Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Street Renaming topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge council to halt proposed renaming of Cesar Chavez Drive, cite survey and $26,000 cost
Summary
Multiple District 1 residents told the council they oppose renaming Cesar Chavez Drive, saying a near-unanimous household survey was disregarded and arguing the estimated $26,000 cost should be spent on safety improvements instead.
Several residents of Cesar Chavez Drive told the Santa Maria City Council on July 7 that they oppose a proposed renaming and urged the council to either honor a resident survey or pause to adopt a uniform naming policy.
Stella Felix Villareal, who lives on Cesar Chavez Drive in District 1, said the city surveyed roughly 60 households and that nearly 80 signatures were gathered asking the council not to change the street name. She said the city should either honor that near-unanimous response or create a uniform policy to apply to all commemorative names before singling out one street. "You asked us what we wanted and we answered," she said, adding the estimated cost "about $26,000" could be used instead for speed humps, crosswalks and safety improvements for children walking to nearby schools.
Brandon Felix Villareal, who also identified himself as a resident of Cesar E. Chavez Drive, told the council the renaming process undermined public trust because resident input was disregarded. He urged the city to either return the existing name or pause the rename and direct staff to develop a written, uniformly applied commemorative-naming review policy before changing any street name. He also asked council to reallocate funds budgeted for the rename to corridor safety improvements.
Council did not take formal action on the renaming during the public-comment period recorded here; speakers requested a policy that would apply uniformly to all commemorative names, citing other local street names with controversial historical ties.
Speakers and written comments cited both the practical burdens of an address change for households and the comparative public-value of safety projects instead of new signage.
