EPC recommends City Council adopt revised tenant relocation assistance ordinance, including SB 330 timing, temporary‑displacement rules and expanded benefits

The Environmental Planning Commission on Sept. 17 voted to recommend that the City Council adopt a package of amendments to Mountain View’s tenant relocation assistance ordinance as part of Housing Element Program 3.2.

Staff recommended repealing the existing tenant relocation assistance ordinance in Chapter 36, amending Chapter 46 to change its title and add a new tenant relocation assistance article, and adopting six principal amendments to increase the ordinance’s alignment with state law (SB 330) and to strengthen tenant protections. Commissioners voted to forward the ordinance to council with additional guidance from the commission; the motion passed 5‑0 with two commissioners absent.

Key elements of the staff recommendations, explained by Housing Director Wayne Chen and Rent Stabilization Division Manager Anki Van Dorsen, include:

• Vacate date tied to SB 330 timing: The proposal adds an explicit vacate date provision aligned with SB 330 so that the developer’s vacate date is linked to the estimated construction start rather than set immediately after project approval. Staff said this change can extend the time tenants can remain on site and reduce unnecessary early moves.

• Later city informational notice and adjusted developer notice timing: Staff proposed moving the developer’s notice of intent (NOI) from 30 days after permit application to a later point—generally one year before the vacate date—and adding a city‑issued informational notice earlier in the process to reduce tenant confusion and rumor‑driven moves.

• Temporary displacement section: The draft ordinance would add a temporary‑displacement category defined as 90 days or less for renovation projects that do not amount to permanent displacement. The provision includes options such as temporary relocation, moving and storage costs, and a right to return to the original unit where feasible. If displacement exceeds 90 days, tenants would be able to opt for permanent relocation benefits.

• Removal of an exemption for city enforcement actions: The draft would eliminate a current exemption that disqualifies relocation benefits where the city issues an enforcement order (for example, for unpermitted units). Staff recommended keeping an exception where the unit has been red‑tagged for habitability concerns not caused by the landlord.

• SB 330 first right of refusal: The proposal adds a first right of refusal for low‑income tenants (constructed to be consistent with SB 330) when protected units are replaced in demolition‑redevelopment projects. Staff also recommended that required unit inventories and tenant income information be submitted with development applications so the city can evaluate compliance early.

• Expanded benefits and moving cost structure: Council had directed consideration of expanded benefits for households up to 80% area median income (AMI). Staff recommended treating households at or below 80% AMI as part of the special‑circumstance definition so they may receive enhanced payments. The ordinance would also require moving and storage reimbursement and set a common reimbursement cap for moving costs within 50 miles, a standard staff said is common among peer cities.

Staff outlined outreach done since 2019, including tenant stakeholder meetings, rental housing committee review (which unanimously supported the framework), and a council study session. Staff said data from prior projects shows 43% of displaced tenants relocated within Mountain View and 41% relocated elsewhere within the Bay Area; the commission discussed whether changes could increase the percentage of tenants who stay in Mountain View.

During deliberations commissioners asked for several additions and clarifications that the commission recommended staff include in the report to council: explicit guidance and documentation for evaluating alternative mitigation proposals (an equivalency analysis that demonstrates an alternate mitigation provides equivalent value to standard benefits), development of updatable, accessible public notices or a status page for tenants to track key project milestones and updates, and consideration of how differential cost savings could be used to incentivize temporary or permanent relocation closer to Mountain View. Staff indicated those items are procedural or guideline‑level changes that could be brought forward with the council packet.

The commission’s formal motion recommended that City Council adopt an ordinance repealing Chapter 36 Article 13 (Tenant Relocation Assistance), add a new article in Chapter 46, and find the ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act; the motion also recorded commission support for enhanced noticing, an explicit equivalency analysis as part of alternate mitigation, and consideration of differential payout approaches for relocation costs. The City Council first reading on the ordinance is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 28, 2025, with a second reading expected in early December given holiday schedules.