Mountain View CSFRA 2026 2026 Annual General Adjustment under the CSFRA = 100% × CPI-U SF-Oakland-Hayward MSA capped at 5% under Charter §1707(b).

The 2026 cap, in one paragraph

Mountain View's CSFRA AGA is set by Charter §1707(b) as 100% of the percentage change in the BLS CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA metropolitan statistical area, all items, not seasonally adjusted, measured from March of the prior year to March of the publication year, capped at 5.0%. The Rental Housing Committee publishes the AGA each spring for the AGA cycle beginning September 1 of that year. The 5.0% ceiling has BOUND for three consecutive years 2022-2024 during the post-pandemic CPI surge: 2022 underlying CPI was 6.8% (capped to 5.0%), 2023 was 5.0% (right at ceiling), 2024 was 4.0% (under the cap). For 2026, with March 2025 — March 2026 SF MSA CPI-U running approximately 1.7-2.0%, the AGA falls under the 5.0% ceiling and resolves to the CPI figure. Recent CSFRA AGA history: 2024 AGA = 5.0% (capped); 2023 AGA = 5.0% (capped); 2022 AGA = 5.0% (capped); 2021 AGA = 1.5% (CPI bound); 2020 AGA = 3.5% (CPI bound). The 100% × CPI multiplier (versus Berkeley's 65% × CPI under §13.76.110, San Francisco's 60% × CPI under §37.3(a)(1)(B), and Santa Monica's 75% × CPI under Charter §1805) means Mountain View tracks Bay Area CPI most directly of the four — when CPI is below 5%, Mountain View landlords can serve the full underlying CPI rate. The AGA applies prospectively to rent increases on covered CSFRA units effective during the September 1 — August 31 cycle and may be combined with banked prior-year AGAs subject to the 10.0% per-notice ceiling under §1707(c).

Who is covered?

Mountain View's CSFRA covers a unit when both prongs of Charter §1703 are satisfied:

1. Building first CoC ON OR BEFORE February 1, 1995. The February 1, 1995 first-CoC cutoff exactly matches Costa-Hawkins's §1954.52(a)(1) state-preemption anchor — meaning Mountain View's CSFRA coverage matches the maximum reach allowed by Costa-Hawkins. This is the latest first-CoC cutoff available to a California overlay rent-control jurisdiction; cutoffs earlier than Feb 1, 1995 (SF June 13, 1979; Santa Monica April 10, 1979; West Hollywood July 1, 1979; San Jose September 7, 1979; Oakland December 31, 1982; East Palo Alto January 1, 1988) leave more units in the local-overlay reach but are structurally similar. The cutoff date is determined from the building department's first certificate of occupancy on file with the City of Mountain View Community Development Department.
2. 3 OR MORE rental units in the building. Single-family homes (1 unit) and duplexes (2 units) are CATEGORICALLY EXCLUDED from CSFRA's rent-cap framework regardless of building age. The 3-unit threshold matches San Jose ARO's 3-unit threshold but is more restrictive than Oakland's 1-unit threshold and Santa Monica's 1-unit threshold.

Costa-Hawkins (Cal. Civ. Code §§1954.50-1954.535) operates in series with CSFRA's coverage rather than as an independent exemption framework. Where a building meets both CSFRA prongs but Costa-Hawkins independently exempts the unit (the unit is a condominium that was lawfully separable when sold to a bona fide purchaser under §1954.52(a)(2), or the unit is a single-family home AND the current tenancy commenced on or after January 1, 1996 under §1954.52(a)(3)), AB 1482's 8.6% Bay Area cap applies in series rather than CSFRA's 100% × CPI capped at 5%. Government-subsidized units (HUD Section 8 Project-Based, LIHTC, RAD, ECHO, BMR), units in hospitals/dorms/extended-care facilities, motels and short-term-stay accommodations under 30 days, hotels, and substantially-rehabilitated units approved by the RHC are excluded entirely from CSFRA's rent-cap framework. Units that fall outside CSFRA's rent-cap framework (single-family homes, duplexes, condos owned individually, post-Feb-1-1995-CoC apartments, and SFRs with post-1996 tenancies) are still subject to CSFRA's just-cause-eviction requirements under §1709 — coverage of just-cause is broader than coverage of rent-cap.

