MV YIMBY · Mountain View City Council, November 2026 · eight candidates, three seats
Where each of the eight candidates stands on building homes, placed beside the seven current councilmembers.
James Kuszmaul is a Mountain View YIMBY lead, he's pro-housing.
Robert Cox is a Livable Mountain View lead, he's very restrictionist on housing.
Paul Donahue has spent years on the EPC, and while he generally ends up voting for the projects, in discussion he often pushes for higher or more stringent requirements.
The other five have not made enough public comments to allow us to differentiate them from each other, beyond that they're probably somewhere between Cox and Kuszmaul.
This represents each person's estimated chance of taking the pro-housing side of a contested question. Records made in office and at the podium count at a higher weight than forum, questionnaire and website answers.
pro-housing position probability
| Candidate | Probability | 80% range | Evidenceweighted positions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | .953 | .92 – .98 | 55 |
| Ali | .670 | .48 – .84 | 9 |
| Amoroso | .597 | .43 – .76 | 11 |
| Paymer | .591 | .42 – .75 | 13 |
| Poicon | .565 | .38 – .74 | 11 |
| Sylvester | .497 | .34 – .66 | 15 |
| Donahue | .399 | .31 – .48 | 50 |
| Cox | .125 | .07 – .18 | 53 |
More on uncertainty: Each dot represents the probability that the given candidate will take the pro-housing side of a disagreement on a question of building housing. Further, the bars represent our level of uncertainty. The expectation is that 8 times out of 10, the 'real' probability that the candidate will take a pro housing position will be somewhere within the range represented by the line. When two candidates have bars that overlap a lot, that means we can't differentiate them.
Why did I rank the weights this way? Since city council is where the decisions are made, it made sense for the default action to be arguing before council for or against building new homes. The others are ranked less in recognition that they're less impactful on housing construction. Further, the whole methodology here depends on finding disagreements between candidates on the same issue, so it made sense to look for places where non-councilmembers took concrete positions on discussions that also contained councilmembers, to make it easier to put them all on one scale.
| Candidate | Evidenceweighted positions | In officecouncil or EPC divisions | Own positionsin office, staff's side excluded | Podiumcouncil and EPC, 2021–26 | Lettersto council and EPC, 2019–26 | Chamber forum27 Aug 2026 · video | QuestionnaireMV YIMBY, Aug 2026 | MV Voice17 Sep 2026 · 6 housing questions | Websiteabove 0 for more homes, below 0 against |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | 55 | — | — | 17 / 17 | 40 / 40 | 5 / 5 | pre-endorsed | 6 / 6 | +4.0 |
| Cox | 53 | 2 / 11 EPC 2019–20 | 1 / 10 | 1 / 24 | 0 / 18 | 2 / 4 | no response | 2 / 6 | −1.0 |
| Donahue | 50 | 17 / 43 EPC 2024–26 | 4 / 19 | 1 turn, off topic | 1 letter, off topic | 0 / 2 | no response | 3 / 6 | −2.0 |
| Sylvester | 15 | — | — | 0 housing turns | 0 / 3 | 3 / 5 | 6 / 6 | 4 / 6 | +5.0 |
| Paymer | 13 | — | — | 1 turn, no side | 3 / 3 | 3 / 4 | 3 / 4 | 3 / 5 | −2.0 |
| Amoroso | 11 | — | — | 3 / 3 | 2 letters, no housing side | 1 / 2 | 2 / 3 | 4 / 6 | +0.5 |
| Poicon | 11 | — | — | 0 housing turns | 3 letters, none on supply | 2 / 4 | 4 / 4 | 4 / 6 | +6.0 |
| Ali | 9 | — | — | — | — | 2 / 3 | 5 / 5 | 5 / 6 | no site found |
I want to say I support the rezoning. Um more people living in Mountain View is good. More housing options in a part of the city where you can only live if you can afford a three million dollar home needs to happen. It's unconscionable that right now we have a vast neighborhood where you cannot afford to live if you cannot afford to live in that type of housing.
16 December 2025, City Council · watch · the rezoning near El Camino Hospital.
Having to provide 25% BMR units plus some amount of parkland dedication plus the other requirements is in all likelihood just going to result in zero or near zero projects using that process. And like 25% BMR units of no projects is not fulfilling the City's goals.
