreover, Table 5 on page 28 explains
the reason why it was not possible to compare VTA and OCTA with respect to
their term lengths. Finally, VTA’s response does not make clear why having different
responsibilities from other agencies is a reason why its term lengths should be shorter
than most of its peers.
VTA asserts that it is following the practice of presenting variance reports to internal
stakeholders. However, our review determined otherwise. As we state on page 47, we
attempted to review evidence of variance report meetings over a period of two fiscal
years for three of VTA’s divisions, for 24 total reports. However, VTA could provide
evidence of only two of these reports. Nonetheless, we look forward to VTA’s
implementation of our recommendation to document procedures that detail its
variance review process.
4
5
78 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
June 2024 | Report 2023-101
From:Harry Neil
To:Public Comments; R "Ray" Wang; Liang Chao; Kitty Moore; Sheila Mohan; J.R. Fruen
Subject:Public Comment 7/15 - Item 13 - Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 11:42:49 AM
Attachments:Stevens Creek Vision Phase 2 Coalition Letter.pdf
Stevens Creek Vision Petition.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and City Councilmembers,
Attached are the coalition letter and petition in support of adoption of the Stevens Creek
Corridor Vision Study.
I hope you will take the input of residents, local businesses, and community leaders to heart.
Thank you,
Harry
To:
Cupertino Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Clara Mayor and City Councilmembers
San José Mayor and City Councilmembers
Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Board of Directors
Stevens Creek Boulevard is one of Santa Clara County’s most important corridors – not only a
major road but also a place for people to live, work, shop, study, play, and worship. All residents,
young or old, drivers or pedestrians, transit riders or cyclists, rich or poor, deserve a corridor that
works for them. Travel on Stevens Creek should be safe, easy, and efficient for all while also
helping reduce our community’s carbon emissions. To realize this vision, the cities of Cupertino,
Santa Clara, and San José, along with Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley
Transportation Authority formed the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee which spent
two years reviewing the best possible options for the future of the corridor with extensive
community input. The Committee unanimously approved a “Recommended Plan” that would
transform Stevens Creek to support the safe, efficient, sustainable mobility that all users
deserve.
We, the undersigned, urge the County of Santa Clara, VTA, and the Cities of Cupertino,
Santa Clara, and San José to approve and implement the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering
Committee’s Recommended Plan. The plan includes physical infrastructure improvements that
allow significantly more people to travel the corridor. These include enhanced sidewalks and
street trees, safer pedestrian crossings, protected bike/mobility lanes, and simple transit speed
and reliability upgrades that will improve the passenger experience and attract more riders. All
these improvements will make Stevens Creek Boulevard truly work for everyone and make it
easier for more people to get where they need to go, all while improving safety, reducing traffic,
and avoiding pollution.
The recommended improvements are proven tools for enhancing safety and quality of life on
suburban corridors. They also align with Cupertino's General Plan goals of promoting walking
and biking, better local and regional transit connections, and building an attractive Heart of the
City. Cupertino’s section of Stevens Creek Blvd is already home to some protected bike
infrastructure. By separating cyclists and drivers, both now travel in greater safety and comfort.
However, Stevens Creek is still a major high-injury corridor, as identified by Cupertino’s Vision
Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan. Right now, the corridor is dangerous to cross on
foot or with a mobility device – over 20 collisions resulting in death or severe injury occurred on
or near Stevens Creek in Cupertino between 2012 and 2021. Bus and car traffic currently are
intermingled, slowing both down and creating congestion and frustration for users of both
modes. The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s Recommended Plan tackles these
problems to help the corridor fully realize its potential as a space for all.
