Fair Chance Housing ordinance sent to Policy & Services Committee after council debate over look‑back and exceptions

PALO ALTO — The Palo Alto City Council unanimously voted on April 14 to send a draft Fair Chance Housing ordinance back to the Policy & Services Committee for additional analysis and refinement rather than adopting it immediately. The ordinance would limit how landlords may use criminal‑history information in rental screening and would add procedural protections such as requiring a conditional offer before a background check and an individualized assessment before any adverse action.

Why it matters: Fair Chance Housing policies are designed to reduce barriers to housing for people with criminal history and to address disparate impacts on BIPOC communities. The proposed local ordinance would add city‑level procedures and enforcement tools beyond existing state protections; council members and community stakeholders agreed on the policy goal but asked staff to refine key technical provisions.

What staff proposed: Planning Department staff (project lead Rebecca Atkinson) presented a draft municipal code chapter that would create definitions, applicability and exemptions, and remedies. The draft included a procedural sequence: (1) landlord makes a conditional offer, (2) applicant gives consent for criminal‑history review, (3) if the landlord intends to take adverse action the landlord must provide the applicant with written notice including the reason and evidence, (4) applicant may respond with mitigating information, and (5) the landlord must perform an individualized assessment and document how mitigation was weighed.

The draft also included a proposed two‑year look‑back period for consideration of convictions and exemptions for certain small owner‑occupied rentals. The Human Relations Commission had recommended a 2‑year look back and the procedural protections; the HRC considered but did not recommend a stronger prohibition on use of criminal history for landlords.

Council concerns: Multiple council members raised technical and policy questions that prompted the referral. The most prominent concern was the proposed starting point for a look‑back period: staff’s draft used date of conviction/sentencing as the reference date, but several council members argued a look back should begin at date of release from custody (or parole) so that a prospective tenant’s period of successful community reintegration would be visible to landlords. Council members also asked whether the look back should be lengthened, shortened or tiered by seriousness (for example, longer consideration windows for violent or sexual offenses). Additional implementation questions included: how criminal databases report records (arrest vs conviction vs disposition), whether out‑of‑state convictions map cleanly to California offense categories, and how landlord screening practices could inadvertently circumvent protections.

Public comment and stakeholder positions: Housing advocates and civil‑rights groups supported a local measure and urged strong enforcement; local landlord and apartment industry groups urged caution and said existing state protections may suffice and that a patchwork of local rules increases complexity. The Human Relations Commission chair urged more work on enforcement pathways and on the look‑back technicalities.

Council action: The council unanimously approved a motion to refer the draft ordinance and related questions to the Policy & Services Committee for additional research and options development. Staff said it would consult with the City Attorney, Police Department and Human Services and return with refined options (including alternatives on look‑back periods, serious‑crime exceptions, and enforcement mechanisms) as early as mid‑2025.

Next steps: The council’s referral sends the draft to Policy & Services for further policy work. Staff will return with refined draft language and implementation recommendations, including options to (a) define the look‑back using release date versus conviction date, (b) adopt tiered look‑back windows or exceptions for serious offenses, and (c) specify enforcement and outreach resources needed to operationalize the ordinance.