Kevin Park

Market-rate housing may not materially reduce prices at all unless it creates a surplus, even with vacancy chains and other factors taken into consideration, because housing affected will also increase in price. If the point is to have housing at lower cost, that housing should be created by design or other laws must be put in place that affect purchases and pricing. I would approve more of any kind of housing based on the findings we can make for each project that comes before us. See responses to questions below for more detail.

We should not be considering profits for developers when considering the projects before us. This is not even allowed when the Planning Commission reviews applications and is excluded from findings. The housing crisis we perceive is more due to the fact that people who need housing the most cannot afford housing that is available. For a four-person household in Santa Clara County, the Area Median Income (AMI) that is used as an affordability index is close to $200,000. AMI is the middle income that 50 percent of people make more than and 50 percent make less. Families making less than 120 percent AMI, or $240,000 a year, are considered 'in need' and qualify for affordable housing. Even creating affordable housing targeting people making AMI or above has the effect of increasing AMI (people coming in who make more than AMI tend to increase the median) and does nothing to help those making significantly less. If the point is to help those making significantly less than AMI, more below-market-rate housing is required. People making less than AMI who leave the area also have the effect of increasing AMI, so it is vital that not only do we create more opportunities for people making less than AMI, but we need to actively retain the people making less than AMI who are struggling so that AMI stays down.

All projects should be subject to findings required for architectural approval, something that has fallen to the wayside as the state slowly turns our Planning Department into an approval department. In particular, 'the design and location of the proposed developments must not impair the desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood' and 'the design and location of the proposed developments should keep with the character of the neighborhood and should not be detrimental to the harmonious development contemplated by the Zoning Code and the General Plan.' There are additional requirements for parking and facilities improvements, considerations of health, comfort, and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood, and consistency with other more detailed policies. I could certainly see where such projects would be allowed, but I am not sure I would use the phrase 'broadly permissible.'

History has shown that exceeding housing mandates simply makes it harder to comply with future housing mandates. 'The reward for getting work done faster is more work.' A problem with state mandates is that they often treat cities with similar metrics or parameters (geographic area, size, etc.) as the same when every resident knows the differences between cities, and even the unique characteristics of specific neighborhoods and streets in their hometown. State laws should not remove a city's ability to develop based on its own vision and goals. The residents should have more say on the kind of development that occurs in their city, subject to state guidelines but not imposed by mandates or law. The state should offer incentives and work with cities, not supersede their authority.

Like on Benton and Lawrence? I already have. In the initial project, the county proposed 90 units that could be reconfigured into 30 multi-person dwellings to support a combination of unhoused families and single adults in a low-barrier complex. I objected to congregating children in a low-barrier facility that would also house single adults, suggesting that the shelter be either 100 percent families in spaces designed for families and children or, if a mix were contemplated, something more than low barrier. The updated proposal accepted earlier this year conformed to all requests: the project now consists of 30 fixed multi-member units in a building designed around children and families with no more single adults. City and services staff both affirmed that the comments made by the community in the initial meeting directly led to the changes. Sometimes the objections of residents are valid, and projects can be improved by working through the objections, not ignoring them. I am strongly in favor of supportive housing, but all projects should be subject to findings. There is no such thing as a perfect project, and even some good projects are not suitable for every situation. As a housing advocate, I cannot simply support projects because they have housing; I must find the issues and try to correct them, just as with any other project. Housing projects should not get a 'pass' simply because they have housing any more than a development should be approved because it was submitted by someone I know. We approve good projects that we can make findings for, and try to adjust projects we cannot, as we did with the shelter at Benton and Lawrence that we ultimately supported.

We should really try to create solutions for people who are unhoused such that clearing an encampment is not necessary. Unfortunately, there are really no city programs that help people without housing. Safe parking places, vouchers to get families with children off the street immediately, and common areas for camping that have city support and services should all be considered. I have advocated for many years that every public library be a navigation center for unhoused visitors. All of these should be considered and implemented in whole or even in part before forced removal.

