Armando “Gary” Ferraris

Yes, I believe additional housing supply is essential to meeting the needs of our growing community. However, the goal should not be to reduce property values, either in the short term or the long term. I support a measured and balanced approach to housing development that increases supply while recognizing that market-rate housing alone will not solve our affordability challenges. New development should include a responsible mix of housing options, including opportunities for affordable and workforce housing. At the same time, we must respect the rights of existing homeowners and residents and consider the character of our neighborhoods and community. Growth should be thoughtfully planned, supported by adequate infrastructure and public services, and appropriate for the areas where it is being proposed. The objective should be to meet Santa Clara's housing needs responsibly while maintaining the quality of life that makes our community a desirable place to live.

Yes. Below-market-rate housing is a need, not a want. Santa Clara must ensure that new development contributes meaningfully toward meeting the housing needs of working families, seniors, young people, and others who are increasingly being priced out of our community. I recognize that projects must be financially feasible in order to actually get built, but I do not believe maximizing developer profits should take priority over the long-term needs of our community. If a particular proposal cannot meet reasonable affordability requirements, we should be willing to explore alternatives, including working with other developers or considering a different project that can meet those requirements and still be financially viable. My goal would be to work with developers to make projects pencil out while maintaining meaningful below-market-rate housing requirements. We need development, but we also need development that serves the people who live and work in Santa Clara.

Not broadly. I believe we should maintain the character and quality of life of Santa Clara's existing low-density residential neighborhoods while still finding responsible ways to increase our housing supply. I support increased density through additional ADUs and duplexes when they meet appropriate guidelines for setbacks, height, parking, privacy, and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. These options can provide additional housing opportunities without fundamentally changing the character of established neighborhoods. I would be more cautious about broadly permitting fourplexes and small apartment buildings in existing low-density neighborhoods. Depending on their size and location, these developments could significantly change neighborhood character and place additional demands on parking and infrastructure. Santa Clara needs more housing, but I don't believe every neighborhood needs to accommodate the same level or type of density. We should concentrate on greater density in areas that can best support it, particularly along appropriate transportation corridors and near transit, while allowing more modest and compatible housing opportunities within established low-density neighborhoods.

Santa Clara should not view California's housing mandates as simply requirements to comply with, but as important benchmarks for measuring our progress in meeting the housing needs of our community. I believe we should work to meet these mandates and, where it is responsible and sustainable to do so, proactively exceed them. Our focus should be on creating a balanced mix of housing, including market-rate, affordable, workforce, and supportive housing, rather than simply achieving a numerical target. At the same time, additional housing must be supported by adequate infrastructure, transportation, public services, and thoughtful planning. Exceeding state mandates should be about addressing the real housing needs of our community while maintaining the quality of life of existing residents.

Yes. I strongly support interim and supportive housing because evidence shows that providing stable housing together with appropriate services can be an effective tool for reducing homelessness. I also believe the concerns of nearby residents must be heard and taken seriously. The City has a responsibility to work with the surrounding community to address legitimate concerns involving safety, security, cleanliness, traffic, and the ongoing management of the site. However, community opposition alone should not prevent us from addressing homelessness. We cannot say that we want to reduce homelessness while rejecting every proposed location for the housing and services necessary to accomplish that goal. As Mayor, I would support well-managed interim and supportive housing while insisting on accountability, appropriate services, good-neighbor policies, and ongoing communication with the surrounding community.

Santa Clara should take a compassionate but responsible approach to encampments. Permanent housing should always be our goal, but the lack of an immediately available permanent housing placement should not prevent the City from addressing encampments that present significant health, safety, sanitation, environmental, or public-access concerns. Before clearing an encampment, the City should provide adequate notice, conduct meaningful outreach, and make every reasonable effort to connect individuals with available emergency shelter, interim or transitional housing, supportive services, and ultimately permanent housing. Encampments presenting an immediate threat to public health or safety should receive priority. Simply moving people from one street or park to another does not solve homelessness. Our goal should be to move people from encampments into safer temporary settings and provide a realistic pathway to stable, permanent housing, while also protecting the health, safety, and accessibility of our public spaces.

