Okay, good morning, everyone.

Thank you for your patience.

I'd like to call the Alameda County Board of Supervisors Public Protection Committee meeting to order for Thursday, February 26th.

Can we please start with a roll call?

Supervisor Miley from Supervisor Marquez.

Present.

Thank you.

And if the clerk can please make the announcement on how individuals can participate under public comment in person and remotely.

For in-person participation, the meeting site is open to the public.

If you'd like to speak on an item, please fill out a speaker's card in the front of the room and hand it to the clerk for remote participation.

You can reference the teleconferencing guidelines posted at www.acgu.org and use the raise your hand function.

Great.

Thank you.

Can we just do a quick audio check?

Anyone that might be listening online to make sure everything's clear on Zoom.

Be good to go.

Can you raise your hand if you can hear us on Zoom?

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you so much.

So again, good morning, everyone.

Today we have two informational items related to fair chance policy, a key opportunity for the county to further align and implement a recommendation from the reimagined adult justice and care first jails last initiatives.

Housing stability is a fundamental component of successful re-entry and long-term public safety.

I'm looking forward to these presentations so this committee can better understand the policy design and current implementation can support this goal.

Expanding access to housing opportunities by removing identified barriers for justice involved residents supports public safety, as we will learn more from both county staff as well as local researchers.

With that, we will begin with the first item.

First item is an update on unincorporated fair chance ordinance.

This is item number one.

It's an informational update on the fair chance ordinance.

At this time, I'd like to welcome, I don't see, is she online?

Jennifer is here though.

Jennifer Pierce, Assistant Director with Housing and Community Development Department.

Welcome and good morning.

And I believe we do have a PowerPoint presentation slide, and it looks like there's handouts for the public to access.

Thank you and welcome.

Yes, thank you.

Good morning, supervisors.

Wait, I don't know.

I'm here to present on uh fair chance housing and the process that the county has gone through so far.

Um, just to talk about the purpose of fair chance housing.

Uh these ordinances aim to reduce housing barriers for people with criminal records by prohibiting landlords from automatically screening for chemical screening for criminal history and rental decisions.

Uh these policies promote fair housing, reduce recidivism, and address the housing crisis by preventing discrimination against the formally incarcerated.

Next slide, please.

So this is the community process to date from 2020 to 2022.

We held 19 stakeholder meetings and had nine public hearings.

And the first Board of Supervisors reading was in December of 2022, and then the process with regard to Fair Chance housing was paused due to the UMB City of Seattle decision.

Next slide, please.

So just a brief note about UMB Seattle.

Uh the lawsuit was filed in 2018, and the landlords argued that Seattle City ordinances violated their property rights, specifically talking about the first and time rule, which requires that uh city of Seattle landlords take the first applicant for housing as well as the 2018 Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.

Uh these lawsuits allege violations of due process, free speech, and unlawful regulatory takings by restricting landlords' ability to select tenants and review criminal backgrounds.

Next slide, please.

So this is the case timeline of Yem V Seattle from 2021 to 2025.

Uh, the district court ruled in favor of the city.

Um, and then the ninth circuit appeal was filed by the landlords, and what the Ninth Circuit did was they indicated that the no inquiry provision violated the first amendment, but the other parts of the ordinance were upheld.

Um, they tried to take it to the Supreme Court.

Um, they denied cert in 2024.

Um, and then in 2025, there was a subsequent decision by the courts uh to determine if uh being able to ask for the information but not being able to use it.

Um the inability to ask the information where that could be severed from the ordinance and the rest of the ordinance could remain intact and the court determined that it could be.

Next slide, please.

So as for our process, HCD staff is currently working on revising the ordinance with County Council's assistance to be compliant with the.

Great.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Supervisor Miley, do you have questions at this time or comments?

No.

Okay.

So can you help us understand the timeline?

So I understand that the ordinance is being updated.

But what once it's updated, where is it going to be presented at first?

Is it going to unincorporated services, the MACs?

So we had anticipated it coming back to unincorporated services first.

Okay.

And then can you just remind the public how frequently that committee meets?

The unincorporated services committee meets monthly.

Okay.

And are they scheduled to are you scheduled to present in March or April?

We well, we're scheduled to go to the unincorporated services tonight with a holistic tenant protections update, but an update with regard to fair chance has not been scheduled yet.

Okay, great.

Since we only have two items on the agenda, I am gonna entertain public comment for each presentation.

Um, or if you want to wait until after the second presentation, it's really up to the public.