24 June 2025, City Council · watch · the streamlined gatekeeper criteria. The one place in the podium record where a candidate names the trade-off between affordability requirements and homes actually built, and picks a side.
I am much more wary than some of the others here about trying to spend staff time on a local alternative plan.
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · the only candidate to dissent from the panel's consensus that the city should write its own SB 79 alternative plan.
However, we urge the council not to go beyond what staff has recommended as this will add to our city's already stressed traffic and parking situation.
11 February 2026, City Council · watch · adoption of the R3 zoning update: the staff recommendation and nothing further.
Senate Bill, uh, 79 could eliminate our historic downtown.
9 December 2025, City Council · watch · opening a slide presentation asking for a downtown historic district by 1 July 2026 and a six-month pause on other land-use work to build an SB 79 alternative plan.
We need to be able to have an alternative plan that allows the council to take those first three blocks of Castro Street and say we want to be the ones who determine how it goes forward.
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · on SB 79 and Castro Street.
But that's the way the rules work and unfortunately there's nothing we can do about that.
4 February 2026, EPC · watch · one of three concerns closed by the same formula inside ninety seconds, on a project carrying twenty density-bonus waivers.
One thing that concerns me is that the we're not done. In another seven years we're going to be back uh having to uh go through this again. And if we um we need to have something left I think.
13 March 2024, EPC · watch · arguing to hold R3 density in reserve for the next housing-element cycle rather than zone it now.
…this one-size-fits-all approach from Sacramento uh is not really right for the conditions on the ground in Mountain View. It [an alternative plan] allows us to still develop the housing but to shift it around to places that are appropriate
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · on SB 79.
Yeah, I think this is a great project. Um, it's it meets housing needs.
18 February 2026, EPC · watch · 38 rowhomes needing a General Plan and zoning change the city had no obligation to grant. He can take the pro-housing side, and does.
| Meeting | Item | Cox | Kuszmaul |
|---|---|---|---|
| 24 Jun 2025 | R3 EIR scope | −1 | +1 |
| 24 Jun 2025 | Gatekeeper streamlining | −1 | +1 |
| 9 Dec 2025 | Historic register scope | −1 | +1 |
| 7 Jan 2026 | Parking minimums | −1 | +1 |
| 11 Feb 2026 | R3 adoption, setbacks | −1 | +1 |
| 12 May 2026 | Parking inside the TDM toolkit | −1 | +1 |
| 12 May 2026 | The TDM ordinance itself | +1 | +1 |
Of these candidates, only Amoroso has taken a side on a housing question in front of the council, at two meetings this spring. For the other four, what we have is what they wrote for their own sites, what they wrote on the YIMBY questionnaire and what they said to the Chamber.
Please consider a Downtown Historic District tonight.
9 December 2025, letter to the City Council · letter · the historic preservation ordinance and register update.
I encourage us to defer workplan items such as the R3 zoning update, Downtown Precise Plan, and Moffett Blvd Precise Plan
27 January 2026, letter to the City Council · letter · the SB 79 and AB 130 study session.
One way to achieve this is implementing the long-awaited R3 zoning standards, which will enable us to build stacked flat units, and other diverse housing types.
Our residents are concerned about state mandates, such as SB79. I will work to ensure mandates work for all of us.
Campaign site · idarosesylvester.com/priorities
I will double down and say yes, we need to make permitting faster and predictable.
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · on permitting. She also told the room the city needs its own SB 79 alternative plan.
I support completing the long-overdue R3 zoning update with form-based standards that favor stacked flats, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes over large townhome developments.
I support the goal, more homes near transit is good for the environment and for affordability.
Campaign site · erik4mv.com/on-the-issues
I'm a pro-housing, a pro-tenant candidate who wants to provide a full range of options such as missing middle housing and transit-oriented development
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch
…there is something to take into consideration to not take our eye off the ball when it comes to just housing period
12 May 2026, City Council · watch · on the BMR ordinance amendments.
I'm also not for housing and building for the sake of building, unless there are standards involved.
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · on SB 79.
