Council and Authorities Concurrent Meeting on 2022-08-30 3:30 PM 08-30-22 15:30
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
1.B 22-1100 Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation (CC, SA) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, et al., v. City of Santa Clara, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Action No. 19CV355432; Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, et al. v. Santa Clara Stadium Authority, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Action No. 17CV304903; and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC v.
Santa Clara Stadium Authority, JAMS Case No. 1110024318 (Continued from August 16, 2022)
5 2 2 1
4. 22-605 Action on a Resolution Adopting the Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan and Selection of a Preferred Design Concept 1 1 0 0
7. 22-858 Action on a Council Written Request (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Vice Mayor Jain Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Discuss the Possibility of a Ballot Measure to Change the Chief of Police and City Clerk Position from Elected to Appointed
2 0 2 0
10 22-983 Action on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030), Submitted by Lee Broughman Requesting to Place an Agenda Item on a Future Council Meeting for Council to Discuss the Issue of Council Person Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal Attendance as a Guest of 49ers at a Game on November 15, 2021 in Violation of Santa Clara City Council Gift Policy and reprimand for these violations
3 1 2 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 1.B 22-1100 Conference with Legal Counsel-Existing Litigation (CC, SA) Pursuant to Gov. Code § 54956.9(d)(1)
Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, et al., v. City of Santa Clara, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court Action No. 19CV355432; Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC, et al. v. Santa Clara Stadium Authority, et al., Santa Clara County Superior Court Action No. 17CV304903; and Forty Niners Stadium Management Company LLC v. Santa Clara Stadium Authority, JAMS Case No. 1110024318
(Continued from August 16, 2022)
Overall Sentiment
Susan Hinton
Location:
Submitted At: 4:53pm 08-30-22
The San Francisco Chronicle explains why settling is a bad idea, https://www.sfchronicle.com/sports/49ers/article/49ers-best-and-final-offer-to-Santa-17401191.php Monica De la Cruz
Location:
Submitted At: 3:10pm 08-30-22
Apparently, not everyone is aware that items in litigation cannot be spoken in public. No one would want their litigations spoken publicly. Y ou all are just a confused as Mayor Gillmor and Councilwoman Watanabe. I guess all those years in office starting in 1992 have gone out the window for the Mayor. All that experience for nothing.
Literally Nothing.
John Galt
Location:
Submitted At: 3:03pm 08-30-22
I support the attempt to drop the City of Santa Clara's lawsuit with the 49ers for MERE "millions.' Gillmor has already spent millions of taxpayers money on other lawsuits. We cannot afford to pay for her personal vendetta against the Niners for Lord knows how long. I am done watching her combat and complain about something she brought into the city; then making it the taxpayer’s problem. Such a politician, like Gillmor, does not deserve her position on the City Council. She needs to grow up.
Harold Lunte
Location:
Submitted At: 1:58pm 08-30-22
I am extremely concerned that Council may take action regarding the litigation between the 49ers and the Stadium Authority, including maybe voting to accept the 49ers' settlement offer. Especially given the Y orks' shameless attempt to use paid Facebook advertising under the guise of a community group, it is clear that this is NOT their "best and final offer," and NOT in the best interests of Santa Clarans. There MUST be further analysis and public discussion. DO NOT nakedly cater to the 49ers! Mark Kelsey
Location:
Submitted At: 1:21pm 08-30-22
Discussion of the proposed settlement with the 49ers should be conducted in open session so the the public can participate. This is a very important decision for the City of Santa Clara. The citizens of Santa Clara deserve to hear the discussion, understand the trade-offs and weigh in with the council on this. Without public discussion this will be another backroom deal with the 49ers. That is not what citizens deserve. I strongly urge the council to hold this discussion in public session.
Agenda Item: eComments for 4. 22-605 Action on a Resolution Adopting the Pruneridge Avenue Complete Streets Plan and Selection of a Preferred Design Concept
Overall Sentiment
Ray Hosler
Location:
Submitted At: 4:09pm 08-30-22
As a 30-year resident of Santa Clara, I cycle and drive on Pruneridge frequently. I support Alternative 5: Concept 2, two lanes, center turn lane, buffered bike lanes. It puts Pruneridge in line with Hedding (San Jose) and west Pruneridge beyond Pomeroy. This alignment keeps bicycles riding with traffic at all times. I look forward to the realignment!
Agenda Item: eComments for 7. 22-858 Action on a Council Written Request (Council Policy 030) Submitted by Vice Mayor Jain Requesting to Place an Agenda Item at a Future Council Meeting to Discuss the Possibility of a Ballot Measure to Change the Chief of Police and City Clerk Position from Elected to Appointed Overall Sentiment
Jeremy Schmidt
Location:
Submitted At: 10:34pm 08-30-22
As President of the Santa Clara Police Officers' Association, I strongly oppose. The elected Chief is part of the unique fabric of the City of Santa Clara and we trust the people to elect the Chief. In a recent poll, 66% of respondents did not know that the Chief was elected. After being told that the Chief is elected, 73% of preferred to elect the Chief. This is an unpopular idea. Please get public input before spending public funds to overturn the voters. The council is aware of the poll.
Susan Hinton
Location:
Submitted At: 12:46pm 08-27-22
I support keeping the City Clerk's position elected - and therefore oppose making it appointed. I have no opinion on Police leadership positions. Note that it should be easy fo find City residents who are willing to run for the Clerk position. And I definitely oppose personal agendas that are dressed up as a civic concern. One should not dislike a neighbor based on paint coloring schemes, for example, nor based on ethnicity.
Agenda Item: eComments for 10 22-983 Action on a Written Petition (Council Policy 030), Submitted by Lee Broughman Requesting to Place an Agenda Item on a Future Council Meeting for Council to Discuss the Issue of Council Person Karen Hardy and Raj Chahal Attendance as a Guest of 49ers at a Game on November 15, 2021 in Violation of Santa Clara City Council Gift Policy and reprimand for these violations
Overall Sentiment
Susan Hinton
Location:
Submitted At: 4:49pm 08-30-22
This still makes sense and should be a Council agenda item.
Monica De la Cruz
Location:
Submitted At: 3:05pm 08-30-22
How many more meeting minutes are we going to spend talking about this item? The Mayor constantly complains about how late she has to work, so why does she have her Campaign Manager out here basically doing campaign work on city time? Make it Make Sense, Mayor.
John Galt
Location:
Submitted At: 3:01pm 08-30-22
It’s funny that earlier we had Brian Doyle, Lisa’s personal lawyer, come in and do the exact same thing Lee Broughman, Lisa’s Campaign manager, is trying to do now. Who’s next? Lisa’s personal blogger Robert Haugh? Or Lisa’s personal sneak, James Rowan? This item is merely an extension of all the above’s narrative. Raj and Karen are up for reelection, clearly the Gillmor Gang want them out of council. Just say that mayor - Y ou don’t have to waste everyone's time and extend council meetings.