Mountain View studies changes to tenant‑relocation rules, council backs staff recommendations

City staff on Wednesday outlined a package of changes to Mountain View’s Tenant Relocation Assistance Ordinance intended to reduce avoidable moves and make relocation payments work more effectively for displaced households. The review of Treo, part of the city’s housing element work, was presented as a study session to seek council direction rather than to adopt new rules at the meeting.

The housing staff summary said Treo — established in 2010 and amended several times — covers more tenants than the state’s SB 330 protections in some income tiers but in many cases produces smaller benefit amounts than SB 330’s formula. Staff reported that, over the last decade, more than 1,000 units were subject to Treo and roughly 550 households (about 64%) received relocation benefits; 43% of displaced tenants moved within Mountain View and 41% relocated elsewhere in the Bay Area.

Staff identified three principal administrative challenges: an early Notice of Intent (NOI) requirement that can trigger payments before construction dates are fixed; no discrete temporary‑displacement category for renovations lasting longer than 30 days; and an exemption that releases landlords from paying benefits when the city has red‑tagged a unit. To address those issues staff recommended five changes: adopt the SB 330 vacate‑date approach (tying a vacate date to construction timing rather than project approval), evaluate later NOI timing while retaining an informal city notification channel, create a specific temporary‑displacement section for renovation and rehab projects, remove the exemption tied to city enforcement red‑tags, and consider adding an SB 330‑style first right of return when units are replaced at affordable levels.

Daniel Salazar of SV@Home, speaking during public comment, backed the staff approach and said adding the SB 330 vacate date “provides tenants with a clear, consistent timeline, allowing them to remain in their homes until 6 months before construction,” which reduces unneeded moves and fear. Other public commenters urged broader benefits, with one caller citing Berkeley’s Measure BB as a model that provides a universal relocation amount.

Council members broadly supported staff’s five recommendations and a majority backed directing staff to study potential increases to benefits for the lowest‑income groups and whether to cover moving costs for all three income tiers in the staff analysis. Council also asked staff to return with draft ordinance language and a timeline for public hearings, including review by the Environmental Planning Commission and eventual council hearings.

Staff stressed the work would include legal and economic analysis, and that any benefit increases would be evaluated for feasibility and legal constraints before an ordinance is drafted.

Next steps: Staff will prepare draft ordinance amendments and return with recommendations and a public‑hearing calendar.