I don't see too many public speakers, so bye for item one.

Perfect.

Okay, so we'll now call up the public speakers, please, and they'll have two minutes.

Alex Pinegas.

There we go.

Hi, my name is Alex Pinegas.

Um, I'm here with just cities.

Uh, we want to thank the board of supervisors for considering this fair chance housing policy, which is an important part of a strategy to help formally incarcerate a residents get stably housed and achieve their goals upon re-entering the community.

While we're happy to see this fair chance housing being advanced by the county, we would like to ask why the proposed ordinance would not require housing providers receiving county funds to abide by fair chance housing provisions.

We know that uh or our understanding is that the county's contracting powers would allow the county to require contractors to abide by local rules.

So we'd like to see um the county take advantage of that power to ensure that housing providers in incorporated areas in addition to just the unincorporated areas are also giving a chance to um people re-entering the community to achieve a stable housing situation.

Thank you.

John Jones the third.

Thank you.

Good morning, supervisors, county leaders.

My name is John Jones III.

I'm on staff with Urban Strategies Council, and I'm also with the Justice Reinvestment Coalition.

I want to first thank ACD director Michelle Stewart as well as uh ACD assistant director Jennifer Pierce for this uh for advancing this item here.

And I know it's informational, but we believe in it.

So I'm gonna thank him first and foremost for that.

And I echo the comments of my colleague Alex.

We want to ask the board to also make sure when it comes to county funding for housing dollars, right?

We already know that we're experiencing a housing crisis in our beloved county.

And the research clearly indicates as the next item uh detail that there is a real correlation, a connection between being unhoused and having a record.

And the barrier of that is not just for people who have a record but for their family members.

For example, me as a single father.

If people believe that I don't deserve access to housing, I'm okay with that.

But what about my 11-year-old?

He's never been arrested.

Why should he be punished?

What about those of us who are in love in intimate relationships?

We believe this also would allow for family unification.

So thank you so very much.

Marco Duncan.

Good morning, everybody.

I'm uh Marco Duncan with legal services policy fellow with legal services for prisoners with children.

I support the fair um chance housing.

And I would just add that.

Any developers receiving state money, not exclude uh formerly incarcerated people.

I mean the price of rent is already high enough and they don't need any extra barriers to um prevent them from getting housing.

Thank you.

Good morning and peace and blessings to you all.

My name is Takwa Bonner.

I am the housing advocate for all of us and none, which is a project of legal services for prisoners with children.

And I benefited directly from Fair Chance Housing Laws.

After serving 30 years in prison, um I was forced upon release from prison, I was forced into homelessness because the laws, the former laws in Oakland, had excluded me from living with my family members.

So when I found out when I was living with my family members, I found out I was putting their housing at jeopardy because the current laws at the times had stated that anyone who had been convicted of a felony cannot live on the premise.

If I was called living with them, they would got kicked out of their housing unit and lost their vouchers.

I'm sorry, this would be very emotional for me.

Um I had to sleep in my car for seven months.

I applied directly for an apartment unit in San Leandro.

And on the application that asked me, have I been convicted of a felony?

And I marked a box, yes, not realizing I screened myself out.

When the Fair Chance Housing Laws passed in Oakland, I was able to obtain a housing unit of my own.

That allow me to reunite with my granddaughter and my son and my daughter that allow me to give that gave me a great opportunity to have a good night's sleep to be a very productive citizen.

And on behalf of the men and women who are excluded from receiving housing, I ask that any developer seeking our county dollars.

Please ensure that they don't exclude anyone, especially former incarcerated individuals from receiving housing.

Thank you.

Patricia Tuscano.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

I'm here to speak um as a member of Just Cities and also as a mother.

Stable housing is a lifetime need for formerly incarcerated mothers.

When mothers are incarcerated, they receive the less they the least support.

Men usually come home.

They have an opportunity to live with family members.

Women do not often have that support.

Allowing developers to exclude mothers based on their criminal record is excluding them from reunification with their children, from an opportunity to find employment, because we all know that when we have stable housing, we have the opportunity to find stable house stable employment.

So I'm asking that you consider not allowing developers to own to have a fair chance housing.

I'm sorry, to honor the fair chance housing ordinance.

Thank you.

Hello, this is Dean Moses.

Uh I live in Oakland and just wanted to add my voice to those who've already spoken.

These are very difficult times for nearly everyone in Alameda County.

Um I urge you to take the proven step of supporting fair chance housing to make life a little easier for people in re-entry.