I think that the locations identified at the intersection of Cuesta Dr and Miramonte Dr are ideal for increased housing density.
I think that it is unfortunate that the dislike of cars is conflated with the dislike of housing.
14 December 2025, letter to the City Council · letter · the Housing Element rezonings, heard 16 December.
We are making big decisions about housing and progress, but we cannot lose our soul in the process.
Campaign site · siljapaymer.com
…there's ways that we can add this density with beauty and with retaining this historic feel
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · on downtown and the SB 79 alternative plan.
No council appearances and no campaign website found.
…housing near transit is is a great, great idea.
27 August 2026, Chamber of Commerce forum · watch · on SB 79.
All eight candidates answered a single set of questions, and where there was disagreement it gave us another useful data point. Naturally, we didn't score the non-housing questions.
| Candidate | More density in multifamily zonespro-housing: favor | More density in single-family areaspro-housing: favor | SB 79pro-housing: favor | Parking lots to affordable homespro-housing: favor | A downtown historic districtpro-housing: oppose | Historic listing without owner consentpro-housing: oppose | Pro-housingof answers with a side |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Oppose | Oppose | 6 / 6 |
| Ali | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Oppose | 5 / 6 |
| Amoroso | Favor | Favor | Favor | Oppose | Favor | Oppose | 4 / 6 |
| Paymer | Favor | Favor | Oppose | Favor | Abstain | Favor | 3 / 5 |
| Poicon | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | 4 / 6 |
| Sylvester | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | Favor | 4 / 6 |
| Donahue | Favor | Oppose | Oppose | Favor | Favor | Oppose | 3 / 6 |
| Cox | Favor | Oppose | Oppose | Favor | Favor | Favor | 2 / 6 |
Do you favor or oppose increasing housing density in parts of the city already zoned for multifamily residences?
| Candidate | Answer | In their words |
|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Favor | no note |
| Ali | Favor | Support smart growth in multifamily areas, with affordable housing and thoughtful planning that works for current residents. |
| Amoroso | Favor | Increasing density with increase public transportation near new housing and already built housing rather than just new housing next to transit |
| Paymer | Favor | no note |
| Poicon | Favor | Different people need different options at different stages of life. We need to finish the R3 update and make sure homes actually get built. |
| Sylvester | Favor | I support more housing in multifamily areas, and density should consider location, transit, infrastructure, existing housing, and displacement risks. |
| Donahue | Favor | I voted in favor of upzoning in a few multifamily areas. |
| Cox | Favor | I generally support the city’s R3 Zoning Update, but do not believe it goes far enough to ensure sensitive transitions to existing residences. |
Do you favor or oppose increasing housing density in parts of the city currently made up of largely single family homes?
| Candidate | Answer | In their words |
|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Favor | no note |
| Ali | Favor | Support thoughtful housing options while protecting neighborhood character, historic sites, and giving residents a voice. |
| Amoroso | Favor | Housing diversity is what makes Mountain View competitive and attractive for job seekers and new residents. |
| Paymer | Favor | no note |
| Poicon | Favor | We need more choice because currently any working families, young adults and seniors on fixed incomes can’t afford current rents or meet requirements. |
| Sylvester | Favor | I support more housing choices, including ADUs and duplexes, with thoughtful growth and greater density where it works best. |
| Donahue | Oppose | State law allows 4 units per single-family parcel and I wouldn’t go beyond that. |
| Cox | Oppose | California law SB9 already allows 4 units on most of the formerly single-family lots in our city. I do not support upzoning such areas further. |
Do you favor or oppose SB 79, a state law meant to increase housing density near major transit stops?
| Candidate | Answer | In their words |
|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Favor | no note |
| Ali | Favor | Support housing near transit while prioritizing affordability, preventing displacement, preserving historic sites, and protecting quality of life. |
| Amoroso | Favor | SB 79 with guard rails. Build housing with sustainable standards and not to exceed height of buildings that would lead to gentrification. |
| Paymer | Oppose | I think it is an attempt at a simple solution to a complex problem and it does not allow much room for nuance or exceptions. |
| Poicon | Favor | I support housing near transit. My concern is timing to ensure these projects don't get more expensive in the future. |
| Sylvester | Favor | I support more transit-oriented housing. With SB 79, implementation matters, including strong local alternative plans and objective design standards. |
| Donahue | Oppose | I support a local alternative plan to shift some development to where it makes sense for MV. |
| Cox | Oppose | I opposed SB79, as it does not provide for sensitive transitions to existing residences. I support a SB79 local alternative plan. |
Do you favor or oppose the city replacing public parking lots with affordable housing?
