By Robert Haugh
Santa Clara City staff unveiled a detailed Special Event Zone ordinance Tuesday night. It outlined temporary restrictions on vending, outdoor sales, advertising, and commercial activity around Levi’s Stadium for the 2026 Super Bowl and FIFA World Cup.
It covers all of the Northside. That’s approximately 4 square miles or 22 percent of Santa Clara.
But the City Council pushed back. raising legal, practical, and community-impact concerns that sent staff back to the drawing board.
The draft ordinance would create a large, temporary “Special Event Zone” covering the Stadium, nearby hotels, the Convention Center, California’s Great America, surface parking lots, pedestrian routes, shuttle areas, and major access corridors.
The activation periods would be February 1–10 for the Super Bowl and June 12–July 1 for the World Cup.
The zone would temporarily suspend sidewalk vending permits; ban unpermitted outdoor food, beverage, and merchandise sales; prohibit all mobile vending units; restrict signage and advertising visible from public streets; and require City approval for temporary structures such as tents, inflatables, and wireless equipment.
The proposal also bans unpermitted product giveaways, prohibits counterfeit goods, and maintains existing police permit requirements for parades and public street events.
Staff emphasized that these rules were modeled on past ordinances Santa Clara used during Super Bowl 50 and the 2019 College Football Playoff Championship and were consistent with best practices from other host cities. They argued the restrictions were necessary to ensure public safety, emergency access, and orderly operations during events expected to draw tens of thousands of visitors.
But several councilmembers were far from convinced.
Vice Mayor Kelly Cox referenced a successful lawsuit in Arizona that challenged signage prohibitions in Arizona for a previous Super Bowl. She wanted to make sure any Santa Clara ordinance would avoid that legal mistake.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor noted the proposed zone stretched well beyond the Stadium footprint. She asked Police Chief Corey Morgan directly whether such a large area was required for public safety planning. Morgan’s answer was a clear no.
Councilmember Albert Gonzalez raised a different but practical issue. He said that the ordinance, as written, could prevent residents from holding normal family celebrations. Under the proposed rules, something as simple as a child’s birthday party with a bounce house could require special approval or be prohibited during activation periods. Gonzalez stressed that residents should not be unintentionally caught up in regulations meant for large-scale commercial activities.
After extensive discussion, the Council unanimously directed staff to return in early December with a narrower, clearer proposal. The revised ordinance is expected to:
- Shrink the Special Event Zone to areas immediately surrounding the Stadium and primary access points.
- Clarify that residents and businesses may continue all currently lawful activities, including ordinary advertising, backyard events, and standard commercial operations.
- Provide more precise language to avoid past legal pitfalls related to First Amendment rights.
- Improve public communication, especially for small businesses and neighborhood residents.
The Council will revisit the proposal once these changes are made, with final adoption expected later this year.
Brilliant thumbnail!
Looks like the Suds and 9ers flipping the birdy to us Santa Clarans.
Hilarious.
Hi,
It’s encouraging to see the City Council pushing back to protect residents’ daily lives. A “Special Event Zone” covering 22% of the city for an extended period seems less like a focused plan and more like a corporate land grab that would prioritize international image over local access. The council is right to question the real cost of these mega-events beyond the promised economic boost.
What specific, measurable protections for residents—such as guaranteed access to their own homes or firm limits on noise and commercial encroachment—is the council seeking to include in any potential agreement before they would consider approving it?
If the City would look at past stadium events and issues that were brought up, they should know the area that needs to be part of a special zone includes:
*Lafayette Street (from Gold St. to Agnews). I have observed people selling unpermitted food on sidewalks to people walking to stadium. Also illegal vendors walking through traffic selling merchandise. The focus should be protecting neighborhoods not prohibiting them from day-to-day activities.
*Agnews to Mission College Blvd. People sell food and merchandise on streets. Again, the focus should be on protecting neighborhoods.
*Mission College Blvd to Great America. This is where more merchandise, food and pedicabs like to catch people walking to stadium.
*Great America Parkway from 101 to 237. This whole strip has been inundated with undermined food vendors, illegal merchandise on both sides of GAP and trash everywhere.
If the City wants to create a public safety zone, start with this area. Past events prove this is the proper zone.
Work with the small businesses too. We’re supposed to be a business friendly city. Based on Super Bowl 50, the City made little to nothing. Let’s not create resolutions that are going to hurt the small businesses in 2026.
And why is the City only discussing this now? It should have been in place 6 months ago. Just like plans for the community meetings that are supposed to start next month.
*the word “undermined” should be the word “unpermitted.”
Spellcheck. Ha! Ha!
It seems to me some group is concerned about competition with sales conducted in the stadium. We have enough laws already.