Banking under §1707(c)

Mountain View permits BANKING with a per-notice ceiling. Under Charter §1707(c), unused Annual General Adjustments may be carried forward and stacked into a single rent-increase notice, but the cumulative notice may not exceed 10.0% of the prior rent. A landlord who skipped the 2024 5% AGA, the 2025 AGA (CPI-bound at approximately 3.5%), and combines with the 2026 AGA can serve a single notice up to 10.0% — but at the 10.0% ceiling, the 90-day notice rule under §827(b)(3) is triggered instead of the 30-day rule. Banking accumulates indefinitely without expiration — there is no statutory time limit on how long an unused AGA can be carried forward — but the 10.0% per-notice ceiling caps the rate at which a landlord can release banked capacity into a single notice.

This places Mountain View's banking model in the middle of the California overlay-banking spectrum:

• Berkeley §13.76.110(B) — ceiling-rise accumulation; no balance cap, no expiration, no per-notice ceiling. The most permissive model.
• San Francisco Rent Board Rules §4.12 — full automatic banking with 7%/calendar-year ceiling + 10%/single-notice ceiling. Nearly as permissive as Berkeley but with two-axis pace controls.
• Mountain View §1707(c) — banking permitted with 10.0% per-notice ceiling. This page.
• San Jose §17.23.190(B) — banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling.
• West Hollywood §17.36.030(c) — banking permitted with 8.0% per-notice ceiling.
• Oakland §8.22.070(B) — petition-gated banking. A notice that exceeds the current year's AGA requires a Rent Adjustment Petition before service.
• Santa Monica Charter §1805(d) — NO banking. Skipped General Adjustments forfeited permanently.
• LA RSO §151.06.A — NO banking. Explicit forfeiture matching Santa Monica.
• AB 1482 statewide — no statutory banking provision. The 12-month cumulative-trailing rule under §1947.12(a)(1) operates against the regional cap rather than carrying forward unused capacity.

Banking does NOT survive an unlawful eviction, harassment determination, or substantial-habitability-violation finding under §1715 — the RHC Hearing Officer can extinguish banked capacity as part of a tenant-petition remedy. Banked capacity is also tenancy-tied: vacancy resets banking to zero on a fresh-start basis under Costa-Hawkins §1954.53(a). When a unit turns over, the new tenancy begins at market rate (post-vacancy), and the new lease's AGA clock starts from the first §1707(b) 12-month-frequency anniversary — there is no carry-forward of the prior tenant's banked capacity.

Upward Adjustment Petitions under §1710

Beyond the AGA + banking framework, Mountain View landlords may petition the RHC under Charter §1710 for an UPWARD ADJUSTMENT to the rent ceiling on grounds including:

• Capital improvements — amortization of qualified capital expenditures over an RHC-determined useful life under §1710(a). Capital-improvement pass-throughs are calculated as the qualified expenditure divided by the useful-life period divided by the number of affected units, served as a separate line-item rent component rather than as part of the AGA.
• Fair return / fair rate of return — an RHC determination that the existing rent ceiling does not provide the landlord with a constitutionally adequate return on investment under §1710(b). The fair-return standard implements the constitutional floor under Pennell v. City of San Jose (1988) 485 U.S. 1 and Birkenfeld v. City of Berkeley (1976) 17 Cal.3d 129. The RHC's methodology is published in the CSFRA Regulations.
• Hardship — landlord-specific financial hardship under §1710(c), narrower than the §1710(b) fair-return standard.