Having a BART station in Santa Clara is an important part of a larger Bay Area transit plan. There should be fewer transit discontinuities when going from one place in the Bay to any other place in the Bay. BART is an essential part of bringing people to and from the stadium, the airport, convention center, university, and industry, especially from the North and East Bay. Canceling the extension now may make this connection infeasible in the future as we continue to build out open space where construction may need to happen.

High density should be permitted especially near large-scale transportation. There should be additional resident-supportive retail and services in conjunction with the increased densities, a critical missing component in many recent projects. The station area may be height-limited due to its proximity to the airport and concerns about noise should be addressed before we simply put people there.

The Downtown should be considered for all of its aspects, including the financial contribution to the city. Not having a Downtown or a built-out entertainment district could actually have cost the city millions of dollars in Super Bowl and World Cup revenue as there was no place in the city to retain the visitors to those events who ultimately spent their money elsewhere. San Jose had over 30,000 people in the streets during event days. The only place outside of the stadium 30,000 people gathered in Santa Clara was at Great America, a jewel a previous council voted to give up. The Downtown will be the first stop for people coming to the city through the future BART station. It is an unofficial center for the city that we should absolutely support as part of a larger plan.

The new electrical capacity we are waiting for is already allocated, necessary to support existing data centers that have been approved but are not operational due to the power deficit. Data centers are the only reason there is a need for any additional power at all. Almost 95 percent of the power SVP provides goes to industrial and commercial uses—mostly data centers. Some perspective: we could double our 130,000-person population and not require any additional power by closing a single mid-sized data center. Interestingly, we are looking to double the power that SVP sources for more data centers and increased revenue. I would be all for that if I could ignore the impacts to our neighborhoods, drain on natural resources, increased risk of wildfires, and loss of land that should support residents and retail, all while residential rates increase.

Just one? If revenues fell by a large amount, I would look to defer noncritical projects outside of basic infrastructure and maintenance. In reality, loss of revenues would benefit from additional targeted spending, but it really depends on why revenues fell.

Compensation growth should not exceed revenue growth over time, as that is not sustainable. If, in addition, city compensation lags market compensation, perhaps we put raises on hold while we set a timeline to find new sources of revenue or reduce spending so that we can allocate more funding. If compensation is competitive with the market, there should be an analysis of service quality and workloads to determine if we have the appropriate staffing levels.

The 49ers can support candidates, but they should not be choosing which candidates run. When the 49ers first backed candidates in 2020, those candidates—including myself—did not run because of 49ers support. We self-selected and ran because we believed it was the right thing to do. There was no way we could have known that the 49ers would put in independent expenditures supporting us, especially when many of us were very critical of the 49ers in the past. In 2022, the 49ers also did not have to pick candidates to run, as the people they backed were either incumbents or current elected officials. In 2024, everything changed: the 49ers went out and found their own people to run, people who would not necessarily have run without knowing they had 49ers support. These were the real 49ers candidates, and their backing actually dissuaded better people from running. The candidates were nice people, but have not shown the leadership Santa Clara needs. Now, two years later, we are at a crossroads. It is harder to trust candidates that have 49ers backing. Some candidates the 49ers have backed have been incredible council members, besmirched only by the fact that they were on a council in opposition to the Gillmor regime—people like Raj Chahal. But Raj Chahal chose to run by himself, not convinced to run by the lure of independent expenditures, just like some candidates backed by the 49ers in this election; they chose to run themselves and the 49ers have put their money on the better candidate. But not every candidate may follow that pattern. Hard to tell, isn't it? A Lisa Gillmor council majority actually comprised the original 'stadium five' many years ago when the 49ers supported them. Her marketing machine has been hard at work co-opting every attack against her and applying those labels on the people she wants to 'destroy,' a term one of Gillmor's former allies said Gillmor used in reference to those she disliked. It is apropos when you look at the members of the original 'stadium five' who disagreed with her or stood in her way. How many of those are still connected with Gillmor, or even still in the city? Less politically, the 49ers should find more events—of any size—that could benefit both city residents and the General Fund. This is actually a requirement in the contract, but I would expand possibilities by looking for opportunities inside and outside the stadium. There should be more events for residents to enjoy in a stadium owned by the city and more outreach outside of the stadium by the 49ers, one of our largest business partners.