Yes, but with serious concerns. I continue to support the goal of extending BART to Santa Clara because regional transit connectivity is important to our residents, workforce, businesses, and long-term economic development. However, the significant cost escalation and repeated delays are unacceptable and demand greater accountability. Support for the project should not mean writing a blank check. VTA must demonstrate strong cost controls, transparent reporting, realistic timelines, and independent oversight as the project moves forward. With the substantial investment already made and construction underway, I believe we should work to successfully complete the extension while protecting taxpayers from further unnecessary cost increases. Santa Clara deserves the transportation benefits that were promised, but we also deserve accountability for how public dollars are spent.

Yes. I believe areas surrounding major transit corridors are appropriate locations for higher-density housing, including taller residential buildings. I support a thoughtful approach to building height that places the tallest buildings toward the center of the development and closest to the transit station, with building heights gradually stepping down as they approach surrounding neighborhoods. This allows us to increase our housing supply and take full advantage of our investment in public transit while maintaining a more open perspective from the street and providing an appropriate transition to existing neighborhoods. Higher density around major transit hubs can help create walkable communities where residents have convenient access to jobs, services, and public transportation while reducing dependence on automobiles.

I support meaningful City investment to help accelerate the redevelopment of Downtown, particularly for public infrastructure such as restoring the historic street grid, streets and sidewalks, utilities, public spaces, and other improvements that benefit the entire community. However, I would not support committing an arbitrary dollar amount or providing an open-ended public subsidy to private development. The level of City participation should be based on a clear financial analysis, measurable public benefits, and the City's ability to make the investment without compromising essential services or other infrastructure needs. I would pursue a combination of developer contributions, grants, impact fees, public-private partnerships, and other available funding sources to leverage City dollars. Downtown has been gone for too long, and I believe the City should be an active partner in bringing it back while ensuring that taxpayers receive lasting value for their investment.

Data centers are an important part of Santa Clara's economy, and Santa Clara has been a leader in establishing standards that address the impacts and concerns associated with these projects. I do not believe we should make a blanket decision to either reserve new electrical capacity for data centers or exclude them in favor of other economic uses. Our long-term planning for Silicon Valley Power should provide sufficient capacity to support a diverse and growing local economy. Each proposed development, whether it is a data center, advanced manufacturing, housing, or another use, should be evaluated on its individual merits, including its demand on infrastructure, environmental impacts, economic benefits, job creation, and overall benefit to the community. I would continue to consider data centers where appropriate, while ensuring that their energy demands do not prevent Santa Clara from pursuing other economic opportunities that may provide greater long-term benefits to our residents.

A 10% decline in revenue would require a comprehensive response rather than an arbitrary cut to one essential City service. My first step would be to determine whether the revenue decline is temporary or represents a long-term structural issue. If an expenditure reduction were necessary, I would first reduce discretionary administrative spending, including nonessential outside consulting and professional service contracts, before cutting frontline services or staffing. I would then take a systematic approach that includes improving efficiencies throughout the City, responsibly utilizing appropriate reserves during a temporary downturn, deferring nonessential expenditures where appropriate, and distributing any remaining reductions equitably. My priority would be to balance the budget while protecting essential services, our workforce, and the quality of life our residents expect.

City employees provide the essential services our residents rely on every day, and they are the workforce we depend upon during emergencies and disasters. The guiding principle for compensation should be maintaining a qualified, experienced, and adequately compensated workforce while recognizing the City's long-term fiscal responsibilities. I do not believe employee compensation should automatically be tied to a single year's revenue growth. Compensation decisions should consider the cost of living, comparable wages in surrounding jurisdictions, recruitment and retention needs, the City's long-term financial outlook, and our ability to continue providing high-quality services. Collective bargaining provides the appropriate process for having these discussions openly and responsibly with our employee groups. Through good-faith negotiations, I believe we can balance fair compensation for the employees who provide our essential services with the City's responsibility to maintain long-term financial stability.

One area where I believe the 49ers and the City can continue to improve is financial transparency and accountability surrounding the operation of Levi's Stadium and major stadium events. The 49ers are an important partner in Santa Clara, and Levi's Stadium is an important City asset. I want that partnership to continue to be successful. I believe all public-private partnerships should operate with clear expectations, accountability, and appropriate transparency whenever public assets or taxpayer dollars are involved. There will inevitably be disagreements between partners, but those disagreements should be addressed collaboratively and in good faith. My priority is ensuring that Santa Clara residents receive the benefits of a successful stadium while the City, the Stadium Authority, and the 49ers each meet their respective contractual and financial responsibilities.

