[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6662270,"mediaKeyId","2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71","parentId",2398402,"title","Council sets March 25 public hearing after county outlines weed‑abatement process; inspection window moved to April 15","audioSeconds",1511,"startMs",12279000,"endMs",13790000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71&start=12279&end=13790","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71/thumbnail_12279000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6662270/Santa-Clara/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-sets-March-25-public-hearing-after-county-outlines-weedabatement-process-inspection-window-moved-to-April-15","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662270-2a80f76c9431dd81b89ae25ac3a2e25a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137869&Signature=eLu~hoZwa6y~C~66PT2CcCZBrqHtTBsCSOZ90K1TpiFnALkAmsb76Ta-G564yaqJz5BI7mntJVSgwyAtKEdpdpYpXJegkuBIVYK-oZdv99twFBOvuPFKiZhqtC8Eu~JHpyfeCu5qS923NH9IZOvvituxqY6gwT8khyPMvrgB3TKgRK-1dGE2asosL4MCMuv6XwO9PJ51CbnArqIukhgxJvBwyNVOQYgpQdVUmCXn3Bf6IXFYTC2N424dZzCPugxqhabK9DWQrcP5tgwPBRDa~Z1a7DtG9IwVWl6a2ILbzYzXwEXftwbJK6rTrwTODihWPSsPR~eAFinVd1Hzyl~-cQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Santa Clara","date","2025-02-26T08:51:14.657Z","article","The City Council received an update from city staff and the County of Santa Clara’s weed‑abatement program on changes for the 2025 season and set a public hearing for March 25 to consider properties the county recommends for abatement and assessment. Council adopted a resolution declaring overgrown weeds a public nuisance for the purposes of initiating the county process.

Why it matters: The county‑run weed‑abatement program clears hazardous dry vegetation that can contribute to wildfire spread and allows the county to recover costs on the property tax roll if owners do not comply. Staff said the city and county have adjusted timing and communications this year to give property owners more notice and a clearer path to resolve noncompliance before fees are assessed.

What the county outlined: Garrick Ilosavelski, the county’s weed‑abatement manager, explained the multi‑step process used across jurisdictions: field inspection (from public rights‑of‑way), mailed notice to owners, a 15‑day opportunity to correct most violations, contractor abatement where allowed, and an additional July/August hearing to contest any fees before assessments are placed on tax bills. The county said its program is fee‑supported and is 100% cost recovery: inspection and administrative fees plus contractor costs are billed back to property owners when the county performs abatement.

Key local changes and assistance: Fire Department leadership said the county agreed to move Santa Clara’s inspection season start to April 15 (previously earlier), better aligning the county schedule with local expectations. Staff also said the city had inserted a mailed letter and will expand social‑media outreach and a specific city email address so property owners on the list can contact city staff directly. For residents who need help, staff described a volunteer senior‑assist program and advised owners to contact the county program or the Fire Department for questions and to request help.

Council action: The council voted to adopt the resolution initiating the county process and set March 25 as the public hearing to consider parcels for abatement; councilmembers also asked staff and the county to keep outreach channels open so property owners have time to resolve concerns before a contractor is dispatched.

What owners should know: If a parcel is inspected and found noncompliant, owners receive notices and opportunities to correct through the inspection season. If the county abates a property, owners may contest invoices at the later fee hearing; if council approves fees they will be added as a special assessment on that property’s tax bill.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Joint Council and Authorities Concurrent & Stadium Authority Meeting - Feb. 25, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The City Council adopted a resolution triggering the county weed‑abatement process and set March 25 for a public hearing after county staff walked through inspections, notice steps and proposed fees for 2025.","taxTitle","Santa Clara , Santa Clara County, California","taxId",2859,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6662275,"Council upholds conditional use permit for AT&T telecom facility at 3111 Benton after contentious appeal; aesthetics added as condition",5373,5052000,10425000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71&start=5052&end=10425","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71/thumbnail_5052000.jpg","/articles/6662275/Santa-Clara/Santa-Clara-County/California/Council-upholds-conditional-use-permit-for-ATT-telecom-facility-at-3111-Benton-after-contentious-appeal-aesthetics-added-as-condition","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662275-e92abef181255eeceb112155af8451a9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137869&Signature=QmoNX5FxE6R0KWS6rSw6B9-yX8pE~OEqDiNwOt8ykimSH8UXbWa-bWLpKT5nG~WofwlPYtF8xSHiBYJuGHN-f1zbA-TtosPu38CU1OLsWl~xNYsTDOYVROB~gaQWpfi7r8gEhNffftKicI2nJBUq0liqHY2u-qDEwXjypKNQcf37IYRXjLk4HD1qSFro5TVsZUulB2kMeboQy4nZLyeR5THQCqXhNK~LrL~EeAoimqLWAPih7ahGOsv2JQgmD217SfzUGe5pom82ksybK16FDuZPrby~tTai1zDO4mDBXqB9glM81QtCYeC0JA4VXm1XthoeiWaCMWz6zIb53VpgwQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The City Council voted to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit for a new AT&T wireless facility in the parking lot of 3111 Benton Street, rejecting an appeal by nearby residents who sought relocation. The council action preserves the Planning Commission design — three monopoles about 42 feet, 6 inches tall — subject to additional aesthetic work with planning staff.