The corridor is shared between the cities of Santa Clara and San José between I-880 and San
Tomas Expressway the Stevens Creek Corridor transitions from an urban boulevard to a
suburban arterial as it continues towards Cupertino. As this section is further developed,
providing strong infrastructure to support mode shift away from automobiles is extremely
important. One of the county’s most patronized destinations, Santana Row and Valley Fair, is
shared between the two cities and sees the second highest ridership of all existing stops on the
corridor, with hundreds of people boarding and deboarding at the stops in the area. Today, this
section of the Stevens Creek Corridor is a traffic-clogged, car-dependent surface highway where
all users are unsafe and cyclists and pedestrians are unwelcome. Just last September, a pedestrian
was killed in this section due in part to the corridor ’s unsafe design. Implementing dedicated bus
lanes, protected bike lanes, and safe crossing measures from the Recommended Plan would
ensure we stop traffic deaths, by transforming the area into an efficient and sustainable
multimodal corridor built with safety as the top priority.
As Stevens Creek Blvd becomes San Carlos St in Midtown San José, the corridor takes a
different form. The neighborhood is older, more urban, and denser. These attributes make it more
transit supportive and conducive to sustainable modes of transportation. Much of this section
already has high quality street crossings with pedestrian median islands. The City of San José
must go further to encourage mode shift in this part of the corridor with protected bike lanes and
dedicated bus lanes that make the neighborhood more efficient and more sustainable for all.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s Recommended Plan is the result of years of
staff outreach to the community and study. The implementation of the plan will build a Stevens
Creek Corridor where there are no traffic deaths, and everyone can travel more easily and more
sustainably regardless of who they are and how they choose to get around. We urge you to take
this excellent, thoroughly-vetted plan, and make it a reality.
Sincerely,
Harry Neil, Transbay Coalition
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain
Alex Shoor, Catalyze Silicon Valley
Ash Kalra, California State Assemblymember
Marc Berman, California State Assemblymember
Patrick Ahrens, California State Assemblymember
Andrew Siegler, SURJ Santa Clara County
Cynthia Kaufman, Vasconcellos Institute for Democracy in Action
Elif Ipekci, President, De Anza College Zero Waste Club
Daniel Strokis, SCC4Transit
Dr. Omar Torres, President, De Anza College
Dr. Alicia De Toro, Chair, Environmental Studies, De Anza College
Anna Cebrian, Illusive Comics & Games
Yvonne Thorstenson, Cupertino For All
Katelyn Gambarin, San Jose State University Associated Students
Cassandra Magana, West Valley Community Services
Seema Lindskog, Chair, Walk Bike Cupertino
Chitra Dhingra, Director and Owner, Leapstart After School
Jaria Jaug, President, Silicon Valley Young Democrats
Joyce Cheung, Silicon Valley Youth Climate Action Cupertino Action Team
Jorge Pacheco Jr., Santa Clara County Board of Education Trustee (Title For Identification
Purposes Only)
Sophia Commisso, Campbell Civic Improvement Commission Member (Title For Identification
Purposes Only)
Rob Moore, Vice Mayor, Town of Los Gatos (Title For Identification Purposes Only)
Mayors
&
City
Councils
of
Cupertino,
Santa
Clara,
and
San
Jose;
Santa
Clara
County
Board
of
Supervisors
&
VTA
Board
of
Directors,
204
people
have
signed
a
petition
on
Action
Network
telling
you
to
We
Need
A
Safer
&
More
Transit-Friendly
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
NOW!.
Here
is
the
petition
they
signed:
Stevens Creek Boulevard is one of Santa Clara County’s most important corridors – not only a
major road but also a place for people to live, work, shop, study, play, and worship. All
residents, young or old, drivers or pedestrians, transit riders or cyclists, rich or poor, deserve a
corridor that works for them. Travel on Stevens Creek should be safe, easy, and efficient for all
while also helping reduce our community’s carbon emissions. To realize this vision, the
Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee which is composed of elected representatives
from the cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose, along with Santa Clara County and
the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority unanimously approved a “Recommended
Plan” that would transform the corridor to support the safe, efficient, environmentally friendly
mobility that all users deserve.