| Candidate | Answer | In their words |
|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Favor | no note |
| Ali | Favor | Support affordable housing on suitable public lots when we can replace needed parking and address impacts on nearby businesses. |
| Amoroso | Oppose | We can't keep eliminating parking spaces for new housing when we can purchase already built housing in the Moffett community or otherwise to develop. |
| Paymer | Favor | Parking lots are a very poor use of the value of land in MV. I am in favor of converting them to housing and parks. |
| Poicon | Favor | We're already doing it at Corso on Lot 12. But we need to be mindful that each conversion needs a real parking and access plan. |
| Sylvester | Favor | Public land can be an important source of affordable housing, but we should plan to mitigate the parking loss. |
| Donahue | Favor | I support the Lot 12 project, but would need to ensure adequate parking before supporting further projects. |
| Cox | Favor | I support the Lot 12 project (Corso) but believe the parking should be replaced with a Lot 5 parking structure. |
Do you favor or oppose the city creating a downtown historic district?
| Candidate | Answer | In their words |
|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Oppose | no note |
| Ali | Favor | Mountain View's history matters. A historic district can preserve important places while allowing downtown to grow thoughtfully. |
| Amoroso | Favor | Creation of a historic district not only preserves the hereditary beauty of our city, but also speaks to benefit tourism and education opportunities. |
| Paymer | Abstain | It would depend on how it was applied to properties and the design standards included. |
| Poicon | Favor | Protect what tells our story, but preservation should work with housing and a stronger downtown, not become a tool to block change. |
| Sylvester | Favor | A historic district will preserve downtown’s special character and economic vitality. |
| Donahue | Favor | no note |
| Cox | Favor | The downtown historic retail district is the heartbeat of our city and an important generator of sales tax revenue. |
Do you favor or oppose adding properties to the city's historic register without the property owner's consent?
| Candidate | Answer | In their words |
|---|---|---|
| Kuszmaul | Oppose | no note |
| Ali | Oppose | Property owners should have a meaningful voice before their property is added to the historic register. |
| Amoroso | Oppose | Regardless of the decision, constitutional property rights should be respected, and property should be informed and involved. |
| Paymer | Favor | This should be done only for core historical buildings that enhance the city and as a result act as a community benefit. |
| Poicon | Favor | No single owner should hold an absolute veto. We should have a clear criteria, notice, hearings, appeals and hardship protections. |
| Sylvester | Favor | Historic designation should use clear criteria, a fair process, owner participation and meaningful preservation incentives. |
| Donahue | Oppose | Unless they’re already historic under state law. We need clearer incentives. |
| Cox | Favor | Except for properties eligible for the National Register, properties should not be included if the owner explicitly opts out. |
Mountain View Voice, Candidate Comparison Grid: Mountain View City Council, 17 September 2026 · read it · notes are the candidates' own, as the Voice published them.
| Councilmember | Pro-housingof contested positions | Share | Term |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ramos | 22 / 23 | 96% | through 2028 |
| Ramirez | 27 / 31 | 87% | termed out Jan 2027 |
| Showalter | 15 / 19 | 79% | through 2028 |
| Clark | 17 / 26 | 65% | through 2028 |
| Hicks | 12 / 22 | 55% | termed out Jan 2027 |
| Kamei | 7 / 18 | 39% | termed out Jan 2027 |
| McAlister | 1 / 28 | 4% | through 2028 |
Over the time window we have the most council transcripts, James advocated again and again for more homes. Over a much larger period, both on EPC and in public comment, Cox has argued for fewer homes, for the homes to be delayed, and for the homes to be subject to council review. Donahue sat on EPC and voted for every project, but very often also argued against the projects first. The other five candidates leave me much less data to work from.