Santa Clara has approved two elements relating to two big marquee events.
At its Tuesday night meeting, Sept. 23, the council approved the logo and slogan for special events as well as the agreement for the Super Bowl in 2026.
An agreement with the Bay Area Host Committee (BAHC) and the San Francisco Forty Niners will seek to reimburse the city for costs associated with the big game. However, Mayor Lisa Gillmor took issue with the lack of an extra assurance that those costs would be reimbursed.
Costs for the event are estimated at $6.4 million.
Gillmor called for a letter of credit from the team, assuring the city that if the BAHC cannot cover costs associated with the Super Bowl, it would be able to backstop the costs.
“Without a letter of credit, there is no guarantee that we will get our money back,” she said. “This, for me, is about protecting our residents, our taxpayers, our city finances and most of all, our stadium authority.”
However, Jihad Beauchman, executive vice president and general counsel for the 49ers, told the council that such a letter is unnecessary. Not only is it unlikely that lenders would approve such a letter, but a Super Bowl is already covered under the provisions for an NFL game.
When confronted with this, Gillmor dismissed the explanation, saying they were “going in circles.”
Council Member Kevin Park said looking at big-ticket events like the Super Bowl in terms of money-in, money-out is a “one-dimensional” way of thinking, adding that a plethora of auxiliary economic benefits may not be immediately evident.
The council approved the agreement in a 5-2 vote, with Gillmor and Vice Mayor Kelly Cox dissenting.
Big Event Slogan Settled On
On a similar note, the council also approved a slogan and logo for the marquee events.
“The slogan and branding effort is designed to capture the thrill and momentum of these events while establishing a foundation for meaningful engagement leading up to 2026,” said City Manager Jovan Grogan.
The council approved the slogan “where the mission meets the moment” as the slogan for the Super Bowl and the six FIFA World Cup games the city is slated to host in 2026.
Janine De la Vega, the city’s communication director, said the slogan “connects the past and the present.”
Santa Clara Adds to Housing Stock
The council also approved two development projects.
The first was an 11 townhome development, located 1530 and 1540 Pomeroy Ave. The second was a 142 townhome project, located 1400 Coleman Ave.
The Pomeroy development would require a rezoning to accommodate an increased density on the .48-acre site.
Although state law precludes the developer of the Coleman Avenue development from having to provide parking, the developer proposed 234 parking spaces
Afshan Hamid, the city’s community development director, said the project meets the intent of the area’s zoning.
Park said he was happy the developer incorporated many of the comments given to them.
“It is always nice to feel like you’ve been heard,” he said.
Both projects passed unanimously.
Consent Calendar Spending
The council approved the following spending in one motion via the consent calendar:
- A five-year, $2.65 million contract with WSP USA, Inc. for landfill operation, maintenance, monitoring, and compliance at Related Santa Clara development.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 30 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
Members of the public can participate in the Santa Clara City Council meetings on Zoom at https://santaclaraca.zoom.us/j/99706759306; Meeting ID: 997-0675-9306 or call 1 (669) 900-6833, via the City’s eComment (available during the meeting) or by email to PublicComment@santaclaraca.gov
Contact David Alexander at d.todd.alexander@gmail.com
Previous City Council Meetings:
2025 Charter Review Committee Set
City Approves First Round Of Bond Measure Projects
Santa Clara Enacts Eminent Domain on Yet Another Property for SVP Expansion
Santa Clara residents deserve a city government that functions transparently, collaboratively, and in the best interest of its people. Unfortunately, under Mayor Lisa Gillmor’s leadership, our city continues to suffer from dysfunction, misinformation, and political gamesmanship.
The recent vote on contracts related to hosting major events such as the Super Bowl and FIFA games is just the latest example. As City Attorney Glen Googins pointed out, these agreements are stronger and more financially protective than those from Super Bowl 50. Councilmembers Raj Chahal and Suds Jain also affirmed that the city’s interests are well-covered under these new terms.
Yet, predictably, Mayor Gillmor refused to support them.
Her objections were not based on the contract’s merits, but rather on a long-standing personal and political opposition to the 49ers organization and any efforts supported by the majority of the City Council. Even when corrected by the city attorney, city manager, or 49ers representatives, the Mayor doubled—and tripled—down on claims that have been proven misleading. This is not governance; it’s obstructionism.
Mayor Gillmor’s assertion that the city is at risk of being financially duped, even after clear evidence to the contrary, demonstrates either a deep misunderstanding of the agreements or a willful disregard for the truth. Worse yet, her demand for unreasonable financial “backstops” from the 49ers—despite their ability to generate significant revenue—borders on political theater. This kind of rhetoric sows fear and confusion among residents, rather than fostering informed public discourse.