Why it matters: The issue drew large public turnout and months of review before the Planning Commission. Nearby residents and a neighborhood group argued the facility would be visually intrusive, risk property‑value declines, and raise health concerns. City staff and the applicant said federal law limits local governments’ ability to regulate facilities based on radio‑frequency health effects and that the proposed design was necessary to close a local service gap and support public‑safety (FirstNet) coverage.

Planning staff and the applicant: Community Development Director Afsha Hamid summarized the multi‑month review, noting the application was filed in March 2023 and deemed complete before the city’s updated zoning code took effect. The application’s earlier rooftop co‑location proved infeasible for structural reasons, staff said, leading AT&T to negotiate alternative locations. Staff reported a review of Central Park and several other candidate sites and said the park and other alternatives were either technically infeasible for coverage or raised other legal obstacles (including the city charter’s two‑thirds rule for change of park use known as Measure R).

AT&T’s representative, Complete Wireless Consulting, and the carrier’s RF engineer described a technical coverage gap between El Camino and Homestead and said the proposed parking‑lot location closes that gap while supporting FirstNet for public‑safety users. The company provided a cumulative radio‑frequency analysis and a third‑party real‑estate study that, the applicant said, found no negative impact to residential property values in comparable markets.

Residents and the appellants: More than a hundred residents and a neighborhood group opposed the permit at the hearing. Speakers cited aesthetics, proximity to classrooms and childcare, possible effects on property values and long‑term health concerns cited in peer‑review literature. The appellants urged the council to continue exploring alternatives, including locations on school property or within park rights‑of‑way. School‑district staff told appellants they had a process for consideration, but the district’s policy reportedly discourages wireless facilities on its campuses.

Council action and condition: After a lengthy public hearing and multiple votes and procedural steps, Council Member Hardie moved to uphold the Planning Commission approval; the motion was seconded and ultimately passed on a 4–2 vote. The council attached a direction that the applicant work with the planning director to refine aesthetics — for example, paint, radomes or other treatments — and delegated to staff the authority to negotiate and approve aesthetic treatments acceptable to the department. The council record notes the city must act within FCC and federal statutory constraints on local regulation of wireless facilities and that CEQA exemptions may apply to utility extensions. The city attorney advised the council that Measure R and surplus‑land issues implicated any proposal to place the facility on City park property and that a legal analysis would be necessary if the council sought to pursue parkland alternatives.

What next: The permit stands with the negotiated aesthetic condition and the applicant will work with planning staff to finalize the details. The council directed staff to provide any further legal or feasibility analysis on park‑based alternatives if the parties requested additional study.","The City Council voted to uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of a conditional use permit for a new AT&T wireless facility in the parking lot at 3111 Benton Street, keeping the three monopole design but requiring further aesthetic work with planning staff.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6662280,"Santa Clara Stadium Authority staff present FY2025–26 budget with $18.6M in capital projects, board schedules adoption in March",2636,580000,3216000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71&start=580&end=3216","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2398402-e550b3c09a8714d92a6db125f15dbc71/thumbnail_580000.jpg","/articles/6662280/Santa-Clara/Santa-Clara-County/California/Santa-Clara-Stadium-Authority-staff-present-FY202526-budget-with-186M-in-capital-projects-board-schedules-adoption-in-March","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6662280-75e752ac7a8243cf2c88e841d2636624/orig.mp4?Expires=1771137869&Signature=AF1YHgg3AvZg54Ho2iJ5CeRSOpt4eVgRoEyHqaLXMymGyzYkZBEhRd3KM-L17-SgXNCGquBlg61~EJO3QJhKkKo0XnVwA1aqjx0OTbtt83z2s~rKI6G8bJWQoHTm2OsmSx6HZ8wfAZ8lvFq0zkNRRi6uML3xYR6xgUF1zMpnB5s~fslDdsahpCjIQZsGxdqLxNW7wrjFQY0W~Nto2lK52de36CVxBPLpBb9UJQU8veWfKwuS5KV3rX2OzyAIYpnQ2of-sRS44tGJk9flGMWK9fX7ZaneFDxuibkoPXoY2UKtBTNVvU-i9gc1neJdfa094FcD2HRPiyhO2ww3oN0WZw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Santa Clara Stadium Authority held a study session on its proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating, debt service and capital budgets, with staff and the treasurer outlining a plan that includes $18.6 million in capital projects, a $61.2 million operating budget and $20.6 million in debt service. Staff said members are scheduled to act on the budget at the Authority’s March meeting and that several follow-up items will be resolved before adoption.