We, the undersigned, urge the Cities of Cupertino, Santa Clara, and San Jose as well as
Santa Clara County and VTA to implement the Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s
Recommended Plan. The plan includes physical infrastructure improvements that allow
significantly more people to travel the corridor. These include enhanced sidewalks and street
trees, safer pedestrian crossings, protected bike/mobility lanes, and simple transit speed and
reliability upgrades that will improve the passenger experience and attract more riders . All
these improvements will make Stevens Creek Boulevard truly work for everyone and make it
easier for more people to get where they need to go, all while improving safety, reducing
traffic, and avoiding pollution.
The Stevens Creek Corridor Steering Committee’s Recommended Plan is the result of years
of staff outreach to the community and study, and will make a Stevens Creek Corridor where
there are no traffic deaths, and where everyone can get around more easily, regardless of who
they are and how they choose to get around. We urge you to take this thoroughly-vetted,
excellent plan and implement it.
You can view each petition signer and the comments they left you below.
Thank you,
Transbay Coalition
1. Carter Lavin (ZIP code: 94610)
2. Sandhana Siva (ZIP code: 950124)
3. Filip Buca (ZIP code: 95124)
4. Anton Zhou (ZIP code: 95070)
5. Teri Scott (ZIP code: 95014-2148)
Yes better pedestrian
6. DUC ANH TUAN LE (ZIP code: 95132)
7. zoltan Earnst (ZIP code: 95070)
8. Richard MacDonald (ZIP code: 95129)
9. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 95014)
Please have more public transportation we need jt
10. Zeynep Sen (ZIP code: 94087)
I want faster bus service!!!!!
11. Rukiye Sen (ZIP code: 94087)
12. michael sun (ZIP code: 95014)
pretty please
13. Fatih Sen (ZIP code: 94087)
14. Yvonne Thorstenson (ZIP code: 95014)
15. Robin Fintz (ZIP code: 95014)
16. Donald Van Buren (ZIP code: 95014)
17. Nicole Phan (ZIP code: 95014)
18. Katina Yong (ZIP code: 95070)
19. Vance Miller (ZIP code: 95014)
20. Grant Miller (ZIP code: 95014-2629)
21. Neil Park-McClintick (ZIP code: 95014)
22. Kendra Toy (ZIP code: 94536)
Because I try to limit my car trips and carefully consider if driving is worth it (usually I try to only drive
as a necessity), although there are things I might like to do in Santa Clara County, oftentimes I will
stay home or choose a closer option. I would visit more if it were more transit and bike accessible. I
believe Stevens Creek has a lot to offer, but until it is safer to get to outside of a personal vehicle, it
won’t see much of my business.
23. Aaron Baucom (ZIP code: 94122)
I work in Cupertino and am discouraged from biking due to the lack of safe east west corridors with
robust protective infrastructure.
24. Daniel Perry (ZIP code: 95014)
Love the bus
25. Philip Nguyen (ZIP code: 94089)
26. Rachel Shaw (ZIP code: 95126)
27. Joaquin Domingo (ZIP code: 90604)
28. Martin Horwitz (ZIP code: 94122)
29. JL Angell (ZIP code: 95672)
30. Andrew Siegler (ZIP code: 95112)
31. Martha Booz (ZIP code: 94803)
32. Victor Silva (ZIP code: 95129)
33. Damaris Triana (ZIP code: 94089)
34. Caephren McKenna (ZIP code: 94609)
35. Paarth Varshney (ZIP code: 95129)
36. Haojun Li (ZIP code: 95110)
37. Alejandra Bellavance (ZIP code: 95037)
38. Savita Nataraj (ZIP code: 95118)
39. thalia lubin (ZIP code: 94062)
Anything that makes our paths and roadways safer for bikes, pedestrians and the disabled is a good
idea!
40. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94112)
41. Serena Myjer (ZIP code: 95125)
42. Michael Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
43. Toby hyun (ZIP code: 95008)
44. Chris Ferderer (ZIP code: 95118)
45. Andrea Horbinski (ZIP code: 94708)
46. Holly Hodges (ZIP code: 94087)
I am on Stevens Creek multiple times a week for shopping and leisure and hope for safer bicycle
lanes and more buses! The redesign with cycle lanes and bus lanes will make it even more
accessible.
47. Gui Andrade (ZIP code: 94110)
Biking on Stevens Creek Boulevard has always felt nerve-wracking for me, with cars speeding past
and barely any protection for cyclists. Whenever I’ve taken the bus, it’s been painfully slow, stuck in
the same traffic as cars with no way to move faster. It’s frustrating that it feels unsafe and inefficient no
matter how you try to get around—I’d love to see real changes that make it safer and quicker for
everyone.
48. Margaret Okuzumi (ZIP code: 94087)
Please advance this important Measure A project that was promised to voters.
49. Mitchell Evans (ZIP code: 95129)
50. Truman Lindsey (ZIP code: 95125)
51. Kevin Ma (ZIP code: 94040)
52. Ann Dorsey (ZIP code: 91325-3844)
53. Ann Wawrose (ZIP code: 95112)
54. Andrea Gera (ZIP code: 95120)
55. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 90043)
56. Paul Williams (ZIP code: 94608)
57. Pranavi Gandham (ZIP code: 95128)
58. Zach Kimble (ZIP code: 95128)
59. Hailee Baluta (ZIP code: 95136)
60. Eileen Conner (ZIP code: 94041)
61. Daniel Strokis (ZIP code: 95128)
62. Jason Roberts (ZIP code: 94086)
63. David Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
Please help make the streets safer.
64. Seth Barberee (ZIP code: 95117)
65. Moss Goguen (ZIP code: 95120)
66. Saydee Rich (ZIP code: 95123)
67. Ryan Globus (ZIP code: 95126)
68. AJ cho (ZIP code: 94579)
69. Lauren Murdock (ZIP code: 93110)
70. David Sanchez Godinez (ZIP code: 94107)
My partner's family lives in Saratoga and we use Steven's Creek regularly when we visit. The street is
not designed for anyone outside of a high speed vehicle to use, limiting both its capacity and the
desire of people to use the road in other ways. Making the road safer for cyclists, pedestrians, and
public transit users will have a massively positive effect for everyone, including people driving
personal vehicles.
71. Kevin Nilhoan (ZIP code: 94030)
I have previously lived on Bascom and Stevens creek. I rode my bike often, but it was very not safe. I
would have used my bike much more if there were protected bike lanes.
72. An anonymous signer (ZIP code: 94133)
73. Nader Elziq (ZIP code: 95051)
74. Tracie Johnson (ZIP code: 95050)
75. Hermione Ma (ZIP code: 95014)
I bike a lot and would really enjoy more protections for bikers on the road.
76. Cindy Guan (ZIP code: 95014)
77. Nicole Feskanich (ZIP code: 95014)
I also think various signs with bike laws/rules would be nice.
78. Pamela Wells (ZIP code: 95070)
79. Andrew Wagner (ZIP code: 95126)
80. L Nelson (ZIP code: 95038)
81. Ryan Parimi (ZIP code: 95054)
82. David Griffith (ZIP code: 95192)
I urge for implementing common sense improvements to sidewalks and adding street trees, safer
pedestrian crossings, protected bike/mobility lanes, and simple transit speed and reliability upgrades
that will improve the passenger experience and attract more riders to mass transit.
83. Daisy Castillo (ZIP code: 94063)
84. Jane Holt (ZIP code: 94024)
85. Nicholas Laskowski (ZIP code: 95112)
My family relies on the 23 corridor daily. Our breadwinner and provider takes an hour-and-a-half
commute each way daily just to get between downtown SJ and Cupertino. We bike and use transit
and bought a home in the most transit-dense part of the county on purpose. Please bring our mommy
home for dinner earlier!
