Kathy Watanabe

Yes. I would support additional market-rate housing when it is appropriately located, well-planned, and supported by adequate infrastructure. Increasing housing supply is an important part of addressing our long-term housing shortage even if new construction does not immediately lower prices. At the same time, market-rate housing alone is not enough. I would pursue a balanced strategy that includes affordable and workforce housing, housing for seniors and families, and policies that make it easier to build while protecting existing neighborhoods. Growth should also contribute its fair share toward transportation, utilities, parks, public safety, and other core services needed to maintain Santa Clara's quality of life.

Yes. I support requiring meaningful below-market-rate housing as part of new development, but requirements must be financially realistic. If an affordability mandate makes a project infeasible, no housing, whether market-rate or affordable, gets built. Santa Clara should establish strong but achievable affordability requirements and use incentives such as density bonuses, streamlined permitting, fee flexibility, and partnerships with public and nonprofit funding sources to increase the number of affordable units. My goal is to maximize affordable housing that actually gets built while ensuring new development contributes appropriately to our community. I have seen this achieved in a recent affordable housing project called Mainline North in Santa Clara.

No. I support creating more housing choices, including duplexes, fourplexes, ADUs, and appropriately scaled multifamily housing, but I do not believe every low-density neighborhood should be treated the same. Additional housing should be thoughtfully planned based on location, infrastructure capacity, transit access, neighborhood character, and impacts such as traffic and parking. I support increasing housing opportunities while ensuring that growth is appropriately located and maintains the quality of life of existing neighborhoods.

Santa Clara should fully comply with California's housing requirements while going beyond them where it makes sense for our community. Our goal should not simply be meeting a numerical mandate but creating housing that meets the needs of our residents. Where opportunities exist to responsibly produce more affordable, workforce, senior, or family housing than the state requires, I would support pursuing them.

It depends on the specific project. I support interim and supportive housing as part of addressing homelessness, but community concerns cannot simply be dismissed because a project serves an important purpose. I have opposed at least one supportive housing project in the past located off Lawrence Expressway. If a majority of nearby residents object, I would want to understand the reasons and determine whether legitimate concerns about safety, operations, location, traffic, or neighborhood impacts can be addressed. I would make the final decision based on both the need for housing and whether the project can operate responsibly and safely within the surrounding neighborhood.

Santa Clara should act when an encampment creates significant health or safety risks, blocks sidewalks or other public access, threatens critical infrastructure such as train tracks, or creates dangerous or unsanitary conditions. Permanent housing may not always be immediately available, but enforcement should be paired whenever possible with outreach, shelter or interim housing options, behavioral health and other supportive services, and assistance connecting people to longer-term housing. We must protect public spaces and neighborhood safety while treating people experiencing homelessness with dignity and compassion.

Yes, but with stronger accountability. I continue to support extending BART to Santa Clara because regional transit connectivity is important to our long-term economy, mobility, and transportation network. The significant cost increases and delays are concerning. Continued support must come with rigorous financial oversight, transparency, cost control, and accountability from VTA and its project partners. We need to protect taxpayers while ensuring that this major regional investment is ultimately completed and delivers the transportation benefits that were promised.

Yes. The BART/Caltrain station area is an appropriate location for higher-density residential development because it will provide access to major regional transit, jobs, and services. It would also provide much-needed student housing for Santa Clara University. I supported a well-planned high-rise housing project called the Republic Project that was voted down around 2018. It was part of a mixed-use, transit-oriented district. Development should include appropriate infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle connections, public spaces, and a meaningful affordable housing component. We should take advantage of major transit investments by locating more housing where residents have alternatives to driving while ensuring that development contributes to the infrastructure and services it requires.

I support targeted and fiscally responsible city participation, but not an open-ended public subsidy for Downtown redevelopment. Any city investment should be evaluated project by project and tied to measurable public benefits. One avenue I believe the city has not considered is fee waivers. Development of Downtown could generate General Fund revenue that could offset fee waivers provided as incentives to developers. Any direct financial incentives should have clear performance requirements, safeguards for taxpayers, and a demonstrated return to the community through economic activity, housing, jobs, and increased long-term revenues.

Santa Clara should not automatically dedicate new electrical capacity to additional data centers. Data centers are important customers of Silicon Valley Power and have provided significant revenue to the city's General Fund. However, electricity is also a strategic economic-development resource. As new capacity becomes available, the city should evaluate competing uses for that electricity, such as advanced manufacturing, research and development, housing, and other employers, based on jobs, fiscal benefit, energy efficiency, infrastructure impacts, and community value. I would support additional data centers where they provide a clear net benefit to Santa Clara and meet our climate-action goals, but I would not reserve scarce power capacity for them by default.

If revenues fell 10 percent, I would first reduce spending on outside consultants and discretionary professional-service contracts that are not tied to essential operations, public safety, infrastructure, or legally required work. I would require every department to justify those contracts and bring work in-house where existing staff can perform it effectively. I would protect core services and avoid layoffs as long as reasonably possible.