Why it matters: The budget carries the stadium into a year that includes major events in 2026 and incorporates provisions of the December 2024 settlement agreements the city reached with the stadium manager and related parties. The document also includes a 10‑year forecast, reflecting a recommendation from last year’s grand jury calling for long-range fiscal planning.

Treasurer Ken Lee and Assistant City Manager and Assistant Executive Director Chuck Baker walked the Authority through the document. Lee told the board that non‑NFL event revenue has been unusually strong over the last two years (actuals cited at about $8.3M and $9.3M), and staff budgeted $5.3M of net non‑NFL event revenue for 2025–26 while noting the stadium manager’s historical practice of conservative budgeting followed by higher actual receipts. The proposed budget includes an $18.6M capital program made up of roughly $5.2M in new projects and carryover projects of about $11.9M, and a $1.5M warranty reserve for outstanding claims.

Staff emphasized that the budget reflects commitments from the settlement agreements, including payments toward an outstanding public safety cost balance. Lee said the public safety balance was roughly $14.8M at the time of the agreement and is projected to fall to about $2.8M at the end of FY25‑26 after scheduled reimbursements and transfers. The draft also projects $6.2M in direct payments to the general fund next year, $2.2M in performance rent on an accrual basis, $1.0M in ground rent and $270,000 in senior and youth fees.

On capital reserves, staff said the authority’s capital reserve will drop to about $2.6M under the current plan and recommended an additional $1.0M contribution to capital next year. Chuck Baker said a facility condition assessment is underway and could change the priorities and amounts; staff will return to the board as that analysis is completed. New carryover projects include lighting system work and naming‑rights signage replacement associated with the Levi’s agreement; staff noted a $1.6M budgeted payment related to fulfilling naming‑rights ticket obligations for World Cup matches, while the surcharge revenue tied to those events is expected in later fiscal years.

Board members pressed staff on several items, including the low capital reserve, the timing of ticket‑purchase expenses for events occurring in later fiscal years, and whether positions charged to stadium activities remain appropriate as SBL (suite and seat license) revenues decline. Lee and Baker told the board they would provide detailed follow‑up on SPL/SBL staffing allocations, the office‑space line item that the stadium manager has included, and to clarify timing differences between expenses (for example, ticket purchases required now) and the related revenues, which may flow in later years. Several board members asked for a firmer reconciliation of the $20M in general‑fund revenue cited in earlier public materials with the numbers currently in the draft budget.

Next steps: Staff said this was one of two planned study sessions and that any line‑item changes requested by the board can be incorporated before the March adoption hearing. The board held the matter for further discussion on March 4 and expects to act on the budget at its March 11 meeting, after which the budget will be transmitted to the trust that oversees cash flow planning.

Details to watch: staff will return with the final facility condition assessment, updated projections for non‑NFL event revenues as bookings firm, a breakdown of shared‑services positions and costs charged to the authority, and clarifications about the stadium manager lease items (including the stadium manager’s proposed office space and sheriff office allocation).","The Santa Clara Stadium Authority held a study session on its proposed fiscal year 2025–26 operating, debt service and capital budgets, with staff and the treasurer outlining a plan that includes $18.6 million in capital projects, a $61.2 million operating budget and $20.6 million in debt service.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council sets March 25 public hearing after county outlines weed‑abatement process; inspection window moved to April 15

Council upholds conditional use permit for AT&T telecom facility at 3111 Benton after contentious appeal; aesthetics added as condition

Santa Clara Stadium Authority staff present FY2025–26 budget with $18.6M in capital projects, board schedules adoption in March