86. Dani Habtom (ZIP code: 95014)
87. Milla Bynakon (ZIP code: 94087)
88. Deltha Sisophon (ZIP code: 95118)
89. Giselle Baez (ZIP code: 95126)
90. RAJUL AVALANI (ZIP code: 95014)
91. Matthew Liu (ZIP code: 95129)
92. Annie Zhou (ZIP code: 94538)
93. Owen Yang (ZIP code: 95014)
94. Leland Bell (ZIP code: 95014)
95. Marley Williams (ZIP code: 94086)
96. Avery Tan (ZIP code: 94086)
97. Hlyam Wai Yan (ZIP code: 95129)
98. Arlette Velazquez (ZIP code: 95126)
99. Evan Kim (ZIP code: 95132)
100. Khaing Thwel (ZIP code: 95129)
101. Kevinson Tran (ZIP code: 95035)
102. Natasha Muller (ZIP code: 95008)
103. Marisa Fritts (ZIP code: 94043)
104. Emily Chang (ZIP code: 95111-1364)
105. Annamarie Hernandez (ZIP code: 95132)
106. Diana Martinez (ZIP code: 95117)
Safer bike routes and more buses within the schedule.
107. Fanny Ceballos (ZIP code: 95035)
108. Emiliano A Diaz (ZIP code: 95123)
109. Salman Khan (ZIP code: 95051)
110. Andrew Luu (ZIP code: 95035)
111. Jovannah Uribe (ZIP code: 95117)
112. Dat Giang (ZIP code: 95148)
113. Lillian Prion (ZIP code: 94086)
114. Tati Tashjian (ZIP code: 94024)
115. Ariel Shalev (ZIP code: 94087)
116. Camille Villa (ZIP code: 95125)
117. Zoe Zandbergen (ZIP code: 95125)
118. Lawrence Deng (ZIP code: 95132)
119. Rachel Gilbert (ZIP code: 94043)
120. C S (ZIP code: 95134)
121. Cam Coulter (ZIP code: 95123)
My partner works on Stevens Creek, and about once a week, I take the bus down Stevens Creek to
get to her workplace. I can attest that this is an important street that we need to make more transit
friendly.
122. Milli Blom (ZIP code: 95120)
This is a crucial corridor and absolutely needs better pedestrian, bike, and transit access.
123. Ivy L (ZIP code: 94022)
Enhanced walkways and improved protection for both bikers and pedestrians greatly improves the
appeal of an area as a place where I want to regularly visit and become a patron of businesses
nearby, especially if there is a fast and reliable transit network as part of it.
124. Thomas Delgado (ZIP code: 95132)
125. Debra Timmers (ZIP code: 95014)
126. Jean Bedord (ZIP code: 95014)
Cupertino needs better transportation to meet senor needs. Please support this Recommended
Plan.
127. Calley Wang (ZIP code: 95014)
128. Margaret Butko (ZIP code: 95014)
129. Elena Shvetsky (ZIP code: 95008)
130. Arya Somu (ZIP code: 95129)
YES NEW BUSES
131. George Huang (ZIP code: 94087)
132. Arthur Poon (ZIP code: 95014)
133. Aurelio Cardenas (ZIP code: 95111)
Make it safer
134. Chris Lepe (ZIP code: 95051)
135. Jennifer Cortes (ZIP code: 95116)
136. Weishu Zhang (ZIP code: 95014)
137. Gabriela Fajardo (ZIP code: 95110)
138. Hongyi He (ZIP code: 95014)
139. neil park-mcclintick (ZIP code: 95126)
140. Htoo Tint Tal (ZIP code: 95014)
141. Hamza Zafer (ZIP code: 95130)
142. Jaria Jaug (ZIP code: 95132)
143. Terry Long (ZIP code: 95126)
144. Tianyi Guan (ZIP code: 95014)
145. Bethlehem Wolka (ZIP code: 95125)
146. Sebastian Castillo (ZIP code: 95112)
147. Landon Brooks (ZIP code: 95123)
148. Hang Liu (ZIP code: 95014)
149. bella Eydel (ZIP code: 95129)
150. Wei Xi Kum (ZIP code: 95014)
151. Melisa Arslan (ZIP code: 94087)
152. Ashley C (ZIP code: 95129)
153. Jeyson M (ZIP code: 95050)
154. Lupe Navarro (ZIP code: 95127)
155. Ernesto Sanchez (ZIP code: 95127)
156. Nam Nguyen (ZIP code: 95148)
Make our Streets Safe Again ?