And um also to support the suggestion that Alex and others, Alex from Just Cities and others have made to extend that support to um all of the developers that are reasonably within your power to influence.

So please do apply the ordinance to anyone who accepts financial support from the county.

Thank you very much for your work and thank you for allowing me to speak.

Anaya, you have two minutes.

Thank you.

I do want to speak briefly about this issue.

But I also just want to ask is I understood that Supervisor Marquez was gonna bring up something about flock today.

Is that true?

That item is not on the agenda.

Okay, great.

So briefly, I just want to say I am a homeowner in Oakland and I 100% supports support Fair Chance housing.

I agree with everything that everyone has said in support of Fair Chance Housing.

It really makes it so that people who are formerly incarcerated have a chance to not have to be homeless, like the gentleman spoke about.

And I really appreciate your supporting it in every way, both politically and financially.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Um I have a follow-up question given public comment.

Um so the ordinance is in the process of being updated and needs to be adopted by the board.

Um help me understand.

Cause I think we already had a first reading.

Is it the second reading?

Are we starting from scratch?

Can you do it?

We would be starting over.

Okay, so it'll require two readings.

Correct.

And then the first adoption, we don't know the date yet.

Let's just say comes back to this committee in the summer, goes back to the full board in September.

We don't meet in August.

We typically take uh recis that month.

So hypothetically, if it comes back in September, we adopt the first reading, which would require a majority vote.

Yes.

And then second ordinance, is it two weeks or 30 days thereafter?

The second reading, sorry, not the second ordinance, second reading.

An ordinance is effective 30 days after adoption.

And including publication within 15.

So effective 30 days after your second reading if adopted.

Is there a required be requirement between the first reading and the second reading?

Could it be there's a five-day period where you you have to go from one meeting in it and an ordinance must be adopted at a regular meeting, so it can't be a special meeting.

Got it.

So we could adopt it at a regular meeting, requires a majority vote, has to be notice at least five-day difference between the second meeting once this if the second reading is adopted, it goes into effect 30 days later.

Okay.

Um, so with respect to housing projects, because we have a lot going on with measure W, but right now it's mainly like transitional housing.

Um, so do we project any A1 dollars going out in the fall?

By and large, most of the A1 dollars, with the exception of the A1 dollars invested in the Broadway property, have already been expended.

Okay.

We're really just talking about measure W dollars at this point.

Okay, and then once the ordinate, assuming it gets adopted, um, are there any clauses like to like grandfather or is it just prospective?

It can't go retro.

How does that work?

So the ordinance would not apply retroactively, and uh that's constitutionally required that would only be a prospective application.

Um, this ask today that we're hearing from public comment is a new ask, and we have not included any drafting to uh expand the scope of the ordinance to address um properties funded by uh county funds.

Um, there are questions we would have about how how that is intended to operate if that is something that you're looking to do.

Um questions related to uh geographic scope scope.

So, for example, our police power only applies to the unincorporated area.

So we're drafting an ordinance that the just cause ordinance that would apply only within the unincorporated area.

Um, if you're talking about projects that are funded with county dollars, that conceivably could apply outside of the unincorporated black county wide to any projects that you um input county money in.

But there are legal issues that we would need to explore to make sure we do that properly, if that is something that you are considering.

It is a new issue in that regard.

Okay, I'll I see.

I was just going to say I wouldn't hold up the ordinance because of that provision.

I'd like to see it in there, but if staff needs to do more legal analysis on whether or not to include uh funding for projects outside of the unincorporated area, don't hold up the adoption of the initial ordinance because of that.

We can always amend the ordinance uh down the road.

Because I think um that's a new twist.

Um I can see the legalities and the concerns there, but I just don't want to hold this up.

But do the analysis, please.

Yeah, I concur.

So I my preference would be um to move this as expeditionally as expeditiously as we can.

Um, so my preference would be if we could so I'm gonna understand Supervisor Miley's comment.

You're saying two included in the unincorporated or not, you're saying without.

Yeah, if you can include it in the unincorporated area, go ahead and include it.

Um and then the broader outside and incorporated amendment in the future.

Right.

Exactly.

Yeah.

But if if they find difficulty even including the unincorporate area, I would say let's not hold it up for either case, but don't.

I think we want to see that uh legal piece examined.

Yeah, I think we understand what you're looking for, and we're doing our best to not delay the um basic or the core ordinance while we while we evaluate the issues.

Okay, thank you.

