Alameda County Public Protection Committee Fair Chance Housing Meeting - February 27, 2026

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors Public Protection Committee met on February 27, 2026, to discuss two informational items related to fair chance housing policy. The meeting focused on an update to the unincorporated fair chance ordinance and research findings from the Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance Housing Impact Evaluation Study. Public testimony strongly supported the ordinance, with speakers sharing personal experiences and urging the county to extend provisions to housing developers receiving county funds. Committee members expressed support and discussed legal timelines, implementation, and future amendments.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Alex Pinegas (Just Cities) thanked the board for considering the policy but asked why the proposed ordinance would not require housing providers receiving county funds to abide by fair chance provisions, urging the county to use its contracting powers to extend coverage to incorporated areas.
• John Jones III (Urban Strategies Council, Justice Reinvestment Coalition) thanked staff and echoed the call to apply the ordinance to county-funded housing, emphasizing the impact on families and children. He shared personal experiences of housing discrimination after incarceration.
• Marco Duncan (Legal Services for Prisoners with Children) supported the policy and noted that developers receiving state money should not exclude formerly incarcerated people.
• Takwa Bonner (All of Us or None) shared his personal story of homelessness after 30 years in prison and how Oakland's Fair Chance Housing law allowed him to reunite with family and become a productive citizen. He asked that any developer receiving county dollars not exclude formerly incarcerated individuals.
• Patricia Tuscano (Just Cities, mother) spoke about the importance of stable housing for formerly incarcerated mothers, enabling family reunification and employment. She urged the committee to extend the ordinance to all developers.
• Dean Moses (Oakland resident) urged support for fair chance housing and extending it to developers accepting county funds.
• Anaya (Oakland homeowner) expressed full support for fair chance housing, agreeing with prior speakers.
• Tanisha Cannon (Legal Services for Prisoners with Children) attempted to comment on fair chance housing after public comment had closed; she was directed to submit written comments.

Discussion Items

• Item 1: Update on Unincorporated Fair Chance Ordinance – Jennifer Pierce (Assistant Director, Housing and Community Development) presented an overview of the fair chance housing policy, including the community process from 2020-2022 (19 stakeholder meetings, 9 public hearings), the impact of the Yim v. Seattle lawsuit on the ordinance's drafting, and the current status: staff is revising the ordinance with County Counsel to ensure compliance with court rulings. The committee discussed the timeline: the ordinance will first go to the Unincorporated Services Committee (which meets monthly), then to the full Board. Supervisor Miley inquired about the legislative process (first reading, second reading, effective date) and whether the ordinance could apply to county-funded housing projects outside unincorporated areas. He recommended not delaying the core ordinance to explore legal options for expanding scope, and suggested considering incentive mechanisms if regulatory expansion is not feasible. Supervisor Marquez concurred.
• Item 2: Research Findings from Berkeley and Oakland Fair Chance Housing Impact Evaluation Study – Margareta Lynn (Principal Investigator, UC Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development) presented the study, which used surveys of 207 formerly incarcerated people and housing providers in Berkeley and Oakland, plus focus groups. Key findings: housing access increased across racial groups (81% increase for Black/African American respondents), income levels, and gender (male access reached parity with female). Compliance was higher in Berkeley (95%) than Oakland (77%); the lowest compliance (59%) was among providers of larger buildings. No evidence of increased public safety issues or racial discrimination; 36% of providers increased tenant screening requirements but attributed it to COVID eviction moratoriums, not fair chance laws. The study concluded that fair chance housing reduces housing barriers but does not solve all reentry challenges; additional resources (e.g., from AB 109) are needed. Supervisor Miley noted the ordinance would not allow landlords to ask about criminal history on applications (per First Amendment ruling) but they cannot use it to deny housing. He requested data tracking for unincorporated areas. Supervisor Marquez committed to close tracking and expanding provisions where possible.

Key Outcomes

• The committee received the informational presentations without formal votes.
• Staff will continue revising the unincorporated fair chance ordinance, aiming for presentation to the Unincorporated Services Committee in the spring/summer, followed by Board adoption (two readings).
• Supervisor Miley directed staff to examine legal options for applying the ordinance to housing projects funded by county dollars, including potential incentive mechanisms, and to provide legal analysis on scope.
• The committee expressed intent to track implementation data in unincorporated areas and to consider future amendments to expand the ordinance countywide.
• Public testimony strongly supported the ordinance, and the committee acknowledged the need for additional reentry housing resources beyond fair chance policies.