Who’s going to pay for this?

Neither paying property tax or renting an apartment with a landlord paying property tax. How is this good for Mountain View?

This may be a pessimistic viewpoint, but I do not think it is practical for the City to designate safe parking lots for RVs as a long term solution. Land in Mountain View is simply too valuable, and designated parking lots will eventually be redeveloped to meet housing targets. I think the best (least bad) solution is what is happening now; RVs distribute themselves along commercial/industrial roads around the city. Since Mt View began enforcing RV parking regulations in late 2022, we have typically had 5-10 RVs and/or work trucks park along the street where our office is located. As long as they do not take over the entire street, IMO this is better and safer than having them park in residential areas. If what I am describing is the de facto solution, I suggest the City be mindful of the following issues: 1 - Large RVs sometimes park immediately adjacent to office park ingress/egress driveways, creating a visibility hazard for drivers leaving the parking lot (when this happens, we typically leave notes on their windows asking them to move). 2 - Dumping of work materials or other items on the sidewalk.

"Acknowledging some of these issues, Housing Director Wayne Chen raised the possibility of interim housing."

What now? If there is any interim housing capacity available for this, why isn't it already being occupied? Or are existing people going to be kicked out?

Time to start building on the Cuesta Annex. Saving it for no reason. Everything else has been built on. It's needed now. Everyone that wants to keep just wants a place for their dogs to take a dump. You have all of Cuesta park for that. It's time. Why does everything have to get flipped upside down North of El Camino and nothing at the top of town. Same goes for Cooper Park. It's the school districts land. They wanted to build housing for teachers and the NIMBY residents said NO. Cuesta Annex belongs to the City. Why does everyone think they can tell other people what to do with their own land?

@Ron. Thank you for bringing us up-to-date in what it's like out-in-the-commercial /industrial zones where RV living happens. I almost wrote "has moved" but I have seen apparently occupied RV out in our industrial areas - as long as I have seen such nomadic living on El Camino Real in Palo Alto next to Stanford's fields.

With the 1000+ units coming online this year. When are these people being transitioned to a more permanent solution? Especially since Google laid of 1300 workers in the city. And so many others have let go more. The facts are in Zillow I noticed the majority of homes for sale are getting price cuts, and not selling. There is in fact a major change occurring here, and it doesn't look good.

other Steve in Cuesta Park / yup, the Annex is just ripe for minimalist rework as a temporary housing/RV site. The strip along the far Eastern boundary next to the parking lot is furthest from the Western boundary single family housing, and abuts the developed park. The Annex even has a driveway access on that Eastern side because of its history as a bought-out condo development! The RV facility process is not That complicated / particularly with all the new laws and maybe a Council Emergency Declaration on Housing (or - we Got That Already?)
YIMBY. This will be diagonally-adjacent to the census block that I live on (though not across the street).

Put in a sewer connect system, a water supply (on coin meter) and electric supply (on credit meters) and we have a credible upgrade replacement. There used-to-be such an RV park down in the North Whisman area near 101. It was replaced by market-rate townhouses.

Your "Viewpoint" depends on where you live, what housing you own, and what was under your home - before IT was developed. :-)

peace and love and take Care of your Poor