Independent expenditure committees operate independently of a candidate's campaign, and candidates do not control their spending or messaging. I welcome support from individuals and organizations that believe in my candidacy and the values I bring to public service. But I also believe that supporting my candidacy should reflect a core belief in the integrity of our democratic process. That process depends on the public having confidence that our elections are fair, transparent, and worthy of their trust. For me, the issue would not simply be the amount of money being spent or whether that spending benefited my campaign. I would look at whether the conduct and messaging of an outside organization strengthened or undermined public confidence in the election. No candidate's political success is more important than the integrity of the process by which we elect our leaders. I will always be willing to speak publicly when I believe that integrity or the public's trust is being compromised.

I do not necessarily view someone with differing political or policy views as a political opponent. Disagreement is a natural and important part of representative government, and I believe we make better decisions when we are willing to listen to perspectives that differ from our own. As Mayor, I would seriously consider qualified individuals for important City committees regardless of whether we agreed on every issue. I would want people who bring experience, sound judgment, and a genuine commitment to Santa Clara. My responsibility as Mayor would not be to surround myself only with people who agree with me. It would be to listen to differing and opposing viewpoints, encourage respectful discussion, and ultimately make decisions based on what I believe is in the best interests of Santa Clara and its residents.

My 15 years working for the city showed me how council divisiveness affects services. Seven people will disagree, but those differences do not have to become dysfunctional. I would insist on transparent, professional, respectful discussion and not treat disagreement as a personal attack.

I would have a substantive conversation with the Chamber because it understands challenges that I do not know firsthand as someone who is not a small-business owner. The city should also adopt a purchasing preference for small local businesses instead of automatically turning to large vendors.

Data centers are here to stay, and Santa Clara has adopted meaningful guardrails. I would evaluate them as I would any development: examine benefits to residents, infrastructure and financial burdens, environmental effects, and consistency with city goals rather than focusing on the project category alone.

Supply matters, but Santa Clara is ahead primarily on market-rate rather than affordable housing. I want affordable units incorporated within the same developments instead of separated into standalone projects, producing mixed-income communities. Greater density should be concentrated along transit corridors to reduce environmental and traffic effects.

Santa Clara has discussed restoring Downtown for more than 20 years. I would investigate the specific roadblocks, work through them, and get the project moving rather than continuing another cycle of discussion without delivery.

The remaining infrastructure deficit is real. As projects are rebuilt with bond proceeds, the city must also budget for maintenance so another generation is not handed an even larger bond requirement when those assets reach the end of their useful life.

I would work closely with the city manager to identify and correct inefficiencies and create a sustainable long-term budget. The city should also work with businesses and the Chamber on small-business development that expands revenue without sacrificing essential services.

Stadium districts elsewhere become functional community and entertainment destinations. That is what I expected when I supported the stadium, but Santa Clara has missed the economic opportunity from major events. I would identify the obstacles and move the Related project forward so residents and businesses benefit.

The city-team relationship is damaged by the council’s temperature. I would lower that temperature, enforce accountability and transparency, honor the contracts, and have real conversations about targeted contract changes when existing terms do not work fairly for residents or the team.

My first priority would be bringing the council together so policy differences do not become dysfunction. Second would be infrastructure, including balancing commercial and residential growth with the systems needed to support it. Third would be preserving public-safety service levels while maintaining fiscal responsibility.

Santa Clara should hold at least one town hall every month, rotating among the six districts, and welcome every resident rather than only voters from that district. Town halls, coffee conversations, and other formats would return government to the residents and let people participate in the way most comfortable for them.

On its face, I would oppose a technology-only proposal. I would prefer a walkable community combining housing, employment, and entertainment, but I would still evaluate the actual project on its merits and work collaboratively with the rest of the council rather than pretend the mayor could reject it alone.

I have spoken with 49ers representatives, but not about what they expected from me as a candidate. The discussion concerned lowering the council’s temperature and creating a more collaborative relationship.

The city manager and I discussed the working relationship after nominations closed. We agreed that each should be willing to raise concerns directly and have difficult conversations. Because my experience is primarily as a city employee rather than an elected official, I would also want candid feedback when I could do something better.

My experience as a city employee gives me an inside understanding of how services reach residents and how public service differs from selling a product for profit. My loyalty is to Santa Clara residents, not outside organizations, and voters—not the 49ers or labor organizations—will decide this election.