By Robert Haugh
Tomorrow night’s Santa Clara City Council meeting has a long list of agendized items.
Buried deep on the agenda is a controversial proposal that allows the City Manager to execute a land swap to essentially relocate City Hall to the Agnews property.
Agenda items:
- Study Session: Review of and Input on the Proposed FY 2026/27 & FY 2027/28 Biennial Capital Improvement Program Budget and FY 2026/27 Operating Budget Amendments (“Proposed Budget”) and setting June 9, 2026 as the Public Hearing Date for City Council Action on the Proposed Budget
- Continuance of the Third Zoning Code Cleanup Ordinance and Rezoning of Properties Currently Designated TN (Transit Neighborhood) to R6 (Transit Neighborhood Residential)
- Recognition of Outgoing Youth Commission Members for FY 2025/26
- Action on the Appointment of Youth Commissioners for the FY 2026/27 Term
- Proclamation of May 2026 as Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month
- Recognition of the Santa Clara Women’s League Donation of $24,000 to Support the Senior Center Health & Wellness Case Management Program and the “Be Strong, Live Long 2026” Health & Wellness Fair and Approve Related Budget Amendment
- Proclamation of May 2026 as Myositis Awareness Month
- Recognition of the Recipients of the Fourth Annual Silicon Valley Power Sustainable Futures Scholarship Program in Partnership with Santa Clara University
- Public Hearing: Action on a Resolution Setting Rates for Overall Solid Waste Service and Annual Clean-up Campaign in the Exclusive Franchise Area
- Action on the Revised El Camino Real Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment for the Creation of Five New General Plan Land Use Designations, Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance for the Creation of the El Camino Real Zoning Districts, and Certify and Adopt an Environmental Impact Report and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
- Declaration of Property as Exempt Surplus Land and Approval of Exclusive Negotiation Agreement with Valley Oak Partners for a Potential Land Exchange of the City Hall Civic Center Campus (1405 Civic Center Drive, APN 224-25-074) for the Agnews Office Park and Historic Site (4220 Network Circle, APNS 216-33-022 and 097-08-114) and Direction on the Formation of Community Advisory Committee
- Update to City Council on Implementation of City Council Policy 056 – Prohibiting Use of City Properties for Civil Immigration Enforcement Purposes and provide feedback on policy implementation.
This proposal has not been properly vetted before city council or the community. Where are the study sessions? Where are the community meetings? This is an attempt to swap city land for pennies on the dollar like the proposed soccer park takeover. Stand up. No backroom deals.
This is a poor plan by the City Manager and City Attorney to put a “feather in their cap” by relocating City Hall during their tenure.
I think additional focus should be put on the fact that the Developer has an open BUILDERS REMEDY case against the city for the Agnews property. We need a detailed explaination of what exactly the merits of the case are and what we (The residents) want to do with OUR land.
This means there are issues with the current zoning/land use for that parcel that doesn’t allow them to build the housing they feel they have a “right” to.
It sounds like the City Manager and City Attorney may be trying to pass this off as a “negotiated move” for City Hall rather than putting up the proper legal case/fight to defend the city and it’s value.
If the current City Staff is unable to complete an evaluation for the property than I think we don’t have the right team. The City wastes so much money, time, and effort with consultants for everything. This only adds more cost, takes more time, and based on the results for the last couple of deliverables recieved for the downtown plan . . . A complete waste!
The are only two reason why consultants are used . . .
#1 – Because the City does not have the people with the right knowledge and/or experience on staff
#2 – So the City Manager can be “unaccountable” for the results due to a consultant doing the work and providing the guidance
Either way our City is being managed not by our elected officials, not even by an appointed City Manager, but by consultants that have a vested interest in continued work or a specific outcome.
Accountability should be the #1 driver in this year’s city election.
Adam, why should anyone care whether the developer has a “builder’s remedy”? What effect would that allegation have on where Santa Clara should have its city hall?
Because the developer is using Builders Remedy to push the city to make a deal.
Do you think our City Attorney is ready and capable of defending the city?
This is less of a “where should we put City Hall” and more of a “oh no we are being sued and we should make a deal so we don’t have to work as hard to defend the case”.
I don’t think this was an original idea, I think it has been cooked up and disguised to detract from the real reason, i.e. the developer can’t build what they want at Agnews so they will use Builders Remedy to get the property on El Camino. (A more valuable property IMO)
Nothing in Santa Clara is done by accident, everything has been coordinated and manipulated to be what they want it to be.
Why does the City need to litigate what happens at Agnews? The development there appears to have stalled. Let them build there if they can find the financing, even with a builders remedy.
This is putting the cart before the horse. A study and discussion of the costs and benefits of rebuilding or relocating City Hall must come first. This proposal, although stating it is not a commitment to approve the project, does commit time, effort and funds to this project without a full discussion of the implications. How much will it cost? How will it benefit the City? Is this the highest priority for City resources? Why is a partnership with this developer in the best interest of the City?
Relocating City Hall is not a top priority for the city. The city has a long list of infrastructure needs which are to be addressed by the recently approved $400 million bond measure. Relocating City Hall is not at the top of this list. City time and resources are needed to address other critical infrastructure needs.
Relocating City Hall must be considered in the context of the Downtown Specific Plan. Consideration of both the possibility of funding Downtown infrastructure through Sale of the valuable Civic Center property and the possibility of relocating City Hall to Downtown must be explored in any consideration of the future of City Hall.
The Civic Center property is a valuable resource for our City. It should not be traded to a developer for their profit seeking development of this large property centrally located on the historic El Camino in the heart of Santa Clara. Full public discussion and consideration of the appropriate use of the Civic Center property must take place before any decisions are made on the property.
Relocating or rebuilding City Hall is an infrastructure need for the City. The prioritization of this need is a topic for the City Council with the opportunity for public input. This proposal appears to be a unilateral effort from the city manager. The city manager is not an elected position and is not accountable to the voters. Full public discussion and consideration of the appropriate plans for City Hall must take place before any decisions are made on the property.
The site to be exchanged for the Civic Center Campus is part of the historic Agnews Campus. Unfortunately, the proposed new location also seems to be off the grid in terms of public transit, and nowhere near the Caltrain, or the potential BART station. It would not be easily accessible by most Santa Clarans.
This item has been placed on the Council Agenda at the last minute with no prior discussion or notice to the public. Moreover, it is placed next to last on the Agenda after several other substantive items. This likely means that the proposal will be heard late in the evening, a tactic to minimize public input and comment. This item needs full public discussion over several meetings to allow for public comment and input. The proposal calls for creating an advisory committee as a means of public input. This is not a substitute for public review and discussion in front of the full Council.
Of course the mayor hopefuls will approve and support the CM and CA that they are always brown nosing.
If we are lucky, mayoral “hopefuls” Chahal and Hardy will approve the crooked City Hall land swap, resulting in a sure loss of any chance to get elected. City staff has apparently been spending months hatching this back-door deal in an attempt to sell public land in violation of state law and the City Charter. Please notice that the “Fiscal Impact” section of the report contains no numbers. There is absolutely no need for the Council to approve this crazy no-bid purchase and sale agreement on Tuesday night. Why don’t we ask the public first if they are even interested in having a “new” City Hall in some old buildings that are nearly a mile from the nearest bus stop and practically in San Jose?
The bus goes to Agnews