So we will now move on to the second item on the agenda.

This is also an informational presentation on research findings from the Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance Housing Impact Evaluation Study.

We are pleased to welcome Margareta Lynn, principal investigator and project scientist with the UC Berkeley's Institute of Urban and Regional Development.

Thank you for being here today to share your research.

Good morning, supervisors, my wife, Miley.

Good morning, good morning.

Thank you so much for this great opportunity to share with you our findings from the Berkeley and Oakland Bear Trans housing impact evaluation study.

Along with Professor Chris MaC from the City and Regional Planning Department, our research team members have also included people with lived experiences, especially formally incarcerated students who are part of the UC Berkeley Underground Scholars Program.

Where the City of Berkeley and City of Oakland worked in partnership with formerly incarcerated leaders led by John Jones III, Miss Anita Wills, Taka Bonner, Zicati Shaw, and Ms.

Sherry.

Myself and Richard Ildrin, who is a longtime former deputy city attorney for the city of Oakland, provided technical assistance to this leadership team.

There's a nine month process that they went through to understand the different um landscape, the policy landscape, including conferring with the city of Seattle and other jurisdictions with uh similar ordinances.

There's also an extensive public hearing and public evidence process and meetings with the leadership of the housing private housing providers who are part of the Berkeley Property Owners Association.

The public evidence provided showed that as Taqua Bonner shared, and John Jones and other people, that on the sole basis of a criminal background, people were being denied housing.

And it's all forms of housing at that time, private rental housing, publicly subsidized housing, affordable housing being funded by city dollars as well.

So this blanket exclusion was keeping people from being able to rent housing on their own, as well as from being able to live with family members.

And as we all know, family reunification, community support, family support are really important indicators for reentry success.

In addition, the evidence included research studies, including sponsored by the Department of Justice that showed the faulty nature of these criminal records databases that landlords were using.

In addition, there's local research, including a study conducted by the Goldman School, just cities in the village of homeless, Oakland homeless residents and homeless encampments, where it was found that 73% of the survey respondents had a criminal record.

So again, lots of research showing the direct connection between this barrier to housing and homelessness.

That local research was also supported by national research and studies, including from the prison policy initiative.

Another public purpose of this from the cities of Berkeley and Oakland, included fostering re-entry success, building on the literature review that shows the direct correlation between housing stability and reentry success.

On that basis of both the evidence presented as part of the public record testimony, as well as the public policy work between the coalition leadership with the leadership of the Berkeley Property Owners Association.

There were these main policy terms as part of the Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance Housing Ordinances.

First, it applies to all forms of housing, private and publicly subsidized, and also to section eight as well.

As we all know, unlike what occurred in the city of Seattle and the state of Washington, housing providers in Alameda County and state of California are not subject to a first and time rule.

So landlords maintain discretion in terms of selecting housing applicants.

Exceptions to the ordinance followed the City of Berkeley and Oakland tenant laws regarding the type of housing providers who are exempt from their tenant laws.

And in addition, due to concerns raised during the public hearing process, people who are on the lifetime sex offender registry are also landlords are able to review those registries with certain due process protections under the ordinances.

An important part of the policy development process was considering the rights of family members, including the ability of family members to stand in for the loved ones and be able to file administrative complaints if their loved one was not in a situation to be able to do that.

An important consideration as part of the policy development process was also making sure that the implementation was well resourced.

That included funding from not just the cities of Oakland and Berkeley, but also Alameda County and private foundations as well.

So a lot of great work went into making sure that housing providers and people returning home from incarceration, as well as family members, knew about the new laws.

The research study framework looked at three main research questions.

First, are these new laws working?

Are the intended public policy purposes being met by the specific policy terms?

Second, given the, as the county knows through your work around racial reparations, there's a lot of documented history of racial profiling that led to racial disparities and mass incarceration rates.

So does this new law actually address those racial disparities?

Third, we were asked by the cities of Oakland and Berkeley to also examine whether or not there were unintended consequences that flowed from preventing housing providers from conducting a criminal background check.

We used a mixed methods, evaluation methodology that consisted of a literature review, community-based research design, including feedback loop from re-entry providers, formally incarcerated people on our research team, as well as a feedback loop with housing provider representatives as well.

We conducted a survey of 207 formally incarcerated people who had looked for housing in the cities of Berkeley and Oakland before or after the Fair Chance housing laws were enacted.

We also conducted a survey of housing providers in both Berkeley and Oakland.