City employees deserve fair and competitive pay; however, raises also have to be something the city can afford over the long term. If employee costs are rising faster than city revenues, we need to balance fair pay with our responsibility to protect jobs and maintain essential services. I would work in good faith with our employees to find solutions that are fair to both employees and taxpayers. If employee costs are rising faster than city revenues, then perhaps the city needs to explore additional revenue sources.

One area where I disagree with the 49ers is when there is any suggestion that Santa Clara taxpayers should bear costs that, under our agreements, are the responsibility of stadium-related entities. Levi's Stadium is an important economic asset, and I want a constructive relationship with the 49ers. That relationship has to include transparency, timely reimbursement of public-safety and other stadium-related costs, and accountability to Santa Clara residents. The General Fund, per Measure J, should not subsidize stadium operations.

Yes. I have always made my decisions based on what I believe is best for Santa Clara. In 2020, outside interests spent heavily trying to defeat me, and the voters made their own decision. I will continue working constructively with the 49ers where our interests align while always putting Santa Clara residents first.

Mike Wiltberger. Although we are opponents in this election, I respect his professional experience and his willingness to serve the community. He brings a different perspective to important issues facing Santa Clara. I would seriously consider appointing him to an appropriate city committee where his experience and perspective could contribute to thoughtful decision-making. I believe good leadership means bringing qualified people with different viewpoints to the table and working together in the best interests of Santa Clara.

The council’s deterioration after 2020 and the 2022 civil-grand-jury reports damaged public confidence. I would implement the recommended independent ethics commission and use it as part of rebuilding collaboration, democratic norms, and trust inside City Hall and across the community.

Santa Clara should emphasize that it is business-friendly and use its economic-development staff more actively. I would identify successful local businesses, learn what made them work, share those lessons, support new small-business development, and focus attention on struggling commercial areas such as El Camino Real.

Data centers provide substantial General Fund revenue and belong primarily in industrial areas, but the city must determine whether they pay a fair share and meet climate-action goals. Existing centers function successfully; future policy should protect Santa Clara’s finances, infrastructure, and environmental commitments.

Santa Clara is ahead on its overall allocation, but it needs a balanced mix serving families, seniors, and workers. I would work with developers that have converted planned projects from partial affordability to fully affordable housing and identify ways to reproduce those outcomes while controlling development costs.

The city should move its Downtown RFP forward and consider incentives it has not fully explored, including targeted fee waivers. A functioning Downtown would generate public benefits and economic activity that can repay carefully structured incentives rather than leaving redevelopment stalled.

The city considered infrastructure bonds earlier, but competing measures and the pandemic delayed action. Four hundred million dollars was the amount judged achievable in 2024. I would prioritize aging fire stations and pursue development and corporate activity that generates revenue toward the remaining deficit.

Related was originally expected to contribute significant annual General Fund revenue, but litigation, the pandemic, financing, and other delays intervened. The city should also accelerate Downtown, invest in El Camino Real under the adopted precise plan, strengthen business relationships, and attract development that expands recurring revenue.

Related continues making lease payments and has pivoted toward AI-related manufacturing with an estimated 12-to-18-month wait for power. It is an experienced company, and I believe the development can still meet or exceed the agreement while bringing jobs, revenue, and definition to the Northside.

I met directly with team ownership to discuss rebuilding a constructive public-private partnership. Future dealings should occur transparently at City Hall, not through backdoor arrangements, and major events must produce more benefit for Santa Clara small businesses while the city improves infrastructure needed to host them.

My first priorities would be a clear infrastructure assessment and plan, restoring leadership programs lost during the pandemic, and strengthening economic opportunity and local partnerships. Those efforts should reinforce fiscal responsibility and create the revenue needed to sustain city services.

The city should expand coffee chats, town halls, social media outreach, and Sister Cities connections so residents and international businesses can engage outside election season. Regular, approachable conversations would let the community identify problems early and work with city leaders on solutions.

Prologis’s purchase surprised the city, and 112 acres will shape Santa Clara’s future. I told the company that the community must be involved before decisions are made. The site should remain an entertainment district, preserve Great America’s civic identity where possible, and not be treated as an ordinary technology development.

I never asked the 49ers for money. After learning of the independent effort supporting another candidate and opposing me, I contacted the team and asked it to stop and allow a fair election; representatives said the spending would continue. Special interests should not dominate Santa Clara politics.

The city manager’s lower initial salary reflected less experience than the prior manager. I have concerns about transparency around possible City Hall relocation discussions and about raises granted without evaluations or equivalent back pay for labor groups. I would insist on accountable, transparent management.

I offer eight years of City Hall experience and relationships across federal, state, and local government. My priorities are transparent stadium and budget management, public safety, infrastructure, Downtown and El Camino revitalization, neighborhood protection, and rebuilding trust while putting Santa Clara residents first.