157. Clare Sanchez (ZIP code: 95116)
158. Rowan Schmieder-Frank (ZIP code: 94086)
A lot of people use public transit to get around and we want to be more environmentally conscious by
supporting public transit and biking. Additionally, making roads safer is important for everyone, but
especially children who haven’t learned how to pay careful attention to their surroundings yet.
159. Hector Estrada (ZIP code: 94089)
160. Andrew Monrreal (ZIP code: 95123)
161. Alexander Miller (ZIP code: 94087)
162. Jasmine Pavao (ZIP code: 95117)
163. Nathaniel Reindl (ZIP code: 94086)
While the stock text of this petition talks about attracting riders and promoting equity in transportation,
I want to lean on three areas in my comment here.
Behind firearms, cars are the biggest killer of kids nationwide. The effort here to redesign Stevens
Creek is part of a continuing larger effort to cut down on child deaths across Santa Clara County.
I would also urge my electeds who consult their first responders. Ask them how much of a hassle it is
to navigate Stevens Creek to an emergency when it's especially congested. Additionally, ask EMTs,
paramedics, and ER doctors about the calls and intakes they see that were transported in when they
could have been seen in a clinic served by other transportation options.
Finally, consider that a single traffic lane has a carrying capacity of around 2000 cars/hour. I haven't
taken my own measurements, but with some quick back-of-the-envelope numbers, I'd hazard a guess
that Stevens Creek doesn't touch that. For a surface street, the limiting factor is the intersections, and
it's likely that Stevens Creek is presently overbuilt (and, hence, also overburdened by maintenance
costs), and in the face of not being able to raise property taxes and in the face of a retail economy in
recession making sales taxes less effective, this redesign effort might be the thing to begin lessening
the municipal budget concerns across Santa Clara County.
164. Jing Wang (ZIP code: 95129)
165. Cindy Huang (ZIP code: 95014)
166. Kunyao Zhang (ZIP code: 95014)
167. Indresh Arora (ZIP code: 95035)
Let’s drive to improve safety for pedestrians
168. Jade Chen (ZIP code: 95014)
169. Jade Yang (ZIP code: 94089)
170. Yuchen Hsu (ZIP code: 95111)
171. Aseem Nerlekar (ZIP code: 95117)
172. Naim Pichori (ZIP code: 95117)
None
173. VJ Lukka (ZIP code: 95035)
174. Eliza Lyon (ZIP code: 94086)
175. Sayon Biswas (ZIP code: 95014)
176. Ian Crosby (ZIP code: 95112)
177. Juniper Astle (ZIP code: 95014)
more transit less car infrastructure PLEASE
178. Tapasya Suman (ZIP code: 95014)
179. Cam Miller (ZIP code: 95125)
180. Anthony Arias (ZIP code: 95117)
yo we need more busses lwk
181. Abhi N (ZIP code: 95070)
182. satheessh chinnusamy (ZIP code: 95014)
Supporting bike safety on Stevens Creek blvd
183. Siva Annamalai (ZIP code: 95014)
A safe and transit friendly Stevens Creek blvd would do wonders for people who want to bike or walk
to the various retail and restaurants that line this corridor. It will help reduce car traffic and make
Cupertino a lively place. People have always complained about the lack of a downtown in Cupertino, if
we had a safe Stevens Creek Blvd that connected from Stelling all the way to Tantau avenue it has
the potential to transform this entire stretch into a vibrant downtown area.