And in order to help us interpret the survey results, we conducted focus groups with reentry service providers, housing providers from both jurisdictions, as well as formally incarcerated people.

And this is what we found.

Were enacted.

In examining where access occurred in terms of housing type, we saw an increase in access to housing, especially for private rental housing.

The survey results showed a decline in access to public housing, but we believe that's because of the people's ability to access private rental housing.

We also saw an increase in access across racial and ethnic identity, with except for people who identified as multiracial with the greatest increase for people who identify as white.

There's also increase in access across all income categories with the largest increase for people making between 50 to 99,000 dollars.

We also saw an increase for housing access by employment status, except for students, and we're not quite sure why.

Housing access also increased across gender, except for people in the other gender category.

And it's noteworthy that male access to housing jumped up in parity with uh what we're seeing with female access as well.

And in the focus groups, as Patricia Truscano testified, it seems that there's more resources available to men who are leaving incarceration, and that might account for that um that increase in access, as well as the fair chance housing ordinances.

Except for people at the 18 to 24 age range where access remained the same.

The biggest increase in access occurred for people at the 45 to 54 age range.

Berkeley non-exempt housing providers have the highest compliance rate at 95%.

Oakland only at 77%, and housing providers in both Berkeley and Oakland have the lowest compliance rate of 59%.

When we dug into that data, we see that majority of the not those non-compliant providers are housing providers for the bigger units buildings.

In the focus groups with housing providers, they expressed that the city of Berkeley did a better job of outreach and education to housing providers in their jurisdiction, and that that's probably why there's a much higher compliance rate for Berkeley providers.

Regarding fair chance housing and addressing issues of racial disparity.

Our study shows that access to housing across racial groups did increase with an 81% increase for black and African American respondents.

Only four percent of housing providers surveyed reported knowing about an increase in racial discrimination.

In addition, through the focus groups, both housing providers and formally incarcerated people did not report seeing a rise in racial discrimination as a result of the fair chance housing laws.

Regarding any unintended consequences with tenant screening requirements, the surveys of housing providers showed that there were 36% of respondents reported increasing tenant screening requirements after 2020.

But in the focus groups with housing providers, they reported that it was likely due to COVID era eviction moratorium related issues as well as increased costs and timelines and evicting problem tenants.

During the Berkeley Oakland public hearing process, there were some concerns raised that removing the ability of housing providers to conduct a criminal background check would lead to problems with public safety.

There is no evidence in the literature nor in the study that enabling people to have housing stability would result in decreased public safety.

Instead, the literature shows the opposite.

In addition, in the focus groups we had with housing providers, landlords did raise concerns about how the eviction processes in both jurisdictions make it more challenging to evict current problem tenants.

They also acknowledge the difference between those two different populations.

That just because someone has convicted of violating the law, it doesn't mean that they are today a problem tenant, right?

Those are two very separate issues.

Including being able to access stable employment and also even educational opportunities.

Some related considerations.

Several housing providers in the focus groups wondered if the um decrease the increase in the housing supply in both jurisdictions after 2020 and the decline in private rental costs may have been a major reason why housing access for formally incarcerated people occurred after 2020.

First, it's important to note that those are two separate barriers.

Someone's ability to abort housing is very different from someone being barred from housing because of their criminal background.

And in fact, um part of the public record for both ordinances showed that people who had what had all the qualifications to rent, including sufficient income, were still barred from housing because of criminal background checks.

In addition, um, there's still racial disparities in income, right?

And um, this is uh um uh data from race counts, uh uh a national data platform.

It's also important to note that while Fair Chance Housing has worked for a number of people to be able to access housing on their own or be able to live with family members or other loved ones, it is not enough for everybody, right?

So for formally incarcerated people who do not meet the current housing application requirements, removing that barrier is insufficient.

If they do not have someone they can live with, um more strategic resources from the county or needed to solve the housing and homelessness crisis for um the reentry community.

Thank you very much for this opportunity to present.

Thank you so much.

Um comments or questions before we go into public comment.

Okay, why don't we go into public comment for item number two?

John Jones the third.

I had a feeling I'd be called first.

I'm feeling so emotional right now.

I don't know if I want to speak.

Um I want to thank you, Margareta and the team for this because this is important to see data and facts, right?

That way we make sure that when we talk about this, it's not just through the lens of a single person's experience, but the emotions I'm feeling are actually joy and affirmation.

I just remember when we embarked on this process when we started in 2018.

