Neighbors and commenters press Santa Clara Unified over New Valley High School plan at Wilson campus

Neighbors and residents objected to Santa Clara Unified’s plan to move New Valley High School to the Wilson campus, telling trustees on Sept. 11 that they had not been adequately consulted about the site selection and expressing concerns about traffic, reduced green space and existing building hazards.

Several speakers, including Manuel Viera, a neighborhood resident, asked the board to prioritize remediation of existing hazards at Wilson — including asbestos and lead-based paint in older buildings — rather than adding new construction that would remove trees and green playing fields. "The big thing is regarding the development at Wilson School... the carbon [concrete] step that you guys are planning to build over the green area and trees being removed that the neighborhoods and everyone else is enjoying and protects our environment," Viera said.

Why it matters: Residents said the Wilson fields are frequently used by the community and asked the district to explore alternatives that would keep a closed campus while retaining green space. Commenters also questioned the project’s capacity planning and the projected student population at the relocated New Valley campus.

Public concerns detailed: At the Sept. 11 meeting, speakers said they had not seen community outreach materials and that workshops selecting the site took place without neighborhood input. Andrew Jewell, a nearby resident, said most neighbors were unaware the district had voted to move the campus and asked the board for more meaningful community engagement. Sami Hilali questioned the project’s $65 million estimate and compared it to a nonprofit campus built for roughly $9.5 million; he urged the board to reconsider renovation rather than constructing a new facility.

Enrollment and program questions: Commenter Daniel Sea said New Valley currently has about 157 students and questioned plans for a 250-student facility. He also cited low academic performance numbers for current New Valley students (an ELA “meet or exceed” rate around 8.16% and math at "0%" in his remarks), and suggested funds might be better spent on programs to raise student achievement than on relocation.

Board response and next steps: Trustees acknowledged concerns and directed staff to continue engagement; no vote altering the site selection was taken at the meeting. Trustee Muirhead and others urged clearer public outreach and asked staff to address traffic and safety planning and to provide additional information at future meetings.

Ending: Residents asked the district to pursue more renovation-focused alternatives, keep green fields intact when possible, and provide clearer, earlier community outreach going forward.