The Santa Clara City Council defeated a motion to swap land with a developer to build a new city hall on land formerly owned by a local tech giant.
In a split vote, the council failed to approve a proposal to enter into an exclusive negotiating agreement (ENA) with Valley Oak Partners (VOP) to trade land at the city’s current city hall location for land formerly owned by Oracle.
The proposal would have seen the city trading 10 acres of land at its city hall location for 27 acres at the site of the former Agnews Hospital, located at 4220 Network Circle. VOP would use the land for the development of 584 market-rate apartments.
“We are looking at an exchange in which the city would possibly acquire and reuse portions of the Agnews campus for future civic operations, adaptive reuse of the existing structures on the site for office employees, preservation of historic resources and expanded civic functions at the site,” said Elizabeth Klotz, assistant city manager. “In return, the exchange would allow [Valley Oak Partners] to develop housing on the current civic center site.”
Many worried the site’s historic designations could prove to be a problem for the city. Several council members said they were unsure about the ENA.
City Manager Jovan Grogan emphasized the need for the council to pursue a new city hall, adding that the city estimates spending $18 million over the next 10 years leasing space for city hall employees.
Although the ENA wouldn’t have obligated the city to pursue a particular course of action, the council still felt uncomfortable with it.
Mayor Lisa Gillmor said the site was prematurely categorized as surplus land before “meaningful public planning” could take place, calling the process “backward.” She said the city hasn’t “done the basics.”
“We are jumping through hoops for a bad real estate deal,” she said.
While nobody disputed the need for a new city hall, some council members saw the land swap as a bridge too far.
Council Member Suds Jain called city hall “dilapidated” and “a mess.”
Public commenters also largely opposed the move.
“The community was never asked whether city hall should move, whether the civic center should be redeveloped, or what alternative should exist,” said David Kertes. “The public should help shape the vision before the deal structure is created, not after. The city is granted exclusivity far too early.”
While the council defeated establishing an ENA with VOP, it instead voted to establish a citizens advisory committee and do a needs assessment of city hall.
Council Member Kevin Park was the lone dissenting vote on establishing the citizens advisory committee. He said he worried that establishing the committee ahead of other work “pulls away from cohesive design” and that it amounts to “creating priorities in isolation.”
Council Member Kelly Cox was absent.
Santa Clara City Council Consent Calendar Spending
The council approved the following spending via the consent calendar:
- A $10.3 million contract with MCK Services, Inc. for street rehab and pavement maintenance.
- A two-year $766,100 contract with Alliant Insurance Services Corporation for insurance broker and services.
- A $564,194 contract with Colony Landscape and Maintenance, Inc. for thatch removal at the Youth Soccer Park.
- A five-year, $2.29 million contract with Univar Solutions USA for the supply and delivery of bulk chemicals.
The next regularly scheduled meeting is 7 p.m. Tuesday, May 26, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 1500 Warburton Ave. in Santa Clara.
Members of the public can participate in the 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 Santa Clara City Council Posts:
Santa Clara Approves Bonds to Fund Below-Market Housing Project
Santa Clara Updates Fee Schedule
Super Bowl, World Cup Reimbursements Flow Back to the City
Surveillance Contract Approved but not Funded
During this council meeting we saw a lot of maneuvering and what looks to be a Gillmor hero dynamic. The council meeting study session was delayed starting because of lack of quorum which resulted in an abbreviated study session which later led to a spat between Gillmor and Councilmember Kevin Park over the time of the meeting. According to Gillmor, Park was late to the council meeting study session was the reason for the lack of quorum to start on time. Gillmor is of course taking nasty jabs at Kevin Park which was just the beginning of the back and forth jabs for the night.
Like clockwork, former Councilmember and patsy Anthony Becker showed up to Council to continue asking for an investigation into the disclosure of World Cup info. Seems like he is just beating his head against the wall. The council is not going to do anything and the City Attorney and City Manager will make excuses. Management is compromised and the city council is either blind or chooses to be. https://www.svvoice.com/letters/letter-to-the-editor-compromised-management/ , https://www.svvoice.com/letters/letter-to-the-editor-criminal-whistleblower-witness-or-patsy-part-1-of-2/ .
The majority of the meeting was taken up by one agenda item, the ENA with Valley Oak Partners a proposal of a land swap with the developer to build new housing on current city hall by trading 10 acres of land at the current city hall spot for 27 acres of the former Agnews Hospital and Oracle site. Agnews is also historical. While this defeat looks like a major loss for City Manager Grogan it truly is a win for Mayor Gillmor.
Gillmor had the Downtown group in the palm of her hands the other night. She was on their side and the council was split 3-3. Conveniently Councilmember Kelly Cox was absent so we will never know how she would have voted. Common sense says she would side with Gillmor. This to me feels like this is all intentional and timely. Former Councilmember and Current School Board member Kathy Watanabe showed up to speak in public on this item, showing up to be Mayoral and active in the community, specifically when this site is in her backyard. This was to show the defeat of the City Manager trying to move city hall and getting back on the good side of the Downtown group. Gillmor is using this to get their support despite her own doing is stalling their precious project. David Kertes, the Mayoral candidate, spoke about the bad idea to move city hall. This makes Gillmor look like a hero. They will never give credit to Kevin Park and Raj Chahal for voting against it, it will always be Gillmor’s victory. This also helps Kathy by stopping a big land swap in her neighborhood and her anti moving city hall stance make her look fiscally conservative. Gillmor surely made lemonade out of the lemons City Manager Jovan Grogan brought with his ideas of moving city hall. Gillmor used this moment to embarrass the city staff which she says the other Councilmembers do. Gillmor wanted this to fail because now it can be used in the 2026 elections. Kertes and Watanabe showing up point exactly to that.
Roger Kint, I find it disappointing that you call Becker a “patsy.” At the very least, Becker consistently shows up to council meetings, raises the same concerns, and keeps driving a point home. Whether people agree with him or not, he is persistent. To many watching, it raises a fair question: is it staff or Lisa refusing to seriously examine the accusations he continues to make?
As for Watanabe, I still struggle to understand how someone who was publicly censured by council following the controversy surrounding the Stop Asian Hate event is even being discussed as a serious option for mayor. For many residents, that incident raised legitimate concerns about judgment, transparency, and leadership. Local reporting at the time covered both the controversy and the public calls for censure. SV Voice coverage San Jose Inside coverage Spotlight coverage.
The issue was not just the event itself, but the perception that the public was misled about who controlled the event and who was allowed to participate, including the controversy involving Kevin Park being denied a chance to speak at an event centered on standing against anti Asian hate. That controversy became significant enough to result in public criticism and formal council action.
What also stood out was how quickly Watanabe appeared to align herself once public comment opened, offered her support, and then departed shortly afterward. To critics, it gave the impression of political loyalty over independent leadership.
And after all, Gillmor has long had familiar voices regularly call in, speak up, and champion her positions at meetings. People can decide for themselves whether that reflects genuine support or a well established political circle, but the perception exists for a reason.
As for the idea of Watanabe as the next mayor, in my opinion, it is a troubling prospect. Santa Clara deserves leadership that inspires confidence, independence, and accountability. Given the past controversies and lingering questions, many residents may reasonably ask whether moving forward means more of the same political dynamics.
Whether people agree with Becker or not, at least he keeps showing up and asking questions. If people disagree with him, they should address the substance of what he is saying instead of dismissing the messenger.