Granted §1710 upward adjustments are SEPARATE from the §1707 AGA and DO NOT count against the §1707(c) 10.0% per-notice ceiling. A landlord whose §1710 capital-improvement pass-through is approved at 3.0% may serve that 3.0% on top of the 2026 AGA plus banked AGAs, subject to §827(b)(3)'s 90-day notice rule when the combined increase reaches 10%. The §1710 petition is the analog of Berkeley's §13.76.110 IRA petition framework, Oakland's §8.22.080 capital-improvements and §8.22.090 fair-return petitions, and SF Rent Board's §6.10 and §6.11 capital-improvements and operating-and-maintenance petitions.

Notice requirements

California Civil Code §827(b) governs the FORM and TIMING of every Mountain View rent-increase notice; CSFRA layers CONTENT requirements on top:

• 30-day rule under §827(b)(2)(A) — increases of less than 10% take effect 30 calendar days after service. Notices under the 10.0% per-notice ceiling that stay under 10% qualify.
• 90-day rule under §827(b)(3) — increases of 10% or more require 90 calendar days. The 10.0% per-notice ceiling under §1707(c) means a notice exactly at the ceiling triggers §827(b)(3); landlords commonly stop just short (e.g., 9.9%) to retain the 30-day rule.
• §1013 mailing-add presumption — when served by U.S. Mail, the notice period is extended by 5 days under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1013. Effective notice period for a mailed notice is 35 days (under 10%) or 95 days (10%+).
• CSFRA Notice citation requirement — the notice must include the CSFRA Notice (the form prescribed by the RHC), citing the §1707(b) AGA authority and the calculation. A notice that omits the CSFRA Notice or that overstates the AGA against the published rate is unenforceable for the over-cap portion under §1707(d) regardless of statutory compliance with §827(b).
• 12-month frequency rule under §1707(b) — a second rent increase within 12 months of the prior increase is barred regardless of magnitude. This prevents a landlord from carving up the AGA into two smaller increases to dodge the 10.0% per-notice ceiling.
• Banking line-item disclosure — where the landlord is invoking banked capacity under §1707(c), the notice must itemize each prior AGA being banked and the cumulative stacked rate against the 10.0% ceiling. The line-item disclosure protects the tenant's right to challenge specific banked components.
• Petition-rights advisory — the notice must inform the tenant of the right to file a Petition with the RHC under §1714.

Just-cause eviction under §1709

Mountain View's CSFRA just-cause-eviction provisions at Charter §1709 reach EVERY Mountain View rental REGARDLESS of whether the unit is subject to the §1707 AGA. The §1709 just-cause framework is broader than the §1707 rent-cap framework — meaning post-Feb-1-1995-CoC apartments, single-family homes, duplexes, condos owned individually, and SFRs with post-1996 tenancies (all excluded from CSFRA's rent-cap framework) are still subject to §1709's just-cause requirements.

The §1709 just causes for eviction are:

1. Non-payment of rent
2. Substantial breach of a material lease term not cured after written notice
3. Substantial damage to the unit
4. Creation of a substantial nuisance
5. Refusal to permit lawful access
6. Refusal to renew a written lease at expiration on similar terms
7. Owner move-in for the owner or specified family members under §1710
8. Withdrawal of all rental units under the Ellis Act (Cal. Gov. Code §§7060-7060.7)
9. Substantial rehabilitation under permit
10. Condominium conversion with relocation
11. Compliance with a governmental order to vacate
12. Demolition with permit

A landlord who serves a defective rent-increase notice (over-cap, missing CSFRA Notice, or out of compliance with the §1707(b) 12-month frequency rule) loses the just-cause-eviction posture for that lease term: a subsequent unlawful detainer for non-payment of the over-cap portion fails because the over-cap demand is unlawful. The defective-rent-notice / just-cause-loss linkage is the most consequential procedural trap for Mountain View landlords self-managing without an attorney.

