City Council Preview — Stadium Curfew Is on the Agenda Again, But It’s Hidden

City Council Preview —  Stadium Curfew Is on the Agenda Again, But It’s Hidden

By Robert Haugh

The Council will deal with three major issues on Tuesday that have previously been discussed. This will be Interim City Manager Rajeev Batra’s last City Council meeting before new city manager Deanna Santana takes over in October.

Weekday Stadium Curfew

City Staff has put this on the agenda as a discussion of “Non-NFL Events” at the Stadium.  It’s a good thing we read the agenda because the title is deceptive. Is this being purposely being done so that residents who want to protect the weekday curfew don’t show up?  This is not open and transparent government and we criticized Batra for this is in final “report card.”

It’s too bad that in his last meeting, Batra has to go out trying to hide an important issue from the residents. We hope things will be different with Santana.

The agenda report has an interesting letter from 49er (ManCo) executive Jim Mercurio who says that we understand that you have a 10 p.m. weekday curfew but we can’t do anything about it if the bands want to play longer. Huh? Didn’t the team come to the council in January to request the curfew be changed? Why did they ask if they were not responsible?  And why did the city fine them, if they weren’t responsible when U2 broke the curfew in May? So who’s responsible for enforcing the curfew? According to Mercurio, it’s Police Chief Mike Sellers. So maybe the city should take the fine out of Sellers salary if Coldplay breaks the curfew in October.


Charter Review and New Council Districts

The Charter Review Committee  recommends that the City Charter is changed to:

  • Elect City Council Members by two districts (District A and District B) with three Council Members representing each district;
  • Elect three Council Members at the same time per district alternating/staggering between gubernatorial and presidential election years;
  • Utilize Ranked Choice Voting by means of Single Transferable Vote as soon as the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters Office can support such a system;
  • Transition to include: elect two members to four-year terms in District A in 2018 and elect one member to a two-year term in District A and three members to four-year terms in District B in 2020.

The charter amendment recommendations would appear June 2018 ballot.

We’re not sure if this will satisfy San Francisco attorney Robert Rubin who sued the city alleging that Santa Clara has racially polarized voting.

Marijuana Regulation

In August, the City Council directed city staff to return with additional information regarding regulation of commercial marijuana in Santa Clara after the passage of Prop 64.  The City Council also wants a report regarding a ban on commercial growth of marijuana plants within the city limits. The city staff is asking for authorization to hire a consultant to prepare this information by November so rules can be in place before new regulations go into effect in 2018.



  1. Curfew Violations = Incompetence & Corruption by Senior SC staff, Council/Mayoral feet dragging

    Rajeev = Borderline incompetent & Far too easily corruptible, never should have been Interim City Manager

    *** Ruth S. is far more corrupted by the 49ers and key developers than Rajeev is/was. Let’s hope the new incoming City Manager is less corrupt otherwise we’re in for a real “shit show” for X number of years until even our corrupted City Council gets tired of her and has to fire her and give her a year’s worth of severance and benefits (for her and her family)

    District Elections = Mostly a lot of work by well meaning citizenry but may make situation worse perhaps, will not provide “Safe Harbor” from lawsuits nor provide the diversity of ethnicity/thought/convictions that are desperately needed on our currently Corrupted by the 49ers City Council

    Marijuana Ban = Santa Clara doing whatever the League of California Cities says to do. There is no need for a permanent ban. Anyone that tries to do anything after Jan. 1st has to go thru normal city regulations anyway (unless you’re the 49ers)

    The Biased/Fear Mongering of the City Staff is both in their DNA and the League of California Cities DNA, so this issue is by definition going to ensure that they HIRE a consulting firm that is ANTI-Marijuana and ANTI-Out of the Box thinking

    • Unfortunately, the Charter Review item was just a note & file of the minutes, not an action item to debate. Apparently, the Council already approved the recommendations.. I agree those won’t avoid the lawsuit, although that appears to have been the goal, rather than truly improving our voting process. So, what are the 2 districts? North vs. South? Didn’t we already have that war? Union won.

Leave a Reply