184. DORON DRUSINSKY (ZIP code: 95014)
Keep separated bike lanes!
185. Al Park (ZIP code: 95111)
186. Estelle Gackiere (ZIP code: 95014)
187. Yingfeng Su (ZIP code: 95129)
I ride bike for work commute so I don't have to buy a 2nd car for the family. And my kids and I bike
together to various places. Stevens creek is an important part of our bike reachability. Why would
anyone not care about biker's safety?
188. Angeline Su (ZIP code: 95129)
I bike a lot, I support safe bike lanes on Stevens Creek
189. Helen Wiant (ZIP code: 95014)
190. Catherine Crockett (ZIP code: 95014)
191. Beck Poltronetti (ZIP code: 95014)
Remember; bikes are good for EVERYONE, because people who want to bike can bike, and people
on the road have less other cars to worry about because the other car drivers are now biking.
192. Rebecca Smith (ZIP code: 95014-2811)
193. Yassin Bouali (ZIP code: 94086)
194. Alex Lee (ZIP code: 94087)
195. Keith Le (ZIP code: 95112)
196. Khoa Pham (ZIP code: 95135)
197. Lawrence Huang (ZIP code: 91709)
198. Miguel Legaspi (ZIP code: 95008)
lets win
199. Elif Ipekci (ZIP code: 95129)
200. Angel Luna (ZIP code: 95122)
We demand a better corridor for the people.
201. hannah zhong (ZIP code: 95120)
202. Lilly Leal (ZIP code: 95110)
203. Jyotsna Lakhanpal (ZIP code: 95014)
204. Justin Khylle La Morena (ZIP code: 95035)
If the public feels safe in the places they live in, they are more likely to seek out alternatives to current
modes of transportation.
From:Santosh Rao
To:City Council; City Clerk; Chad Mosley; David Stillman; Matt Schroeder; Tina Kapoor
Subject:Please include in written communications for SCB corridor agenda item.
Date:Tuesday, July 15, 2025 7:38:04 AM
Attachments:PC-Minutes-SCB-05_2025.pdf
Dear City Clerk,
Could you please include the below in written communication for the 07/15/25 city council
agenda item on SCB corridor.
Dear Mayor Chao and Council,
Included below are the minutes from the 05/13/25 Planning Commission meeting on SCB
corridor. While staff report reflects the PC recommendation the minutes below will show you
more specifics on the motion and the vote from PC in addition, should it be useful to you in
your consideration.
https://cupertino.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=M&ID=1249171&GUID=F7218FFB-
B6AA-4E15-8B85-CBDF08A8A081
Thank you.
Santosh Rao
Chair, Planning Commission
SRao@cupertino.gov
MINUTES
CUPERTINO PLANNING COMMISSION
Tuesday, May 13, 2025
At 6:45 p.m. Chair Santosh Rao called the Regular Planning Commission meeting to order and
led the Pledge of Allegiance in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre
Avenue and via teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Santosh Rao, Vice Chair Tracy Kosolcharoen, and Commissioners David Fung,
Steven Scharf and Seema Lindskog. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: Approval of the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the April 22, 2025 Planning Commission Minutes
Chair Rao opened the floor for Commissioner comments.
MOTION: Scharf moved and Lindskog seconded to approve the April 22, 2025 Planning
Commission Minutes. The motion passed with the following vote: Ayes: Rao,
Kosolcharoen, Fung, Scharf, Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
No members of the public spoke.
CONSENT CALENDAR- None
STUDY SESSION
2.Subject: Multifamily and Residential Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards
Recommended Action: That the Planning Commission provide feedback and
recommendations regarding objective design standards for new multifamily and
residential mixed-use development.
Planning Manger Ghosh introduced the City’s Consultant, Greg Goodfellow from
Placeworks, who gave a presentation.
Planning Commission May 13, 2025
Commissioners asked questions toward the end of the presentation, which staff and the
Consultant responded to.
The Consultant continued the presentation.