At that time, I was living in a basement that I found thought was illegally renovated because it didn't meet the height requirements.

Half of it I was stooped over.

And on one of the slides, you'll see beholding my youngest son, Josiah.

Um, while we were in the midst of this, his mother passed February 13, 2019.

And I remember just want to take care of my babies.

I remember applying, I'm bringing awards with me.

I'm like, look, I'm a changed person.

Just give my family a chance.

And that's what we're asking for.

We're not asking for a leg up, we're not asking for extra money.

We're not asking to, I'll take that though.

Right.

I'll take a voucher.

I'll take all that.

I'm not too proud to be, but the point is I'm also feeling joy because this for me represents affirmation.

I see what you too.

I see it with everyone involved.

When you are formally incarcerated, when you are reduced to the worst mistake you may or may not have fully made, it doesn't leave much room for shared humanity.

What I'm feeling from this is a sense of it gives me confidence to continue serving my community because I know I count.

I know I matter.

Listen to Talk Robin when he first spoke.

He's being so nervous.

He's a great speaker now.

This orders is giving people in our community the confidence that we need to actually be a partner of our community.

Because on this note, I would end when people don't feel like they're part of a community, they don't feel the obligation to go by the social contract.

I want to thank you all from the bottom of my heart.

Thank you.

Patricia Cisano.

Thank you again.

Um, so as we saw, you know, stable housing is it um is a need for um or the population of formally incarcerated folks.

Stable housing is a lifeline for formally incarcerated mothers.

The research supports that um housing having housing is one of the strongest predictors of family successful family reunification.

Um, many don't know this about me, but um for me it was one of those things that um that kept me apart from my children um at a time when these kind of laws didn't exist, and so seeing this study, um I'm sorry.

The study supports that um people who are denied housing experience um because they have a criminal record, they experience higher rates of homelessness and unstable living and arrangements.

This was this the case at the time for my children and I.

So I'm happy to see that this is before you at this time, and oftentimes not having housing delays custody for child for mothers, and it just makes rebuilding your life nearly impossible.

The fair chance housing ordinance directly addresses these harms.

Removing the screening practices and and this study show that it, you know, having the removing this does not do not improve public safety.

What improves public safety is having stability, having a home, having employment, and it changes the trajectory of the life for not just the person who for whatever me reasons made the choice that they needed to make, or had another option, but it changes the trajectory for the children who will be housed with their mothers.

You could finish your thoughts, don't rush.

It's okay.

So I just wanted to say that this is not just an opportunity, as John said, for the person who has offended, also for our children, our children who have no fault of their own are impacted, you know, sometimes by our selfish decisions or our decisions for a need to survive and feed our families.

And I'm not justifying anything, but I am asking that you take this into consideration.

It's not just about us, it's also about our children.

Thank you.

Alex, Alex Canadis.

Yeah, um, thank you all for the opportunity to speak again.

Um thank you to John and Patricia for sharing.

That was really um I don't have any words to say how uh how powerful it is.

So thank you.

Um my name's Alex Pennegas again.

I'm here with just cities.

Um in focus groups with the people who have been um released, sorry, recently released from incarceration.

We heard over and over again that for many their criminal history is only one barrier to achieving stable housing.

Uh fair trans housing is, of course, a vital piece of the puzzle, but housing affordability, credit and rental history and other barriers are still um major challenges.

Pardon me, still still major challenges for many formerly incarcerated people when they reenter the community.

Uh the Alameda County reentry housing plan, which was funded by the state of California, developed for Alameda County in collaboration with all of us are none, Asian prisoners support committee, building opportunities for self-sufficiency and communities united for restorative youth justice, lays out a plan to address the challenges experienced by formally incarcerated focus group participants and service providers.

Um I brought copies of the plan for your review.

I'll come um give them to the clerk in just a moment.

Um the four main strategies in the plan are expanding affordable housing opportunities, investing in transformative reentry services, creating a dignified and human-centered transitional housing experience, and of course, removing housing discrimination by expanding fair chance housing.

We thank the community for advancing fair trans housing today and hope to see further progress on the other three strategies to ensure that people get a real shot at successful re-entry.

Thank you.

Tacua Bonner.

Once again, my name is Taco Albonner, the housing advocate for all of us are none.

And I just want to plea to all the decision makers through the lens of rehabilitation.

For the nine years that I've been back into society from incarceration, I successfully discharged from parole.

I've maintained the same employment for the nine years that I've been back.

For the six years that I had a housing, I've maintained my housing, never late on my rent, never short of my rent.