I would stop all independent expenditures, as they all erode public confidence. Any amount of money can have an effect, and we should not allow some spending while condemning others, even if that money comes from city organizations. We should recognize influence and its effects in all forms, throughout the history of our city.

Political shenanigans aside, all of the candidates have reasons for appointment to city committees. That said, Gary Ferraris and Karen Hardy have the background and temperament to be effective members of a balanced committee.

Council division is partly a process failure. The mayor must manage agendas, time, and the many authorities meeting alongside the council while respecting both residents and colleagues. Public meetings may involve disagreement, but everyone should have a fair opportunity to ask questions and be heard.

Santa Clara once had a closer relationship with the Chamber and a unified convention and visitors operation. Today several organizations market separate city assets at greater cost. I would rebuild a comprehensive relationship that markets hotels, restaurants, ballrooms, retail, and community venues together while restoring small-business activity.

My voting record shows that I have opposed data centers. Their electrical demand drives costly infrastructure expansion and rising rates, while a single large load can rival residential demand citywide. Before approving more, the city must understand who pays, why rates are increasing, and whether residents receive a fair return.

The crisis is affordability, not merely the number of units. Area-median-income formulas can classify households earning very high salaries as needing assistance while leaving lower-income households behind. Santa Clara needs substantially more housing at deeper affordability levels and nearby services that reduce residents’ transportation costs.

Downtown and the North Santa Clara entertainment district serve different purposes. Residents need a civic center with familiar local businesses, while visitors need somewhere to gather and spend money around major events. The absence of both causes Santa Clara to export economic activity to neighboring cities.

Santa Clara’s infrastructure gap multiplied because maintenance was repeatedly deferred. The city must reduce spending and dedicate recurring funding to maintaining existing assets such as fire stations, the convention center, swim center, museums, roofs, and other basic systems instead of waiting for the next emergency bond.

Revenue opportunities matter, but sustainable budgeting ultimately requires controlling spending. I would review executive salaries and overtime, strengthen citywide business marketing, and help existing businesses become more successful rather than assume new taxes or uncertain development revenue will close the structural gap.

The city cannot wait for Related’s financing before building essential infrastructure such as Fire Station 10, nor should an entertainment district become a data-center district. Other cities successfully build retail and downtown destinations. Santa Clara must create the infrastructure and economic environment it needs even if Related’s timetable slips.

I would replace councilmember management of the Stadium Authority with qualified independent professionals and remove day-to-day stadium operations from local politics. The 49ers must also stop selecting candidates. The team remains a critical business partner because stadium debt cannot be paid without a successful long-term operation.

First, I would stabilize council meetings and ensure open, fair public discussion. Second, I would reduce spending while directing resources to infrastructure. Third, I would protect core assets—including the swim center, convention center, Great America, and basic infrastructure—so residents experience the benefits of living in a billion-dollar city.

The city should adopt live translation technology, host more cultural events, and work with the Chamber to reach businesses and communities beyond restaurants alone. Recognition should be substantive, with real partnerships and visible cultural districts rather than labels that exist only on an online map.

Great America is more than a theme park; it provides thousands of jobs for students and teenagers. Housing and retail would at least serve the community, but replacing it with data centers would be unacceptable. The immediate priority should be preserving the entertainment use and those youth employment opportunities.

I have never asked the 49ers for political support. In 2026, representatives told me they had selected another candidate and wanted me to withdraw, which I declined. The team may support candidates, but it should not choose who appears on the ballot for Santa Clara voters.

The city manager operates under the council majority, while also shaping agendas and how issues reach the council. I would improve agenda and meeting management, make sure questions from residents and councilmembers receive answers, and give residents meaningful ways to raise concerns about city administration.

I entered public service because I wanted a better council, not because I sought office for its own sake. I listen, research issues beyond Santa Clara, and challenge numbers that obscure the larger story. This election gives me the chance to demonstrate independence from the 49ers and focus on residents.