Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Fair Chance Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alameda County committee hears update on draft unincorporated Fair Chance Housing ordinance
Summary
County staff said they are revising a draft unincorporated Fair Chance Housing ordinance to conform with recent court decisions and expect to return to committee in summer 2026; public commenters urged the county to require providers who get county funds to follow Fair Chance rules.
The Alameda County Board of Supervisors Public Protection Committee on Feb. 26 received an informational update on a draft Fair Chance Housing ordinance that would limit landlords’ use of criminal-history screening in the unincorporated county.
County Housing and Community Development Assistant Director Jennifer Pierce told the committee HCD staff, with County Council assistance, are revising the draft to conform with recent court rulings stemming from litigation over a Seattle ordinance and plan to bring the revised draft back to the committee in summer 2026 for an initial review.
Pierce said the county’s process to date included 19 stakeholder meetings and nine public hearings and that the first Board reading was held in December 2022 before work paused pending the litigation outcome. Legal staff told the committee the ordinance as drafted will apply prospectively (not retroactively), requires two regular-meeting readings with at least five days’ notice between them, and would become effective 30 days after adoption and publication.
Public commenters and community groups urged broader reach. "We would like to ask why the proposed ordinance would not require housing providers receiving county funds to abide by fair chance housing provisions," Alex Penegas of Just Cities told the committee, urging the county to use its contracting authority to extend protections beyond unincorporated areas. Other speakers, including formerly incarcerated residents and advocates, said the ordinance is essential for family reunification and reducing homelessness after incarceration.
County staff and legal advisers told supervisors that the county’s police power applies only in unincorporated areas and that mandating compliance by outside projects funded with county dollars raises legal issues that would require additional analysis. Staff said it is legally conceivable to attach requirements to county-funded projects, but they would need to evaluate how best to do that.
Supervisor Miley said the ordinance should not be held up while staff study options to extend county-funded project requirements, but asked staff to provide legal analysis and alternatives, including incentive-based approaches if a mandatory requirement proves legally fraught.
The committee did not take action; staff anticipate returning with a revised draft for committee review in summer 2026 and then to the full Board for a first reading later (the County does not meet in August).