This behavior is part of a pattern that has persisted throughout Mayor Gillmor’s political career. When she rose to power in 2016, she oversaw a sweeping purge of city leadership, including the mayor, city manager, city attorney, and finance director. At a recent council meeting, she referenced this moment as one of “monkey business” within city government—conveniently ignoring her own role in creating the instability that followed.
Indeed, her comments about protecting taxpayers ring hollow in light of her record. Under her leadership, Santa Clara lost millions in a voting rights lawsuit, engaged in costly litigation with the 49ers, and missed out on revenue opportunities because of prolonged legal and political battles. Her decades-long history of using public funds to pursue personal vendettas—dating back to the 1990s—is well documented.
Even basic council functions, like meeting agenda management, have been impacted. As Councilmember Kevin Park has noted, agendas are often structured in a way that delays substantive items until late at night, seemingly by design. Important development decisions are regularly pushed to the end of meetings, making public participation unnecessarily difficult. When these meetings drag on, the Mayor is often the first to complain—despite helping to create the very conditions she decries.
Gillmor’s leadership on city committees, particularly the Economic and Marketing Committee, has also raised eyebrows. After years of inactivity, the committee has been reactivated under her direction, producing questionable results such as lackluster branding initiatives. The city’s new logos and messaging, approved under her leadership, have been widely criticized as amateurish and out-of-touch.
Moreover, her dual role as both critic and beneficiary of major events like the Super Bowl underscores a troubling hypocrisy. Publicly, she positions herself as a watchdog; privately, she attends high-profile meetings with NFL leadership. This kind of political double-dealing may boost her image in certain circles, but it undermines public trust.
Her recent comments to the San Francisco Chronicle only confirm what many residents have long suspected: Mayor Gillmor sees herself as the last line of defense against a City Council she no longer controls. She accuses others—councilmembers, staff, even financial experts—of being biased or incompetent, while continuously demanding outside consultants who align with her own views. This is not leadership; it is sabotage.
The consistent chaos, obstruction, and politically motivated grandstanding coming from the Mayor’s office must stop. The city cannot move forward while tethered to the past by one person’s unrelenting desire for control.
Santa Clara needs leadership that is transparent, collaborative, and focused on real solutions—not a continued cycle of division and dysfunction. If Mayor Gillmor cannot be part of that solution, then perhaps it is time for Santa Clara to consider a new path forward.
Very well written, Roger.
.
You might have noticed that while other public employee bargaining groups struggle to get the attention of the Mayor, she’s constantly in the back pockets of the police officer employee union (SCPOA), ready to dole out double-digit salary and benefit increases in trade for endorsements. Many residents haven’t figured out that those exorbitantly high salaries allow plenty of financial padding for officers to ‘donate’ back to Lisa Gillmor’s political campaigns while remaining the highest paid cops in the State.
.
In just 13 months, Santa Clara will have the opportunity to elect a transparent, collaborative mayor who focuses on real solutions. Lisa Gillmor, District 2 and 3 Councilperson Raj Chahal, and Karen Hardy are terming out in 2026. In addition to identifying candidates to replace them, Santa Clarans must reject an effort to recall Suds Jain.
.
The 530 votes Kertes needed to beat Jain last November must have left quite a scar. As loudly as Kertes is running around with his hair on fire, there are no problems within the Santa Clara City Council that would rile up the average, rational resident to the point of forking over tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars for an election “redo”.
.
To get a recall approved for the ballot, Kertes must obtain 2,055 verified signatures. Since 2021, California law requires petitioners to print the estimated recall cost on petition documents. A special election can cost between $500,000 and $800,000; a June primary potentially costs $110,000, and during a November general election, it costs $36,000.
.
Kertes isn’t trying to recall Suds Jain because of Jain’s alleged failure to uphold his office’s responsibilities; Kertes is trying to shift the City Council’s political balance by putting a fourth seat (out of 7) up for grabs way ahead of its regularly scheduled election in November 2028.
.
If Kertes successfully obtains 2,500 signatures from District 5 residents, they would push a bill of hundreds of thousands of dollars onto residents in Districts 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 just to avenge Kertes’ loss in a legitimate election. The District 5 residents who unquestioningly voted for Kertes last time should consider whether his squabble is worth penning their name to a document that will economically burden their neighbors so that Kertes can have a taxpayer-funded election “redo” in less than a year.
.
My recommendation: Suds Jain appears very approachable and communicative. (A) If District 5 residents have a beef with the job Councilmember Jain is doing, they should call, email, or attend a Council Meeting to speak with him and provide their own suggestions. And (B) if District 5 residents are happy or indifferent with the job Councilmember Jain is doing, they should discourage their neighbors from unwittingly signing a political vendetta cloaked as a representative recall. And, of course, identify good, intelligent, and collaborative residents to serve Districts 2 and 3 in 2026, and as the next Mayor.