And I'm about three payments shy of owning it.

And I voted.

So my plea is real opportunity of rehabilitation works.

Please allow all for me incarcerated men, women, and children to live with our families and our communities throughout Alameda County as a whole.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Speakers.

And you all do belong in our county.

So just thank you for sharing your personal experiences with us.

I'll ask Supervisor Miley if he has any questions, comments, or feedback.

Sure.

Thank you.

Yeah, very well said.

So Margareta, I know when you and John met with me, you know, some time ago, you were going to talk to some of the rental housing providers from the unincorporated area.

Because I think, I mean, what you've explained to me is how in Berkeley, maybe even Oakland, the rental housing providers, they really came to embrace this.

Were you able to talk with any of the providers in the unincorporated area?

Yes, we had several meetings.

Um not more recently, but during the uh the process that Jennifer laid out.

Um there were a number of um meetings with, I think there's two associations or one main association for the unincorporated area, but we had several meetings with their members.

Um, and when we explain to them the policy details, um, no one had concerns because the ordinance was um co-created with uh leadership of housing providers, so it was um something that needed to work for them and needed to work for um formally incarcerated people as well, and also needed to work for the city departments who are in charge of implementation.

So a lot of care, thought, and time went into the Berkeley process to develop what um is considered a national North Star policy now.

Okay, yeah.

Um, because I just want to make sure that the folks who are providing the housing understand uh the importance of this, and how um based on the study, the study indicates that uh there really is any downside to this, and uh, and if I understand the law, the law would still allow for that item if you're formerly incarcerated to be on the application, but it wouldn't interfere with the ability to rent or provide housing to someone formerly incarcerated.

Is that my understanding of the law now?

Or does it have to be that that can't be on the application at all?

So as we are drafting to conform with the decision in the yim case, um the landlords would not be allowed to ask.

And they couldn't be on application.

So to do a criminal background check to do to do, you know, they can't they cannot we cannot prohibit them from asking because that's a right that they have, but doing something about it is the second answer.

So it can still be, but they can't use that as uh a reason for denying that.

Right.

We have to uh recognize that they they the landlords have First Amendment rights to ask and have relationships and associations as well.

Um, and that was part of the ruling in the Ninth Circuit.

Um, but what they do with whatever information that they use.

That's the key.

Yeah, because you know, Supervisor Carson was really, really up on this and um, you know, I've worked with him over the years, uh, you know, banned the box and things that nature, you know, even went out to, you know, I've been out to Sam Quentin once, Keith would go out there frequently, you know, everybody's got their passion.

So um Keith would I can't get Darrell to go out there at all.

But um, so, you know, this has been something that I think is is important, that's why I supported, but I just want to make sure, you know, we we've balanced this and we've looked at it uh very carefully, and the and the study to me indicates uh the the efficacy of this, uh, and particularly on the public safety piece, because I would think, you know, knowing some of the folks and others, if you get housing, you're probably more inclined to do right because you've you know you understand the consequences of not having housing.

Um so to me it's intuitive that public safety, that public safety concern would be minimized.

Um, but go ahead.

Um, so I think Supervisor uh Miley, thank you for all that and and your long-standing commitment to um these issues.

Um I do think it's important to note that there's been an extensive process that's occurred with um uh former deputy city attorney Richard Ildrin, who really specialized in promoting decades on fair housing issues for for Oakland, along with the city attorney's offices in Oakland and Berkeley, and also in another jurisdiction that is looking to amend their current ordinance to um look like Oakland and Berkeley's.

So I um I say that um I I think there's a difference in legal opinion, um, and it might be worthwhile for uh the board um to hear uh those differing perspectives as well.

Okay, make sure you provide that to you know our staff.

The um let me think here what I was gonna say.

So, in terms of resources beyond just banning the box and not and having fair chance housing ordinance additional resources, couldn't those resources be provided through AB 109?

I thought that was the whole purpose of having the CAB and AB 109 to help look at this.

And um that's something definitely directed through this public protection committee, yeah.

That's right, and actually what Alex um uh presented to you that was co-authored by um Agnes Cho, who uh when she was at the Goldman School and is now working for supervisor for Genato Bass, um, was this report that was um uh part of a um county process with the probation and housing departments as well.

Um, it might be worthwhile um for uh, you know, maybe a special hearing to present aspects of that report, but it lays out very concrete strategies and resources, not just from the county, but we also um talked with the different city departments, right?

