There are eight candidates running for Mountain View city council this cycle, and there are three seats. All three incumbents are termed out, so there will be three new councilmembers in January. I’ve spent the summer trying to systematically and objectively review everything each of the candidates has said about housing. You can check out the details at mvyimby.com/rankings.

To the residents of Mountain View,

Mountain View YIMBY has pre-endorsed James Kuszmaul for Mountain View City Council in the November 2026 election.

We call it a pre-endorsement because it comes ahead of our usual process. For the other candidates, we are reading the record the same way we did in past cycles: our candidate questionnaire, the Chamber of Commerce forum of August 27, campaign websites and ballot statements, and, above all, what each candidate has actually said at council and commission meetings. James did not need that process. He has been a member and leader of Mountain View YIMBY for years, and his record on housing is already the most complete of any candidate in the field. We are saying so now rather than asking him to fill out our own questionnaire.

The Council’s last meeting before summer ran past 10 p.m. and carried a 34-item consent calendar, but there wer two interesting housing items. Council adopted a Community Ownership Action Plan 7-0, and approved a small downtown infill project at 333 Franklin Street 6-1. The split on Franklin came down to parking, of course.

The Community Ownership Action Plan (Item 7.1)

The Community Ownership Action Plan (COAP) is the city’s implementation of the Housing Element Program 3.2, the tenant-displacement strategy. Housing Director Wayne Chen presented it after a two-year process with the consultant team at Community Planning Collaborative and a resident advisory committee. The plan’s required target is quite modest: facilitate the acquisition and preservation of at least 50 community-owned units over five years, focused on rent-stabilized (CSFRA) units and mobile-home parks, the housing most exposed to redevelopment.

Re: Single Stair

Dear Mayor Ramos and Members of the City Council:

Mountain View YIMBY thanks the city and council for supporting Single Stair Construction Reform in its Legislative Platform. The Legislature, unfortunately, has chosen not to move forward with the bill the city supported on Single Stair, AB 2252 (Lee). It is also unlikely to see state building code reform any time soon.

As such, we would like the city to consider local actions to implement Single Stair. We have created a document as attached that explains how this would work in light of AB 130 (2025), as well as general benefits with regards to the council’s desires for sustainability, family-sized units, and small lot feasibility.

Re: Council Policy G-3 and CEQA Guidelines

Dear Chair Ramirez and Members of the Council Policy and Procedures Committee:

Mountain View YIMBY would like the Committee to include the 1992 CEQA Guidelines (referenced in Council Policy G-3) as part of the FY 2025-2027 City Council Work Plan item on updating council policies.

The 1992 CEQA Guidelines dictate how the city follows CEQA, and they were converted from Policy to Guidelines in 1992 due to concern about how out of date the policy was. However, the Guidelines have likewise been left untouched for decades, even as CEQA and the city have changed considerably.

Re: Agenda item 5.1

Dear Environmental Planning Commissioners,

We are concerned that the city’s priorities lean towards resisting change rather than encouraging housing.

Housing Element programs 1.4 (Religious and Community Assembly Sites for Housing) and 2.6 (Affirmatively Further Fair Housing) were created as the programs to address fair housing concerns under state and federal law by allowing a meaningful amount of affordable housing in areas that don’t see much physical change and have thus locked out those of lower incomes. These programs have been delayed without explanation even after limiting changes to a few lots, and Q4 2027 would be three years from what the city committed to the state.

At its May 26 meeting, the City Council introduced on first reading the city code amendments that implement AB 130 (Item 6.2). The headline result is good: qualifying housing projects that use the new statutory CEQA exemption will be approved at staff level, with no Environmental Planning Commission hearing and no Council hearing. Staff noted that over the past six months the city has approved more than 1,400 units across four projects using the AB 130 exemption, and Councilmember Kamei confirmed on the dais that projects like those four will no longer come to Council once these amendments take effect.

Re: Agenda item 6.2

Dear Mayor Ramos and Members of the City Council,

Mountain View YIMBY recognizes that city staff has the tough work of revising a municipal code that assumes significant local discretion with state law that shortens approval timelines and curtails per-project ambiguity.

We are concerned that the newly-proposed appeals process can delay project approvals past what they are now. While the Permitting Streamlining Act sets a general approval timeline, it does not apply if there is an administrative appeal (GOV 65922(b)). The city code (Sec. 36.56.50) does not set a timeline for deciding appeals nor criteria for their basis, so a project could be indefinitely delayed just by paying the appeal fee. This is against the spirit of streamlining housing approvals.

The May 12th Council meeting was the shortest in recent memory — Mayor Ramos adjourned at 9:29 PM with a “woo-hoo!” and noted it was the earliest she’d ever adjourned a meeting. The brevity wasn’t because the agenda was light. It’s because both public hearings landed as unanimous 7-0 votes with no friendly amendments, no carve-outs, and no McAlister speech against housing. Two long-running planning efforts crossed the finish line on first reading.

Re: Agenda item 6.2

Dear Mayor Ramos and Members of the City Council,

We support the changes that align the BMR program with current economic conditions and past project experiences, specifically Amendments 4 (addressing “exactly 100% AMI”) and 5 (removing obsolete HOA reserve fund).

On Amendment 6, we continue to support a graduated fee schedule, given anecdotes of how much the fees have impacted small unit development. However, we will reiterate our request that the schedule extend to projects up to 10 units, as directed by council. Subdivision projects are already penalized by the city via the park land dedication requirement; some form of fee relief is necessary to facilitate small-scale, local-developer homeownership projects, especially as the economic climate worsens. Deferring to the Low/Middle-Income Homeownership Strategy or the 2028 BMR Review delays the ability to measure actual outcomes and increases future scope of work for not a lot of benefit.