Commissioners continued to make comments and asked questions, which staff and the
presenter responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke during
public comment:
•Jennifer Griffin
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
The presentation continued, and Commissioners continued their discussion. The Chair
made a request to have additional meetings on this item. Staff said they would consider
options available in light of budgetary limitations.
PUBLIC HEARINGS – None
NEW BUSINESS –
3. Subject: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Recommended Action: Recommend that the City Council accept the Stevens Creek
Boulevard Vision Study.
Planning Manager Ghosh introduced Senior Transportation Planner Schroeder , who gave
a presentation, along with Public Words Director Mosley, and Transportation Manager
Stillman.
Chair Rao opened the floor to Commissioner questions.
Commissioners asked questions, which the presenters responded to.
Chair Rao opened the public comment period and the following people spoke:
•Jennifer Griffin
•Harry Neil
•Emily Poon
•Betsy Maze
•Danny Hapton
•Tally Raim
•Sandra Sava
Planning Commission May 13, 2025
Chair Rao closed the public comment period.
The Commissioners made comments and asked questions which staff and the presenters
responded to.
Chair Rao opened the floor to Commissioner discussion.
Commissioners made comments, asked questions and discussed common ground for
purposes of drafting a motion for Council.
MOTION: Rao moved and Fung seconded to recommend the City Council to accept the
Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study and Steering Committee Action and
reaffirm the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission recommendation, with the following
additional recommendations:
•Prioritize investments in identity and maintenance
•Prioritize investments in safety, with a focus on, but not limited to, technology
and innovation such as adaptive traffic signalization and active pedestrian
detection
•Prioritize cost by limiting corridor up to Westport, and limiting study of transit
alternatives to grade-separated transit
•Invest in off-corridor bicycle and pedestrian networks such as, but not limited to,
the Lawrence Mitty Trail and Tamien Innu Trail
FRIENDLY AMMENDMENT: Scharf made a friendly amendment to change the
language substituting Westport with Bubb Road (The Chair and Fung accepted the
friendly amendment).
The motion passed with the following vote. Ayes: Rao, Kosolcharoen, Fung, Scharf,
Lindskog. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS - None
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING – None
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:13 p.m. Chair Rao adjourned the Regular Planning Commission Meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember
City of San Jose
Council District 1, 18th floor
200 East Santa Clara Street
San Jose , CA 95113
(408) 535-4901
district1@sanjoseca.gov
www.sjdistrict1.com
July 14, 2025
Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Councilmembers
City of Cupertino
10300 Torre Avenue
Cupertino, California 95014
RE: Item 13: Stevens Creek Boulevard Corridor Vision Study
Dear Honorable Mayor Chao, Vice Mayor Moore, and Councilmembers,
As you consider the adoption of the Stevens Creek Corridor Vision Study, I want to express my strong
support for this shared effort between our cities. This study reflects a meaningful collaboration between
our Public Works teams and our mutual commitment to shaping a corridor that is safer, more sustainable,
and more vibrant for all of our communities.
In San José, we deeply value our partnership with Cupertino and neighboring cities. Our residents and
small businesses frequently express their desire to see us working together on regional issues that impact
us all—especially around traffic safety, economic development, and environmental sustainability. The
Stevens Creek Corridor is a key example of where collaboration can truly make a difference.
Adopting the Vision Study does not obligate any city to specific projects or funding commitments at this
time. However, it does position all of us to be more competitive when seeking regional, state, or federal
funding for future improvements. It sends a clear message that our cities are united in our vision for this
corridor and committed to creating a seamless, multimodal experience that meets the needs of our
communities now and into the future.
It’s important that we strengthen our regional ties and continue working together toward solutions that
benefit the broader South Bay. I’m optimistic about what we can accomplish when we align around
shared goals, and I hope to see the study adopted without modification.
Thank you for your continued partnership. I look forward to the work ahead.
Sincerely,
Rosemary Kamei
Councilmember, City of San José