Because their shared interests in solving this problem.

Um, so specific resources have been identified in that report, supervisor.

Yeah, because I don't want us to think everything's got to come from measure W.

That's right.

We've got AB 109.

Yeah, we get money that comes in annually.

And and there are other um pots of funding as well available.

Yeah, yeah.

And the final thing is, you know, I recognize you know, um, everybody's made mistakes, nobody's perfect in this room.

Um, some people have made bigger mistakes than others, and everybody just has a second chance.

Uh, and that's one reason why I'm supportive of all this, because you know, but for the grace of God, God go I, and you know, I'm a spiritual person and I just believe in that, but you know uh uh I I anticipate we're gonna adopt the ordinance because we supported it for exactly the legal situation.

Um, but I know I'm gonna make sure that in that incorporate area we also track and we have data about uh its effectiveness or lack thereof, because I want to know that, but definitely, you know, you'll continue to have my support on this.

Yeah, so so thanks.

Um, some of that testimony is pretty powerful.

And like I said, I think um folks who've been down that road.

I can't, you know your story's not my story, it's clearly different, but I think you're gonna be more inclined to want to keep housing than somebody who hasn't experienced your hardships and your travails.

Yeah, yeah.

So go ahead.

Thank you, Supervisor Miley.

Just wanted to state publicly, um, I'm definitely in support of making this as less restrictive and expensive as possible.

I know we are still going through updating the ordinance, but your research and findings are extremely helpful to help guide us in um implementation.

So I will publicly commit that we will closely track this.

I'm happy to hear that Supervisor Miley, since he sits on the Unincorporated Services Committee, I believe it's committee correct.

Um, that's the first time that we'll see the draft to the updated draft ordinance.

So just again, thank you all.

I will have some closing remarks, but um before doing that, I want to make sure that we also get to item number three, which is public comment on items.

Yes, go ahead.

Before you go to item three, back on the request that any county money uh that we uh approve, allocate uh for housing that we have a fair chance provision.

So if for some reason we can't do that through a regulatory mechanism, uh consider an incentive mechanism.

Okay, so that if we incentivize that, maybe those providers should give more more resources or something.

So don't get locked on one track if legally you run into some concerns.

Show us the options, okay.

Yeah, I concur.

We want this to be as expansive and broad as possible and reinvest our local daughters back into our community.

So thank you for that statement.

Um we will now move on to item number three.

So this is general public comment under the purview of this uh committee, but items that were not on the agenda.

Do we have any speakers under public comment?

I have no speakers for public comment.

Okay, thank you, Tisa.

So again, I want to thank um our presenters for this thoughtful, thorough, and data-driven discussion today.

Oh, we have one.

Okay, raise your hand if you'd like to speak under general public comment.

We'll give it a couple minutes and then closed public comment.

You're on the line for public comment.

Tanisha Cannon.

Hello, uh good morning, uh board of Supervisors and community Members.

I'm Tanisha Cannon.

I'm with Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, and all of us are none.

And I just wanted to comment on the fair chance housing.

And I really wanted to ground folks in like what's practical if we believe in public safety.

Sorry, but we actually already closed public comment on that item.

If you could please email us, you can find our emails on our website for your public comment, or you could send it to the clerk.

But this is for items not on the agenda.

Okay.

Okay.

So again, thank you to our presenters for the thoughtful, thorough, and data driven discussion today.

Housing stability, as was mentioned, is not separate from public safety.

It is deeply connected to it.

When individuals returning to our communities have access to stable housing, it strengthens re-entry outcomes, reduces homeless, reduces homelessness, and promotes everyone's safety and ability to thrive.

Today's discussion helps the committee better understand how fair chance is working in Berkeley and Oakland and highlights the opportunity to increase housing stability and unincorporated Alameda County and hopefully the entire county in the future.

As policymakers, it is our responsibility to examine not only intent, but also outcomes when considering a local ordinance's impact on county residents.

Current fair chance housing policy work illustrates the vision behind Alameda County's reimagining adult justice care first jails last committee, and most importantly, our vision 2036 goals of a thriving and resilient population as well as safe and livable communities.

So I thank you, everyone also wanted to acknowledge my advisor of public safety, Brenda Gomez.

Thank you for putting together these presentations.

And to the presenters, this was a very quick turnaround.

So thank you for your thoughtfulness and thoroughfulness.

I really appreciate it.

Our next meeting is March 26th at 10 30, and our meeting is adjourned.

Thank you everyone.

Have a