Owner-move-in evictions under §1709(g) require: good-faith intent to occupy as primary residence for at least 36 months (matching Oakland's §8.22.360(A)(8) and San Jose's TPO §17.23.1300 et seq.); relocation assistance currently approximately $7,000 - $20,000 per displaced household depending on tenancy duration and tenant qualifications; written notice with statutory disclosures; and RHC filing within 10 days of the notice. Senior tenants (62+), disabled tenants, and tenants of 5+ years receive heightened protections. Ellis Act withdrawals require notice to the RHC, notice to all tenants, 120-day minimum notice period (extended to one year for senior and disabled tenants under §7060.4), and trigger §1954.535 re-rental restrictions: if the landlord returns any unit in the building to the rental market within 5 years, the prior tenants have a right of first refusal at the prior rent.

Penalty cascade under §1715

A rent collected above the lawful Mountain View AGA is unlawful. The tenant may file a Petition with the Rental Housing Committee under Charter §1714 within three years of the over-cap collection (matching California's general three-year limitation period under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §338). The RHC Hearing Officer can order a five-prong remedy:

1. Reduction of rent to lawful rate going forward. The over-cap collection stops with the next rent period; the tenant's lawful obligation is recalculated to the published AGA.
2. Refund of unlawfully-collected portion with statutory interest at 10% under Cal. Civ. Code §3289(b). The Hearing Officer typically orders a credit against future rent until the unlawful portion is recouped.
3. Civil penalties up to $1,000 per violation per tenant under Charter §1715(a). Multiple violations across multiple notice cycles each trigger their own penalty.
4. Treble damages where willful or in bad faith. §1715(b) authorizes treble damages — three times the unlawfully-collected portion. The willfulness standard mirrors AB 1482 §1947.12(h)(3), Oakland §8.22.150(B), and SF Admin. Code §37.10B(c).
5. Attorney fees to prevailing tenants. §1715(c) authorizes attorney fees, distinguishing Mountain View from SF (which has no attorney-fee-shifting under §37.8 petitions) and aligning Mountain View with Oakland (§8.22.150(C)), Berkeley (§13.76.150), Santa Monica (§1809), West Hollywood (§17.36.110(c)), and San Jose (§17.23.230(C)).

Tenants may also raise the overcharge as an affirmative defense to an unlawful-detainer (eviction) action for non-payment under Cal. Code Civ. Proc. §1161, voiding the eviction predicate. Appeals from RHC Hearing Officer decisions go to the full RHC and ultimately to Superior Court. Mountain View's penalty cascade is structurally identical to the San Jose framework but operates against the 100% × CPI capped at 5% base rate rather than the lower-of-5%-or-CPI base rate.

How RentCeiling enforces Mountain View's CSFRA for you

The free California calculator takes (current rent, building first-CoC era, last-increase date, ordinance overlay) and routes Mountain View CSFRA units to 100% × CPI capped at 5% with the Charter §1707(b) citation, the categorical and Costa-Hawkins exemption checks, the §1707(c) 10.0% per-notice banking ceiling computation, the §1714 Rental Housing Fee registration check, and the 12-month frequency verification under §1707(b). The California notice generator consumes the same inputs and emits a printable §827(b)-compliant notice with the AGA citation, the §1013 mailing-add applied, the CSFRA Notice form attached, the banking line-item disclosure, and the §1714 petition-rights advisory included. The California rent increase 2026 page places Mountain View's 100% × CPI capped at 5% in the nine-jurisdiction California catalogue (AB 1482 8.8%, LA RSO 3.0%/2.8%, SF 1.6%, Berkeley 1.0%, Oakland 1.7%, Santa Monica 0.8%, West Hollywood 0.75%, San Jose 5%/CPI, Mountain View 5%/CPI). The Costa-Hawkins explainer walks the §1954.52(a) exemption framework that decides whether each Mountain View unit falls under CSFRA or AB 1482. The San Jose ARO page walks Mountain View's closest structural twin in the Bay Area. Open rule-set at /rules/index.json.

Run the California 2026 cap calculator (free)

Common questions