By Robert Haugh
Tomorrow’s Santa Clara City Council meeting has a lot to tackle.
Here’s some of the items:
- Action on a Written Petition Submitted by Mary Grizzle on behalf of the Members of Reclaiming our Downtown Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Discuss and Vote on the Current Downtown Urban Planning Firm WRT to Study the Benefits of Moving City Hall to a Location within the 8 Blocks of the Original Downtown (Lafayette Benton Monroe Homestead)
- Several items for Levi’s Stadium financial matters buried in the consent calendar, including nearly $500,000 for Levi’s naming sponsor signage repairs. More on that tomorrow.
- Action on a Written Petition Submitted by Nick Valencia Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Discuss the future of the BMX track located on city property at 5451 Lafayette Street. At the last meeting, dozens of people called in during public presentations.
- Action on a Response to a Written Request to Cover the Costs of City Services in Support of the Santa Clara Parade of Champions and the Cost of Facilitron Parking Fees
- Public Hearing: Action on the Adoption of the Proposed FY 2022/23 Municipal Fee Schedule and Parks & Recreation Cost Recovery Policy
- Action on a Resolution Establishing the Average Per-Acre Land Values in order to set the Parkland In-Lieu Fees for FY2022/23 for New Residential Development
- Proclamation of Earth Day/Arbor Day
- Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session on Housing Element Update
- Closed session: Public Employee Appointment — City Attorney
- Closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation Marcus Dean Diaz v. City of Santa Clara, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:20-cv-03506
- Closed session: Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation Gloria Zamora & Antonio Zamora v. City of Santa Clara, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 5:21-cv-05610
- Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation Arturo Arranga Ballesteros v. Stephen Stek, et al., United States District Court, Northern District of California, Case No. 3:20-cv-06207
The city is going to pot and i don’t mean becker’s cannabis but definitely on the same level. it stinks.
Who are all of these people suing the city? For what ? I don’t care what happened to them. I hope they get nothing.
Discussions to move city hall to a possible “downtown” is a waste of time. There is not enough room in that area for an entertainment district and City Hall. They should just rebuild it where it is currently located. They want to cram too many things in that 8 block grid. Most of its not possible with the courthouse (which the state said they have no desire to move) and an apartment complex sitting in the middle.
If this is just some of the items, how many are there total? Are you going to have a pool to let us guess the percent of items that will actually be addressed? And is there extra credit if we guess the number of hours consumed?(wasted)