The Mountain View City Council introduced revisions to the city's Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance (TRREO) at its Oct. 28 meeting and set a second reading for Dec. 9, 2025, after staff and council members debated new protections for temporarily and permanently displaced tenants and heard extensive public comment.

City staff described the amendments as a set of changes to align local rules with state requirements and to increase protections for displaced households. ‘‘Under SB 330 tenants can remain in their homes until six months before construction begins,’’ Rent Stabilization Manager Amanke Van Dursen told the council, and staff proposed using ‘‘the date of demolition permit issuance’’ as an objective starting point for construction-related timelines. The proposal would move the TRREO from chapter 36 to chapter 46 of the municipal code, codify notice timing that delays a landlord's mandatory ‘‘notice of intent’’ until closer to the vacancy date, add a temporary-displacement category (90 days or less) with defined tenant options, and expand certain benefits for lower-income households.

Why it matters: Councilmembers said the changes respond to community concerns about past demolitions and tenant displacement, while also seeking to preserve the ability for owners to renovate small buildings. ‘‘This is an item we committed to in our Housing Element,’’ Vice Mayor Ramos said when she moved to introduce the ordinance. Council members repeatedly asked staff to balance tenant protections with practical implementation so reinvestment in aging rental stock remains feasible.

Key provisions and discussion points

- Timing and notice: Staff proposed that the date of demolition-permit issuance serve as the objective start of construction and that the city (not the landlord) send an informational notice to tenants when a development application is filed, while the landlord's formal ‘‘notice of intent’’ would be moved later to reduce premature tenant moves. Van Dursen said this aligns local practice with SB 330.

- Temporary vs. permanent displacement: The draft adds a temporary-displacement section for moves of 90 days or less. For temporary displacements, landlords must offer one of three tenant options: a per-diem payment or a hotel/motel within five miles, or comparable housing in Mountain View; movers'/ storage-cost coverage; and a right to return to the same unit at the same rent once work is complete. If the displacement exceeds 90 days because of unforeseen circumstances, income-eligible tenants may elect permanent relocation benefits in addition to the temporary assistance already received. Staff noted this is modeled on the 660 Mariposa project's approach.

- Right of first refusal and inventories: To mirror SB 330, the ordinance would add a right of first refusal for displaced households earning up to 80% of Area Median Income (AMI). Landlords must provide unit inventories, tenant data and documentation that any comparable replacement vacancies were lawfully available; failure to comply could affect entitlements or permits.

- City-enforcement displacements: The current ordinance exempts landlord responsibility for city-enforcement displacements (for example, red-tagged units) in all cases. Staff's recommended change removes that blanket exemption and would require relocation benefits unless the damage or destruction was not caused or contributed to by the landlord.

- Moving-costs approach and enhanced benefits: The staff recommendation adds moving-cost coverage for tenants and enhances permanent-relocation benefits for lower-income households (up to 80% AMI) as a new special-circumstance category. Council members and public commenters asked staff to propose an objective cap and method for computing moving costs (indexed by CPI was suggested). The council directed staff to return a recommended cap for council consideration as part of the administrative procedures.

Public comment and stakeholder concerns

More than a dozen stakeholders addressed the council during the item, including tenants and people with lived experience of homelessness who supported stronger protections, and multiple landlords, property managers and trade groups that warned the proposed increases to benefits and open-ended moving-cost reimbursements would raise redevelopment costs and discourage reinvestment in aging housing stock. Prometheus Real Estate Group and the California Apartment Association asked for additional outreach and time to review the detailed draft language. Several property owners described the complexity of older building upgrades (electrical service, permitting with utilities) and recommended greater flexibility for renovation projects.

Council direction and next steps

Vice Mayor Ramos moved to introduce the ordinance and set a second reading for Dec. 9, 2025; the motion was seconded and the council then engaged in extended amendments and clarifying questions. During the exchange councilmembers requested that staff:

- Develop administrative procedures for the new temporary-displacement provisions and explicitly solicit stakeholder input from landlords, trade groups, tenant advocates and managers;
- Propose a measurable cap and methodology for moving-cost reimbursements (staff to return recommended figures tied to CPI for council review); and
- Add objective procedural safeguards so tenants cannot "double-dip" (receive temporary relocation assistance and then stack an additional full permanent payment) where a tenant voluntarily elects not to return for reasons unrelated to landlord delay or fault.

City Attorney Logue confirmed administrative guidelines must be consistent with the ordinance and advised that council could adopt the ordinance with direction to staff to finalize procedures before the December second reading.

What the council did and didn't do

- The council introduced the ordinance for first reading and scheduled a second reading for Dec. 9, 2025. The council did not adopt the ordinance on final reading that night; staff will return with administrative procedures and recommended moving-cost caps for council review prior to final adoption.

For reference: legal authorities cited in the staff presentation included Senate Bill 330 (Housing Crisis Act of 2019), the Ellis/ALICE-type withdrawal provisions referenced in staff materials (often called the "Alice Act" in discussion), and state health and safety-code provisions governing notices and habitability standards. Staff identified the proposed move of the local TRREO from chapter 36 to chapter 46 of the Mountain View Municipal Code and recommended finding the action exempt from CEQA for the ordinance update.

What to watch for next

Staff will draft administrative procedures for the temporary-displacement section and the moving-cost rules, solicit stakeholder feedback per the council's direction, and return a recommended moving-cost cap and proposed administrative guidelines before the Dec. 9 second reading. Councilmembers and stakeholders signaled that a clear, published method for calculating any cap (and any CPI indexing) will be central to whether landlords view the new regime as feasible for substantial renovation and redevelopments.